Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Though Favoring Israel, Americans Wary of Iran Entanglement
The Jewish Press ^ | November 7th, 2013 | JTA

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 ...


TOPICS: Egypt; Foreign Affairs; Israel; Russia; Syria; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: egypt; iran; israel; lebanon; randsconcerntrolls; russia; syria; waronterror
This is the reality of the situation. The American people favor Israel but are also starting to see that endless over-involvement in that part of the world will bankrupt and destroy us. In the long-run, our regional allies have to solve their own regional problems.
1 posted on 11/08/2013 3:49:26 PM PST by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

I have no doubt the Israelis can do so.


2 posted on 11/08/2013 4:08:02 PM PST by Berlin_Freeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

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.


3 posted on 11/08/2013 4:11:02 PM PST by freedom462
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

Do you mean the same Americans that elected Col. Platypus as President?..
You know this mammal that lays EGGS...


4 posted on 11/08/2013 4:15:13 PM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

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.


5 posted on 11/08/2013 4:34:43 PM PST by DoughtyOne (People will retain the power to control the Government, or it will retain the power to control them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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!


6 posted on 11/08/2013 4:42:45 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo

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.


7 posted on 11/08/2013 5:01:23 PM PST by The Sons of Liberty (Who but a TYRANT shoves down another man's throat what he has exempted himself from?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

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.


8 posted on 11/08/2013 5:01:59 PM PST by DoughtyOne (People will retain the power to control the Government, or it will retain the power to control them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Yes Mr DoughtyOne.
I believe you have a handle on the situation.


9 posted on 11/08/2013 5:08:42 PM PST by aumrl (let's keep it real Conservatives)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

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.


10 posted on 11/08/2013 9:08:53 PM PST by Spok ("What're you going to believe-me or your own eyes?" -Marx (Groucho))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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


11 posted on 11/09/2013 6:03:41 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Spok

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.


12 posted on 11/09/2013 6:05:52 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

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.


13 posted on 11/09/2013 6:17:03 PM PST by DoughtyOne (People will retain the power to control the Government, or it will retain the power to control them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aumrl

Thank you Aumrl. I saw your note a couple of days ago, and had intended to thank you before, but didn’t.

Take care.


14 posted on 11/09/2013 6:20:13 PM PST by DoughtyOne (People will retain the power to control the Government, or it will retain the power to control them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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!


15 posted on 11/10/2013 3:30:01 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Didn’t answer my questions. When you have answered, I’ll start responding to your offerings again.

Go back and read my post.


16 posted on 11/10/2013 7:19:10 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

Christie on Iran Deal: ‘We Have to Let Secretary Kerry Do His Work’
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3089860/posts


17 posted on 11/11/2013 5:51:40 PM PST by SunkenCiv (http://www.freerepublic.com/~mestamachine/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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!


18 posted on 11/12/2013 10:29:51 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

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.


19 posted on 11/12/2013 10:49:08 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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!


20 posted on 11/13/2013 9:20:26 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

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. 

Reagan didn't have an 09/11/2001 level event during his administration.  This comment of yours doesn't address reailty.

What would your response have been to 09/11/2001?  So far you seem to be indicating NOTHING.

While we weren’t attacking Iraq, it was the biggest counterweight to Iran. 

Iraq hasn't been a counter-balance to Iran since the war they fought against each other.  Iran has been moving military supplies through Iraq into Syria for decades.  Syria has been the benefactor for it's own purposes, and those supplies also made their way to Hezbollah and other terrorist groups.  One of my big beefs during the Iraq war, was our allowing Iran to train and arm the terrorists in Iraq.  We should have put Iran on notice, and put and end to that.

After we attacked, it now has a gov’t that is Iran’s closest ally. 4000-plus Americans died to make that happen.

We also helped Russia during WWII.  Shall we talk about how that turned out for decades?  Thing don't always turn out pretty after our wars.  That's the way it goes.

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!

Yep, well I'll just have to buch up under the weight of that reality.  On the other hand, those who don't want to take the action to prevent Iran from having the bomb are not on my wavelength.

