We’ve got binders full of issues with these candidates

Cairns Rebecca says:

02:14pm | 23/10/12

Agreed AdamC. Different coloured wrappers, same contents.

We’d just vote with the U.S., as usual.

I think the majority of Australians and Americans will be more than happy to simply totally ignore what happens in Afghanistan after we leave. It will return to just how it’s been for centuries, with an extra notch on its belt of the fools who have tried to intervene.
Seeking to disrupt the groups which perpetrated 9/11 and attempting to capture or kill OBL may well have been worthy intentions but they should only have ever been short term actions with a specific end date; and attempting to undertake anything else should never have been on the agenda.

St. Michael says:

02:26pm | 23/10/12

These guys don’t differ because there’s nothing to differ about.  No matter how much or how little they rattle their sabers, neither of them can stop Iran getting a nuclear weapon unless they make a pre-emptive nuclear strike.  And neither of them can start a conventional war with Iran for the same purposes—because the US doesn’t have, and can’t borrow, the money necessary to start one.

Beyond that, both will withdraw from Afghanistan when it’s politically expedient to do so and when they can still look hard on terror in doing so.  Until then, US servicemen will keep dying in Afghanistan for no reason.

There isn’t any other marked foreign policy issue they have to concern themselves with.  They will never go to war with China because they can’t afford it and because they owe China one trillion in US bonds.  Their position is no different than Britain over the Suez Canal: if they do anything aggressive the Chinese don’t approve of, China will simply threaten to dump its bonds, at which point the US will have to back down just as Britain did over the Suez.

Paleoflatus says:

03:18pm | 23/10/12

Thanks to Cairns Rebecca and St. Michael, You both said it for me. Australia’s just another American vote on the Security Council. If the American Military-Industrial complex needs another war, we’ll support them. If they want to continue their encirclement of China, we’ll do whatever they want to help. That’s why we don’t need a professional diplomat running Foreign Affairs any more - any old political hack like Bob Carr will do.

Adam says:

04:07pm | 23/10/12

If you only rely on the sound bites and the nightly news, then they wouldn’t differ much. But look deeper and not only does the substance differ in a number of ways, but more to the point, what they are likely to do when issues arise differs.

Both Obama and Romney will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. But what each would do to stop it is what counts, how far they’re willing to go and how quickly they’re willing to do it.

St. Michael says:

05:00pm | 23/10/12

@ Adam: Balderdash.  On these issues, the only thing that counts is the ultimate action each one takes: that is, the results, not what they say they’re going to do.

“But what each would do to stop it is what counts, how far they’re willing to go and how quickly they’re willing to do it.”

In terms of what *must* be done in order to stop Iran developing nuclear weapons, as opposed to what meaningless things they to *try* and stop it, I’ve already spelt it out: either a pre-emptive nuclear strike or conventional war on Iran are the only ways Iran can be stopped from obtaining a nuclear weapon at this point.

Diplomacy hasn’t stopped them.  And neither have crippling economic sanctions, so you’d be an idiot if you thought more sanctions or more diplomacy is going to be any more effective.

A romantic little SEAL team incursion, which America seems to think is the answer to all its military problems these days, won’t inflict enough damage to stop Iran’s nuclear program.  Logistically, it can’t be done.  And at worst it will wind up as a repeat of Operation Eagle Claw.  Romney will know that, and Obama was so gutless he dithered over whether to order the hit on OBL, even with good intel on Osama’s location.

Neither Romney or Obama are going to order a nuclear strike on Iran.  That’s basically starting World War 3.  While both Obama and Romney are power-hungry sociopaths, they are not suicidal.

And neither of them will go to conventional war with Iran.  Politically, America won’t back them.  It’s tired of getting its ass handed to it in Afghanistan and (earlier) Iraq.  Economically, they can’t do it.  Their debt level is so high it can’t support another conventional war.  The present redline of 108% debt-to-GDP ratio exists when they’re only fighting one war in one theatre.

That’s the calculus here.  As for anything else Obama or Romney say they’re going to do, well, George RR Martin had it right: “Words are wind.”

acotrel says:

05:34pm | 23/10/12

‘Interestingly, the two countries at the heart of the issue, Iran and Israel, both voted for Australia to join the Security Council. ‘

They probably know that we stand for ‘a fair go’ !  We have that reputation internatonally.

St. Michael says:

06:30pm | 23/10/12

@ acotrel: Israel voted for us because we’re part of the US alliance that keeps it in existence.  They said they’d vote for us way back in 2008.  Or possibly they voted for us because we were the first country to vote in favour of the creation of Israel back in 1952.

Iran voted for us to try and wedge the United States; it thinks we’re more likely to object to the use of force against Iran if it comes to war.  One cannot also ignore the possibility of stupidity on Iran’s part, given these clowns seem determined to piss off the United States without a single nuclear warhead to back their grandstanding.

sunny says:

02:57pm | 23/10/12

In the VP debate Ryan was extremely hawkish towards Iran. Wiser heads know not to take every single utterance from Iran literally. He might be the finance wiz kid but for the good of everyone keep him the heck away from foreign policy.

Thomas says:

03:38pm | 23/10/12

@maria

When? Right here, right now; all day, every day.

What would you like a debate about? Go for it ...

maria says:

04:21pm | 23/10/12

@Thomas
What has happened to democracy and why are we irrelevant after we have voted?

Thomas says:

05:33pm | 23/10/12

@maria

Nothing, and, we’re not. Next.