Posted on 11/08/2013 3:49:26 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
Americans maintain a high opinion of the US-Israel alliance but are wary of any involvement in a potential Iran conflict, according to an Anti-Defamation poll.
Asked if Israel could be counted on "as a strong, loyal ally," 76 percent of respondents agreed and 17 percent disagreed.
...However, respondents were wary of any military engagement with Iran.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishpress.com ...
I have no doubt the Israelis can do so.
I suspect that part of it is that they know that our military is not gonna simply get int here and do the job that needs to be done properly and instead, if they were to engage, it would be yet another depressingly half assed operation. Particular with much of the leadership it currently has at every level.
Do you mean the same Americans that elected Col. Platypus as President?..
You know this mammal that lays EGGS...
Iran is our problem too. We should have put an end to their nuclear ambitions years ago. They’ve gone way to far, and we should have pulverized them for it. Instead we allowed them to proceed.
Now this may be laughable to some people, but a number of other nations are now going to seek and obtain nuclear weapons because we didn’t do our job.
WE WILL have a nuclear strike on U. S. soil as a direct result of this.
Bush should have been slapped upside the head until he gained some sense on this. Why even mention Obama. The man makes a crash dummy look like a Mensa Canidate.
You said: Iran is our problem too. We should have put an end to their nuclear ambitions years ago. They’ve gone way to far, and we should have pulverized them for it.
I ask: You mean the way Reagan won the Cold War by bombing Russia?
Oh wait, Reagan didn’t bomb Russia - but he still won the cold war!
How could that be? Isn’t the only way to prevail against adversarsies, to “pulverize” them?
Hmmm — Maybe not!
Give me 30 minutes and a Minuteman Squadron and I’ll guarantee we’ll never have a problem with Iran again. Plus all the free parking you want.
Russia was a problem, but it did operate with some sense of civilized rules. It didn’t for instance provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. Iran can’t wait to give weapons to third parties to use against targets around the world.
Now that Iran is going to have the bomb, so will Saudi Arabia, and a number of other Middle-Eastern nations. Each of them will be able to proliferate bombs or harder to track, bits and pieces or mere technological know-how.
These nations don’t operate by the same rules the U.S.S.R. and the United States used during the cold war. Comparing what Reagan had to deal with to this “Free-for-all” that we’re looking at here, isn’t apples to apples.
Once Iran has this technology, it doesn’t have to give a terrorist group an actual bomb. They’ll merely give them some components, and help them develop the bomb in some secret place in parts, so it can be brought to the U. S. in pieces, assembled, and detonated.
This is going to cause proliferation on steroids, and it’s going to get very ugly in short order.
Sometimes it is best for the big nation to act like a tyrant if the little nation won’t live like a civilized player. Iran has been looking for a bloody nose for decades.
We let it act like a spoiled child out of control, and we’re going to pay dearly for that.
Yes Mr DoughtyOne.
I believe you have a handle on the situation.
Hitler could and should have been stopped before Poland, and certainly by the time France was invaded. Politicians dither, and young men have to clean up their mistakes.
Russia was a problem, but it did operate with some sense of civilized rules. It didn’t for instance provide nuclear weapons to terrorists. Iran can’t wait to give weapons to third parties to use against targets around the world.
If “Iran can’t wait,” why didn’t Reagan invade Iran? We heard the nuclear scare stories when you wanted us to invade Iraq. Most people aren’t going to be fooled twice, that’s why the polls show that Americans aren’t with you on starting another Middle East war.
Yours truly,
A Reaganite
young men have to clean up their mistakes.
Young men also have to die for mistakes of war-lovers, 4500 Americans died for the mistake of the Iraq war. Many have died in Afghanistan. Americans don’t want a repeat of those mistakes, with new wars in Syria and Iran.
William III, what did staying out of the Iraq area for another decade gain for us after Gulf War I? Please elaborate.
On 09/11/01, we weren’t in the Middle-East. Did that cause the terrorists in that region to say to themselves, “You know what, the U. S. has not been invading our nations for the list decade. Let’s leave them alone.”
I keep hearing this vibe of Bush’s wars, and unwarranted wars, and non-necessary wars... Frankly, it’s laughable to me. We either face them there on their soil, or we face them here on our soil.
What is it that you think would have been the proper response after 09/11? Please tell me.
If you think I’m happy about our troops having go to foreign nations and fight, you’re wrong. I don’t like it. I never have. What are the options?
To my way of thinking we pretty much gave the folks who attacked the Cole a free pass. We gave those who bombed our embassies a free pass. How did that work out for us? Did the terrorists get their pound of flesh then leave us alone? No. They didn’t.
Right now we see new signs of trouble in Iraq. Some folks are pretty quick to say, “See, I told you so.” Okay, then what do we do?
Are we supposed to take a hit like 09/11 and just say, “Well, you know, some folks don’t like us. That’s the breaks. We’ll just allow them to attack us when they want, and we’ll be the bigger nation...” Is that it?
You’re not alone in your thoughts here. Others hold them too.
What’s your answer to these quandaries?
You addressed the weapons in Iran, and why Reagan didn’t go into Iran. The point I was addressing was Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. Iran wasn’t close to that in Reagan’s day.
Thank you Aumrl. I saw your note a couple of days ago, and had intended to thank you before, but didn’t.
Take care.
William III, what did staying out of the Iraq area for another decade gain for us after Gulf War I?
What did invading Iraq get us? Besides 4000 American dead, and the decimation of Christianity in Iraq. Also, of course, it got Iran a new best friend!
Didn’t answer my questions. When you have answered, I’ll start responding to your offerings again.
Go back and read my post.
Christie on Iran Deal: ‘We Have to Let Secretary Kerry Do His Work’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3089860/posts
When you have answered, I’ll start responding to your offerings again.
I figured you wouldn’t care to try to defend your Iraq war, and all the devastation it cause for us and for Iraq (including the destruction of Christianity in that country).
Americans are sick of what you war-lovers are trying to sell. You’re going to have a hard time pushing us into a war against Iran, just as you and Obama weren’t able to sell a war in Syria. Bet you cried that day!
This is your third chance to explain what the hell you think would have been a reasoned response to the level of terrorism that occurred on our soil on 09/11/2001.
So far, you have evidenced no comprehension skills whatsoever on that topic.
Instead you contented yourself to call me a war lover.
We have killed tens of thousands of terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is that better than them carrying out terrorist acts against our assets in the Middle-East or here at home?
Evidently not, in your opinion.
War is hell. You look at the casualties in other wars, and you tell me this is worse than any of them. If that’s what you think, you need to study up.
It’s a cold crewel world out there fella. It’s not going to get better if we crawl in a closet every time we’re attacked.
We let them skate on the Cole and the Embassies. Once again, did their animosity against us wane due to our restraint?
No, they escalated the attacks on the World Trade Center, not once but twice.
You know what, I’m going to take ownership here. I do think wars on foreign soil are better than watching our nation get attacked on the scale of 09/11/2001.
If you don’t like it, too bad.
What would you have done as president ace?
You wouldn’t have gone to war. That much is clear. So what would you have done Richard Tiffany Gere? I’d like to know.
You wouldn’t have gone to war. That much is clear. So what would you have done
Same thing Reagan did with our enemies - deter and contain. While we weren’t attacking Iraq, it was the biggest counterweight to Iran. After we attacked, it now has a gov’t that is Iran’s closest ally. 4000-plus Americans died to make that happen.
Somebody who can look at the disaster that was the Iraq war and say - as you apparently do - “let’s do it again, this time in Iran”, is definitely not on my wavelength!
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.