Though Favoring Israel, Americans Wary of Iran Entanglement

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.