Replies

What would the reaction be if Israel attacked other nations with ground troops? Any idea?

That's really Israel's problem -- not ours. Isn't it?

I mention the first Gulf War and Israel wanting to take out Iraq's scud capability, and how that would have disintigrated our coalition, and your response is to inform me that's Israel's problem?

Israel is only one of two nations that have free elections in the Middle East. It is pro Wester and a law-abiding nation.

Your self-interest tells you we should just let Israel twist on the vine. That's just sad. Do you have any idea why Israel exists? Give it some thought. Remind me why I should pay attention to anything you say, when it comes to global affairs, if you can't grasp why we should not cut Israael loose, and force it to fend for itself exclusively. Saddam Hussein was a supporter of global terrorism, with mouth and deed. He was paying terrorist families of suicide bombers in Israel $25,000 a pop. He was urging distruction of the United States openly, had WMDs in his possession, and was a curse to his own people. He wouldn't cooperate with the International Weapons Inspectors, and would not stay within the parameters that were set at the end of the first gulf war. He was moving his troops up to the borders of nieghbor nations, an still locking on our aircraft as they monitored his compliance.

Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East. I'm not sure why that country would need anyone else to fight on its behalf.

"I'm not sure..." There's the understatement of the year. Do you want Israel to have to use nukes? I don't. The U. S. interceeding has been fairly well recognized by Middle East goverments as reasoned. They fear rogue states like Iraq and Iran also. What happens if Israel enters a skirmish with the U. S. as allies? Any guesses how much cooperation we get from that day forward? Come on, use that head of yours.

Alberta’s Child, do you have any grasp of Middle East politics at all?

Yes, I do. More importantly, I have a grasp of American politics -- which is supposed to be the topic of this thread.

Honestly, this is beneath you. The discussion centered on why folks don't respect Republican's foreign policy, and folks piped up to blame it on the Middle East wars. I responded on point. This is an act of desperation on your part.

Do you think the Iraq we left is more of a threat to the U. S. and Middle East Nations, the same threat as it was, or is much less of a threat than it was to the peace of the region?

Iraq is not developing WMDs and it is at peace with it's neighbors. That is a marked improvement, whether you wish to agree or not.

Do you think the Iraq we left is more of a threat to the U. S. and Middle East Nations, the same threat as it was, or is much less of a threat than it was to the peace of the region?

It's more of a threat now than it was before, mainly because the Sunni leadership has been replaced by Shi'ites and it has basically become a puppet state of Iran. In fact, the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 did more to strengthen Iran in the region than anything Iran could have done on its own. I'm sure this is something a lot of Americans wonder about when some @sshole like John McCain or a clown like Lindsey Graham stands up and claims that Iran is a major threat to the U.S. today.

Iraq is not developing WMDs and it is at peace with it's neighbors. That is a marked improvement, whether you wish to agree or not.

Those statements right there are exactly why American voters don't trust the Republican Party when it comes to foreign policy. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees who have fled Iraq since 2003 who would disagree with everything you've posted here. The dismantling of the Ba'athist government in Iraq has resulted in nearly a complete eradication of Christianity in Iraq in the last twelve years. But nobody among the globalists in the GOP would give a sh!t about that, since they've been eating out of the hands of radical Islamic royal families in places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for years.