Interesting thing is, the fellow travelers of those who don't care if Iran gets the bomb.

The Left in the United States doesn't care.  The U. N. doesn't really care.  Russia doesn't seem to mind.  China is okay with Iran getting the bomb.

Terrorist groups around the world can't wait for Iran to have the bomb.  North Korea is on recording helping with Iran's missile tech.  So is China.

When I responded by calling you Richard Gere, his policy is identical to yours.This is the old peacenik agenda all warmed over and presented with a daisy stuck in the barrel of our weapons.

You say you want to help our troops by not putting them in harms way.  Any idea what our troops will face with a nuclear Iran?

You aren't doing our troops ANY favors here.

In the long run, you're contributing to them coming into harms way down the road.


21 posted on 11/13/2013 8:43:42 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

peacenick? Because I recognize your Iraq war was a disaster? And a disastrous and stupid way to respond to 9-11? You need to change your handle from “doughty” to “dotty”

Most Americans - conservatives included - are sick of the “let’s start more wars in the Middle East” philosophy that you and Obama are pushing.

I am SO glad you didn’t succeed in getting us into a war in Syria. You and your bud Obama really struck out there. Sweet!


22 posted on 11/13/2013 9:13:30 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

1. you have offered up the peacenik response
2. the Iraq war was not a disaster - men who served there are proud of what they accomplished
3. it was not a disastrous and stupid way to respond to 09/11/2001
4. doughtys stand firm
5. the Ron Paul sycophants are
6. I have advocated stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons
7. I didn’t push for war in Syria
8. I didn’t strike out there
9. Sweet? LOL

10. as of this time, you still haven’t said what you would have done as a response to 09/11/2001, other than to say that you would have done what Reagan did having never had to face a response to an 09/11/2001 event


23 posted on 11/13/2013 10:28:47 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

How juvenile - to call me names (”peacenik”, “Rich Gere”) because I oppose a disastrous war that you supported.

By your “logic”, the people who opposed Obama’s war in Lybia are “peaceniks”. And Krauthammer’s a “peacenick” because he didn’t support Obama’s call for war against Syria.

Intelligent people judge every war or proposed war on its own facts. Opposing a disastrous war doesn’t make someone a “peacenik” - it means he’s prudent.

Which you, dotty one, are definitely not.


24 posted on 11/14/2013 9:49:43 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
How juvenile - to call me names (”peacenik”, “Rich Gere”) because I oppose a disastrous war that you supported.

Oh, so now it's juvenile to point out that you have adopted the Hippy Peacenik views from the 60s and 70s, and Richard Tiffany Gere's view of only a couple of days after 09/11/2001?  It makes you feel the need to belittle me being called on what you're up to, then perhaps you should rethink YOUR juvenile behavior.

By your “logic”, the people who opposed Obama’s war in Lybia are “peaceniks”. And Krauthammer’s a “peacenick” because he didn’t support Obama’s call for war against Syria.

No, Libya and Syria did nothing against the United States or the West.  They weren't actively waging war against Israel.  They hadn't invaded or attacked five nations in their direct vicinty.  They weren't paying rewards to the families of terrorists who carried out terrorist acts against Israel or the United States.  Saddam Hussein was.  He was under orders to open up his facilities to inspectors for free access.  He wasn't allowed to move his armies across certain points to attack Iraq's citizens in the north or the south.  He wasn't allowed to fly aircraft out of certain zones.  He wasn't allowed ot move his troops up to the borders of foreign nations.  He did every one of these things.

Peaceniks oppose all wars.  Hellllooooooo Peacenik.

Intelligent people judge every war or proposed war on its own facts. Opposing a disastrous war doesn’t make someone a “peacenik” - it means he’s prudent.

