Posted on 10/09/2023 3:07:19 AM PDT by RandFan
I want to check the temperature of the room here...
I'm seeing a LOT of conservatives on social media saying the war in the Middle East is not our problem.
As an anti-war conservative I completely agree however it's surprising to see this sentiment among so many mainstream conservatives?!
We're used to being in the minority on these issues.
While supportive of Israel and absolutely condemning the horrific attacks and hostage taking that we've witnessed it appears many Americans are sick and tired of the foreign interventions.
Only the Neocons on social media are demanding U.S involvement.
In fact I posted one yesterday:-
Nikki Haley: This is not just an attack on Israel — this was an attack on America
Have I got this right? What are your thoughts...
The irony of this statement is remarkable, when you consider the deeper meaning of the allegory Jesus Christ presented here.
Could be a prelude of coming events. The biden crowd had flooded America with people wanting to do Americans harm ….. Be Alert and Ready !
The Barbary Pirates were attacking us and costing us a sizable chunk of money for ransom. And of course human lives.
Israel is a foreign country, and fully capable of taking care of Hamas.
Don't think I argued that.
I did write, "There are resources aplenty here, should we aim for being a autarkic as possible, and from that base we can deal honestly with the rest of the world."
I believe you are correct, Israel will take care of their problem, harshly, I believe.
This is a human problem.
At this point, there are bio countries involved; there are savages and humans. I vote for humans over savages.
“Only the Neocons on social media are demanding U.S involvement”
I see no evidence of that in the media.
And by what “facts” do you make Nikki Haley a “necon”.
Merely giving people a label does not make it a fact that the label fits, and declaring that label for someone merely because they take a position different than yours on some poisition is also not justification for the label.
“necon” is really only valid if and when “neocon” motives are evident, not merely because of some policy that many more than mere “necons” may agree with.
“Only the Neocons on social media are demanding U.S involvement.”
___________________________________________
That’s because getting involved in another war does not impact them. There is no risk of them or their children being sent to fight and die.
Just look at that political hack and backstabbing POS Mike Pence as an example.
Not really. I assume that people are people and politicians are politicians there the same as they are everywhere, especially here! Such is life and is not a reason to not help the Ukrainians.
However, in the conversations I’ve had with those who live there, they are grateful for our help, so I know that at least some help is finding its way to those who need it.
And I know we’re all to be judged and those who steal from those who need help will be judged severely, just as will those who turn away and refuse to help even though they can.
If I am missing the irony you are alluding to, please help me to understand.
See them all the time
And actually, they are not sad, broken down or forgotten.
Gotcha, they want to be homeless and on drugs.
Who gets more benefits, the veteran or some 3rd world Mestizo?
From the Democrat/Swamp point of view, a terrorist attack on the U.S. could be politically useful.
yup. They do not sit in church pews any other day of the week, unless they are Pentecostals.
They warm the pews, sit through the serrmons blandly, pass ‘the plate’, and when done, get up, go home back to their business, with ‘their card’ punched for the week.
Thank you for admitting there is no constitutional basis for your position.
Being for “as close to autarky as possible,” it’s pretty clear that you would have opposed the Monroe Doctrine, and you would have opposed sending the U.S. Navy to attack the Barbary Coast States. You can disagree with me if my supposition is incorrect. But, if so, what is the basis for supporting the Monroe Doctrine and/or for defending U.S. merchant ships on the high seas?
How about Manifest Destiny (expanding to the Pacific)? Do you have a position on that, and what is the basis for supporting Manifest Destiny when you’re for “as close to autarky as possible”?
Now I will advance to the mid 20th Century. Prior to Pearl Harbor and Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, we were making contingency plans to fight an axis alliance that stretched from the Pyrenees to the Pacific. This was called the Victory Plan.
We thought it would take a navy larger than all other navies of the world combined, an air force larger than all other air forces of the world combined, and ground forces totaling 400 divisions. As it is, with Germany’s attack on the Soviet Union, we scaled back our plan for ground forces to 90 divisions. This was called the 90 division gamble. And, we reserved manpower for our industrial base, to be the arsenal of democracy. Supporting our allies Great Britain, the Soviet Union and China.
Maybe you too would have supported our allies during WWII, in spite of you being for “as close to autarky as possible.”
But, maybe not. Maybe, you would have preferred that we be fortress America, and be ready to take on the entire world, when bad guys like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Mussolini and Tojo come along.
More to today, do you think the days of dictators like those guys are over, and we don’t have to concern ourselves with such a possibility as that?
And, now, one final question: do you think we would have won our war of independence without the support of France?
Some do. But the faith demands total commitment.
Didn't say that either. FR seems to have some jolly judge and jury types who declare debate victory. Hurrah for you.
You make assumptions to which to reply. "...it's pretty clear that you would have...." Straw dogs don't bark.
"Maybe you too would have supported our allies during WWII, in spite of you being for 'as close to autarky as possible.' But, maybe not." Lovely discussion you're having with yourself. Sorry, don't want to play your game. "Judge and jury" stirred into a "Cathy Newman" cocktail of "so what you're saying is...." That's just so....
Didn't say that either. FR seems to have some jolly judge and jury types who declare debate victory. Hurrah for you.
You make assumptions to which to reply. "...it's pretty clear that you would have...." Straw dogs don't bark.
"Maybe you too would have supported our allies during WWII, in spite of you being for 'as close to autarky as possible.' But, maybe not." Lovely discussion you're having with yourself. Sorry, don't want to play your game. "Judge and jury" stirred into a "Cathy Newman" cocktail of "so what you're saying is...." That's just so....
This is an attack on Western Civilization and all Non-Islamic religions.
Gaza/Israel is the flashpoint.
As long as the USA is part of Western Civilization, yes, it is an attack on us!
“They came for the Communists, but I wasn’t a Communist, so I did nothing…”
And the Left, like Hitler and Stalin, entered into an alliance with the Muslims, that will eventually blow up in their face.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.