I know this is an analysis rather than op-ed column. As such I try whenever possible to ensure that facts rather than opinion are the order of the day. When it comes to a certain Donald Trump as a presidential candidate however, I freely confess that I think the man a political embarrassment at best and a dangerous liability at worst and I’m probably not alone in that view.

There, I feel better for having got that off my chest, so now I can get back to the proper business of taking stock of both this week’s Republican US presidential debate and the disquieting, sometimes downright scary take a number of the candidates have when it comes to foreign affairs.

First though, that contentious debate on Wednesday night. In sharp contrast to last month’s first debate when the most of the contenders came across as wimpish when confronted by Trump’s bullish attacks, this week saw an altogether different encounter.

With Trump of late shooting to a big lead in the opinion polls he was all for revelling in the spotlight, firing off his usual wisecracks characteristically oblivious of their personal or political impact. There was a remark about US Senator Rand Paul's looks and Trump’s assertion that former New York Governor George Pataki "couldn't get elected dogcatcher."

But it was the sharp rebuke from former Hewlett-Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina, on Trump’s recent comment in an interview that voters might not back her because of her face that proved one of the pivotal moments of the evening.

"I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said," Fiorina observed, drawing applause from the audience and causing a social media stir on Twitter and Facebook in the wake of the debate.

Just how much damage Fiorina’s retort will have on Trump’s campaign remains to be seen. It will however have done Fiorina a power of good given her own recent rise in the polls. It comes too at precisely the moment when she was sharing the stage with the leading candidates for the first time after a strong performance in the first "undercard" debate for low-polling candidates last month. Emerging from the back of the pack to lead the charge against Trump, Fiorina used her considerable business reputation to point out that Trump's companies had filed for bankruptcy no less than four times and asked, "Why should we trust you?"

If Fiorina was well into the fray so too was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who had the onerous task of defending his brother’s decision to invade Iraq, after Trump made the point he was the only person on the platform who had disagreed with the decision to go to war there. That I must say, is about Trump’s only saving grace, but hey I’m editorialising again. And while we’re on the subject of the contenders take on foreign policy issues, it’s worth noting the staggering lack of insight or substance on the front shown by most of them.

This was obvious from the outset on Wednesday night when CNN moderator Jake Tapper asked Trump a straightforward question on what he would do to counter Russian President Vladimir Putin’s military support to the Syrian government?

“I would talk to him. I would get along with him,” was the best Trump could muster in response, as the audience and viewers waited for more that was not forthcoming. Indeed if one thing clearly emerged from this latest debate it was the mishmash thinking on foreign policy that seems to exist within the ranks of the Republican contenders.

While Jeb Bush insisted the US “should use offensive tactics” against China in cyberspace to deter Beijing from continuing to hack American government, and corporate networks, Fiorina talked of upgrading the Sixth fleet and expanding US missile defence shields in Europe.

But it was that most pressing and thorny issue of the Middle East that most seemed determined to give a wide berth to. In Trump’s case especially so, but then the Middle East’s myriad crises have always been complicated.

Indeed at times some of the thinking was just simply wrong such as Texas Senator Ted Cruz assertion that a nuclear Iran presents “the single biggest national security threat facing America right now”.

This despite recent positive deals done with Iran over its nuclear programme and the degree of rapprochement and dialogue with Tehran President Barack Obama has recently managed to achieve. Senator Cruz too appears to have overlooked or ignored the fact that intelligence assessments indicate Iran does not currently possess a nuclear weapon nor has the capacity to deliver one in the direction of Washington with a conventional weapon. Yet another case hawkish politics getting in the way of facts.

In all throughout the debate only Senator Paul Rand made a modicum of sense with his observation that the lessons from recent outcomes of American military interventions in Iraq and Libya had not been learned and that Syria could prove much the same long term disaster should Washington become embroiled.

In the past military service has been something of an asset in gaining the Republican nomination, if not necessarily a prerequisite for a good president. Interesting then that this time around only two of the 16 Republican contenders, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, have a service record. Both of them curiously are way down the polls. On foreign policy the Republicans thus far have shown lots of tough talk and posturing. But times have changed from the thinking of those days that saw the solution as being simply to send in the marines. It will take a lot more sophisticated policy making that that to sort out the likes of Syria. Surely even Donald Trump must realise that.