Posted on 04/11/2015 7:57:25 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Riddle me this, fellow Republicans. An NBC survey April 9 reports that a huge majority (70%) of Americans doubts that Iran will abide by any agreement to limit its nuclear arms–but a majority (54%) still thinks Obama will do a better job than the Republicans in dealing with Iran!
A majority of Americans – 54 percent – trust Barack Obama to do a better job handling an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, compared to 42 percent who say they trust the Republicans in Congress. But nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that Iran is not likely to abide by the agreement that has been reached.
53% think Iranian nukes are a “major threat,” and only 37% think they are a “minor threat.” Most Americans, in short, think Iran is a major threat to American security and think that Obama’s nuclear deal is a joke–but they still want Obama in charge of the negotiations, not us.
Maybe NBC made the numbers up. Maybe a proofreader got the numbers reversed. And maybe pigs will sprout wings.
There is a much simpler explanation: Most Americans don’t trust Republicans on matters of war and peace. Not after the nation-building disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan, that is. Why should they trust us? Our leadership has never admitted it made a mistake. Sen. Ted Cruz, to be sure, had the gumption last fall to say that “we got too involved in nation-building” and that “we should not be trying to turn Iraq into Switzerland”–and was excoriated for his trouble by the Bushies. The Republican mainstream is too busy trying to defend the Bush record to address the distrust of American voters.
One gets weary and grows shrill sounding the same note for a decade. I wish the problem would go away. A couple of weeks ago a friend who served in senior defense positions in the Bush administration remonstrated, “Why do we have to worry about what mistakes were made back then?” The American public doesn’t remember a lot, but it does remember the disruption of millions of lives after the deployment of 2.6 million Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan–not to mention 6,000 dead, 52,000 wounded in action, and hundreds of thousands of other injuries.
That’s why Obama still has the upper hand, and is likely to succeed in selling out American and allied interests to the mullahs. His trump card is the repeated statement: “The alternative is war.” That may or may not be true; over at Asia Times’ “Chatham House Rules” blog, several former senior officials of the Reagan administration are debating the merits of a military strike. But an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities surely is an option.
Former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak had it exactly right: an airstrike on Iran’s nuclear facilities isn’t war. It’s half a night’s work, a pinpoint operation comparable to the killing of Osama bin Laden. But our leaders won’t say this, because the prospect of military force conjures up fears of a million Americans going back to war.
Republicans need a clear and simple policy about the use of force: We will use force only when we and our close allies are under threat. We will use the kind of force that least exposes Americans to harm. We will not sacrifice the time, let alone the lives, of American soldiers to fix the problems of other countries. I recommend that Republican candidates read Angelo Codevilla’s 2014 book To Make and Keep the Peace, and then ask Prof. Codevilla to design a bumper sticker for them.
It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry, or both, and in what order. Here we have the least competent president in American history bungling a decisive foreign policy matter in full view of the public, and bungling so badly that 7 out of 10 Americans think that any agreement we make with Iran will be a piece of garbage–and Americans still want Obama to handle the negotiations! That is not only injurious. It is humiliating.
How much more humiliation at the hands of the public do we need before we straighten out and fly right?
I have a more important question. Why did a majority of Americans vote to elect Obama twice as President?
bombing a country is not a tactic of war and won’t lead to a big war?
I wonder if that’s what the Japanese generals thought when they decided to take out our fleet at Pearl Harbor
I suspect Americans are down on the Republicans, on foreign policy, not because Americans are ill-informed. Rather, because they understand that a lot of Republicans want what you just called for - a war against Iran.
Right or wrong, most Americans don’t want what you want. They’re tired of US getting involved in Middle East wars.
That's why the Democrats trotted out that jug-eared nitwit from Illinois to derail her presidential campaign in 2008, and why they'll find someone else to beat her in 2016.
Tell you what WilliamIII, if it’s a ground war in Iran vs a nuclear warhead zooming down on Europe or Israel, I’ll take the ground war.
This beauty queen “world peace” is just pie in the sky fantasy. Ain’t gonna happen.
You have to face up to it one way or the other.
And, it's not elite sons losing their lives which as of now was for nothing.
American democracy was built on Christian values - thus we all know in our hearts that the elite foreign policy (Dem or Rep) is a joke and is mostly about follow the money.
It is the way the question is phased, about getting agreement, that is.
If it was about getting Iran to toe the line, it would be republican.
It is how they manipulate things to make people believe Obama is netter for the economy etc...
Irony is that nation building was modeled after the disaster of Lindon Johnson’s war on poverty.
thank the “no new taxes” RINO Bushes.
Spreading the Iranian infectious militant mumbo jumbo in America is the war mongering. Sadly people do not understand that they have a choice between two wars: enlisting in ours or in theirs.
Evidence? I'll present Romney's in Massachusetts. I'll back that up with Mr. I Like Mandates. And if there's any further question, I direct you to rolling over for gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Romney's one great asset is that HE does a great job managing. I've seen no indication that he's ever been great at picking people to work for him. Let's see.. A gay rights activist campaign manager, the lovely choice of Boston to host his 'victory party' on election night..
I await correction.
Evidence? I'll present Romney's judicial appointments in Massachusetts. I'll back that up with Mr. I Like Mandates. And if there's any further question, I direct you to rolling over for gay marriage in Massachusetts.
Romney's one great asset is that HE does a great job managing. I've seen no indication that he's ever been great at picking people to work for him. Let's see.. A gay rights activist campaign manager, the lovely choice of Boston to host his 'victory party' on election night..
I await correction.
Don't you find it odd that Europe and Israel don't see it that way?
(Of course, Israel is perfectly fine with a ground war in Iran ... as long as it's Americans on the ground instead of Israelis.)
Americans have had enough of this sh!t, and nothing you post here on FreeRepublic is going to change their minds.
Can kicking has a 0% probability of success.
Yes Alberta, that’s okay with me.
Iran has a decent missile technology today, and if gifted with more it will be able to deliver those nukes to your doorstep.
Now you just sit there and act like it will all go away if only we stay inside our borders and act nice.
Once Iran has nukes, there’s no going back. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other nations will have to develop their own bombs.
Someone has to do the heavy lifting. Do you want Russia to China to step in?
Sooner or later, someone will have to.
Where do you get the idea Israel is just fine with Iran having the bomb? LOL
Obama hates one of our long time allies, negotiates with terrorists and trades 5 of them for one deserter, then negotiates with the Cubans, also wanted to fund ISIS against Syria ... yeah, let’s trust him with foreign policy. Bunch of blind idiots, I tell ya.
According to some here, Karl Rove is Satan, the father of all evil.
The question raised by the article is: Why don’t Americans trust GOP on foreign policy. All I said was that it’s because Americans think GOP will start a war against Iran, and a large number - apparently a majority — of Americans don’t want that.
You confirmed that you want a war against Iran.
I’m not saying you’re right or wrong — I’m only saying that most Americans apparently don’t agree with that position, and this is why they’re down on GOP foreign policy. Maybe they’re the ones who are wrong - but it’s still a problem for the GOP.
Easy, that would GWB, Cheney, Powell, Rice and Rummy.
Because Republicans try to downplay the differences.
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.