Yep, intelligent people do judge every war by it's merits.  And ignorant people convince themselves they are intellgent so they can oppose anything they like.  For instance, they'll even make the claim they are brilliant, by opposing the prevention of a terrorist state from obtaining nuclear weapons.   They'll denigrate other wars, and point to all the negatives to make their case look even better.  Nevermind that thousands of troops were wounded and gain comfort knowing they contributed to a grand effort.  No, you have to pound it into everyone that nothing at all was gained in Iraq.  Those people who sustained wounds have had their contributions evaluated to zero, because you've got an axe to grind to help them.  LOL, what a fool...

So let me ask you Mr. Brillaint Braintrust.  Is Iraq's leadership offering rewards for terrorists to carry out terrorism on U. S. soil, or on the soil of Israel?  Is Iraq's military poised on it's southern border with Saudi Arabia?  Is it's military poised on Kuwait's border?  Is it gassing the Kurds?  Is it threatening them?  Is it threatening anyone at all?   Has it implemented a crash program to develop nuclear weapons?  Does it consider itself to be an enemy of the United States?  Does it consider itself to be an ally of the United States today?  Has it in fact considered asking the United States to help it out again, in some limited ways?

Nope, Mr. Intelligence can't see any imporvement in Iraq.

Which you, dotty one, are definitely not.


This is the fifth time I am asking you to explain what your plan would be, if you were president and another 09/11/2001 event were to take place.

You don't like what Bush and some of the rest of us thought was the right thing to do.  Okay great.  Explain what your plan would be.

So far you think I'm the juvenile.  At least I'm being frank about what I support.  Someone else doesn't have enough back-bone to even say what his plan would be.

25 posted on 11/14/2013 11:21:42 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

No, Libya and Syria did nothing against the United States or the West.

You sound like Richard Gere! He said the same thing. Ha, I suspected you were a Peacenik!


26 posted on 11/14/2013 11:24:57 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

What’s your plan?


27 posted on 11/14/2013 11:26:12 AM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

The thing that makes the Iraq war different is that Saddam Hussein had perpetrated an act of war on American soil with massive loss of life and property with the participation of Iraqi intelligence officers in the Oklahoma City bombing.


28 posted on 11/14/2013 1:38:08 PM PST by Carry_Okie ("Single payer" is Medicaid for all; they'll pull the sheet over your head when you're done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Although I had always thought there was an Islamic component to Oklahoma City, it had not been my understanding Hussein was involved. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means I hadn’t heard of it.

If true, I agree that’s a whole new ball game.

I do believe the U. S. had a vested interest in calming Iraq down. I believe it does in calming Iran down too.

In the overall scheme of things, we have to figure out if we want to encourage other nations to develop WMDs and standing armies because we are no longer going to be involved globally.

I submit going down that road lessens our stature globally. It enhances the stature of the nation that comes along and replaces us. It increases the threat against our nation, and it ensures that future hostilities will take place on our soil, perhaps in the very town where people are demanding we quit getting involved in everything.

Should we be involved in Syria or Libya? As long as they are somewhat stable and not declaring war on their neighbors, even though I think Syria is quite problematic, we should stay out unless we have to go in.

We didn’t have to go in there or in Libya. We were being asked to support terrorists or the then current leadership. It was a no-win.

Thank you for the mention Carry_Okie.

Where did you hear this? Why do you think it was kept quiet?


29 posted on 11/14/2013 2:19:00 PM PST by DoughtyOne (Obama, the Democrat Party, the Left in the U. S., have essentially become the 4th Reich.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
Although I had always thought there was an Islamic component to Oklahoma City, it had not been my understanding Hussein was involved. That doesn’t mean it’s not true. It just means I hadn’t heard of it.

Jayna Davis believes it was Iraqi Intelligence.

Why do you think it was kept quiet?

George Bush never said anything to discredit Bill Clinton. As to why, well... I have my private preferences, but nothing hard and fast. It goes back to the ties between international banking and dope dealing, the Bush family, the cocaine operation through Mena, AR, and the war in Kosovo, some of which goes back 150 years. You might find this thread interesting, all of it.

30 posted on 11/14/2013 3:50:33 PM PST by Carry_Okie ("Single payer" is Medicaid for all; they'll pull the sheet over your head when you're done.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson