|
Tuesday Oct 20, 2009
Rosner's Domain: What ever happened to American support for military action against Iran?Posted by SHMUEL ROSNER
Comments: 73      Follow Rosner's Domain on Twitter! / Join me on Facebook! A couple days ago I've asked "Do Americans understand what they've just said about Iran?" The answer, apparently, is "not quite". How else can one explain the differences between the earlier October poll (Pew) - showing that 61% of Americans will support military action against Iran, if necessary to prevent it from getting a nuclear weapons - and the new (WP/ABC News) poll according to which most Americans support sanctions but oppose military action. There's less, though still sizable backing for military engagement, with 42 percent of Americans supporting the bombing of Iran's nuclear development sites and 33 percent advocating invading the country with U.S. ground forces (54 and 62 percent, respectively, oppose these actions). Looking at these polls, though, it is not only the question of military action that is separating the two. Pew's America, in general, seems much more hawkish than WP's America on other Iran-related questions. For example, "engagement" with Iran. The Pew poll had found 63% supporting "direct negotiations" - WP had found many more, as many as 82%, that are supportive of "direct diplomatic talks". And while the level of support for sanctions is identical - 78% in both polls - the percentage of people opposing stricter sanctions is higher (18%) in the later poll (in Pew's it's 12%). So, what happened between the two polls? - it can be a difference in sample, methodology, wording of questions (although, in both polls questions are quite similar). It can also be a change of heart on the part of people approvingly watching the continuing talks between the US and Iran - people hoping that the good news coming out of the early rounds of talks will prove not to be a mirage.Ironically, the grim views Americans initially held regarding the chances for these talks to succeed - 64% told Pew it will "not work" - can now be the reason for more optimism. Surprised to see that the talks provided for some, even if modest, progress, maybe Americans are now willing to reconsider that they were wrong on Iran all along (yet again - it can be just a difference in sample, with no real meaning).
1 | Daran, UK, Tuesday Oct 20, 2009
This recent poll does reflect a softening on proposition of military option in Iran. I think Iran coming to the table has played a roll in this. Should the Iranians fail to satisfy the other parties about past military experiments and current personnel. Should they choose to equivocate and delay. Crippling sanctions must be imposed, those nations who think sanction too harsh or that sanctions interfere with their trade need consider the the alternative. There are many other nations for whom an Iranian nuke is a step to far and these nations will act.
2 | Terry - Eilat, Israel, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
America & the West are being played for suckers by Iran. Of course, the mainstream media does it's absolute best to obscure the issues, while idiot politicians play Neville Chamberlain in this re-run of the 1930's. If Americans were presented with the REAL situation & consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran, they would be far less complacent. In the end, however, wishful thinking meets reality - military action is inevitable. When & under what circumstances are the only subject of debate.
3 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Here's a jock strap. Don't say we didn't give you any support ! Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapons program so why should the US waste more money on wars you manufacture in your heads ? After Iraq and all the BS provided by the neocons, America isn't buying in to your paranoid schizophrenia and more. You're on your own.
4 | Terry - Eilat, Israel, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
In the meantime, Obama's real priority is his ''war'' on Fox News. If this doesn't reveal the mind-set of the Obama team, nothing does. Pathetic.
5 | Daran, UK, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Tom, you do accept that the Iranians bought a "package" of nuclear related materials and component designs from AQKhan network which included bomb designs build guide, can't see why you would'nt the Iranians themselve don't deny it (so called P1 documentation). So now we are left with the question what did they do with this info, the IAEA say they are questions arising out of the employemnt of foreign nations with specialist explosive knowledge and the contruction of chambers to test implosions. Khatami said nuke would be good "tool" in document that the IAEA has, so much for it being "haram"
6 | Danny, Sydney, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
You are on your own this time AIPAC LIKUDNIKS!! This PRESIDENT isn't going to fall for your tricks!
7 | Johan, Australia, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Are we forgetting Bush refused Israeli requests for munitions and overflight rights on more than a few occasions? If anyone is to "blame" for the Iranian nuclear program not being nipped in the bud its Bush/Cheney not Obama/Biden. Fact is no American administration as far back as Carter and Reagen (Israel's darling) has ever supported any action against Mullah Iran. I'll say the same thing I said back in '05.. an Iranian bomb is inevitable.. they have had chemical weapons since the 80's and biological weapons since 90's.. and neither of which has been fired on Israeli soil.. get real people.
8 | andy-london, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Obama's only aim is to create a socialist america, but you see it's citizens aren't stupid as they've no intention from becoming a marxist or islamic state to appease those God haters in the aclu.The idea of obama supporting Israel if Iran should attack them is pie in the sky.These people can lie with impunity and look you straight in the face when they do so,just like the pallis do ALL the time and ALL their ilk.He [obama ] cant BEAR the truth,you just need to hear his childish response after being caught out on the acorn scandal by denying he knew anything about them.Get him out quick.
9 | Daniel-Atlanta, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
We Americans got lied to by Bush about Iraq. This time around we want to have certain evidence before we rush into another war. Thank goodness that Obama is weighing the costs and benefits to America as he makes decisions about the Middle East. We will still strongly support Israel, but we need to look out for our own interests as well.
10 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
5 | Daran - That's just it Daran. If they actually intended to use any of those things they wouldn't have disclosed them. But they did and are in full compliance with the IAEA. So now when is that rogue state
(Israel) going to sign the NPT and also disclose everything and come in to compliance with the IAEA ?
11 | Mark Jeffery Koch Cherry Hill, New Jersey USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
For all those who criticize Obama about not threatening Iran with war they need to realize that the American military is stretched to its limits in Iraq and Afghanistan. America should never have gone to war with Iraq. No sane person believes Iraq was a threat to America but the war has cost 4,200 soldiers their lives, wounded more than 30,000 and cost one trillion (yes, Trillion) dollars. Even though we must defeat Al Queda and the Taliban in Afghanistan the American public is weary of that war as well and our generals do not want another war. America cannot afford to be the worlds policeman.
12 | Manuel H. Lazerov, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
America's treating Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons as "manageable" is a reflection of a trend toward greater isolationism and disengagement from "foreign entanglements". The notion of a "Fortress America" has more universal appeal in the US these days because of an economic crisis, domestic needs, and exhaustion from seemingly endless conflicts, which the US perceives to be not only to be shouldering alone, but being criticized for as well. While this is understandable, it is both dangerous and delusional to believe that "if we leave them alone, they will leave us alone".
13 | Ronald USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Rosner, ' What ever happened to American support for military action against Iran?' This should be a dead question. It should be obvious to everyone living in the US and watching our political debates that the US WILL NOT embark on military action against Iran under any circumstances. No way, no how. I completely sympathize with Israel whose existence is threatened by a nuclear armed Iran, but the US leadership does not have the courage or strength to take on another battle. The US position is non-negotiable and will not change.
14 | Ronald USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Rosner, ' What ever happened to American support for military action against Iran?' This should be a dead question. It should be obvious to everyone living in the US and watching our political debates that the US WILL NOT embark on military action against Iran under any circumstances. No way, no how. I completely sympathize with Israel whose existence is threatened by a nuclear armed Iran, but the US leadership does not have the courage or strength to take on another battle. The US position is non-negotiable and will not change.
15 | Mike Feldman, Canadaq, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
The truth is coming to light. Iran's present stock of uranium is compromised for nuke quality enrichment or their program would be ready. Pretend you're complying with the international community, send the crap to Russia and France, have it returned ready to enrich to nuclear weapons grade. Its all a shell game designed to isolate Israel if they take pre-emptive action on their own.
16 | Jonah in Jamaica, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
To all the Iran nuke doubters: North Korea, Libya,and Iran have all been acknowledged to have been much further along the path to acquiring nukes than had been realized. Libya has given up its nukes and chemical weapons.Syria was building a nuke plant which Israel took out several months ago. Even Iraq which is cited as proof of no WMDs had a plant taken out by Israel about 28 years ago, continued its program and did not finish it because of the U.S. We know they had chemical weapons which were used on the Kurds. Iran has been lying for years. So why do you doubt their intent?
17 | Alan-USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
They elected a "president" who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. And like a dog and it's owner, the sycophant "followers" of Barack Hussein No-Bomb-A, have begun to act like him. Pacifist APPEASERS. History has a place reserved for them-THE TRASH HEAP. If anyone is going to STOP Iran, it's Israel. GOD Speed!
18 | julie, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Americans are not interested in a third war front in the Middle East. We got pushed into Iraq without checking carefully who was in it for what and we will not do it again under Obama. We have a far more realistic expectation on the costs and clean up of such operations. Israel will not direct our policy here. She doesn't even allow her own nuclear program open for inspection so what right does she have to be pushing the world and the U.S. into this dangerous scenario. Iran needs to be handled with negotiations and tough sanctions if those negotiations fails.
19 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Israel isn't that large of a country. Iran already has enough missiles with conventional warheads that can do plenty of damage if needs be. They don't need nukes to wipe Israel off the map. So be paranoid schizos and assume something that doesn't exist. Attack Iran and the end result will be the same. OR take your meds and for once in your lives strap on that seat belt and follow the people who actually have been doing this work for decades. Iran is NOT seeking nuclear weapons ! You paranoids don't trust each other. I'm surprised you haven't nuked yourselves by now.
20 | andy-london, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
#19 if your taliban pals ever take over pakistan you'll see your paranoids then.israel has had their nuclear arsenal for over 20 years and WHEN have you EVER seen OR heard of them threatening ANY nation.You see your kind of people ARE an unstable people with a 6th century mindset.you murder each other as well as westerners and tell untruths with NO conscience,and obama falls into the same category,and you call that good and paradise awaits you.OH REALLY how childish a mindset you lot have.Israel will be there when you lot are well gone.tough luck.
21 | cares1996, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
the poll isn`t accurate like most all polls,if you want a more accurate measure post your question for one week without advertising linkage then get the word out about poll put security picture and there you have it.that said i recently asked an obama voter represented 3 in there home are you happy with obama`s work thusfar and if election were held tomorrow would you again vote for him and why.the answer-33yr old yes i`d vote the same he hasn`t had time to do anything,he talks good,i never watch news,i looked at my wife and kids in other room and tried to explain,but the wall had more brains.
22 | cares1996, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
I TGOT OFF TRACK,I`D BET YOUR SUPPORT HAS NOT DWINDLED 1%,THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THAT SPY THING IF SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL WAS ON THE DOWN TURN,THAT SAID THERE`S A MUCH MORE IMPORTANT QUESTION INVOKED,THIS IS WHY I KEEP INSISTING YOU APPLY YOUR BEST BRAINS,YOUR DEALING WITH MASTERS OF DECEPTION.YEAH I`M NUTS,HOWEVER HOW MANY ISSUES DO YOU KNOW WERE THIS ADMIN. REALLY STANDS,BESIDES SOME NEW HEALTHCARE PROGRAM.
23 | Claudia, Tampa, FL USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Julie, Israel is "pushing" the world and my country into what? Israel is not the country making vicious threats against Iran or Lebanon or Syria or Turkey. It is the sick Islamic mouth in all those countries that are vowing to destroy Israel. It is not just the existence of Israel that so infuriates groups within these countries it is the all of us that find this religion to be grossly inhumane and a threat to all mankind. Obama is a naive liberal stance on cutting off allies wholesale, and turning his cowardly back on Iranians against the mullahs. Sanctions do not work. Period.
24 | FireTag Germantown, MD USA, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
This poll shows a strong pro-left swing across the board compared to contemporaneous polls by other organizations. The generic ballot, for example, shows Democrats +12 points while even Democratic strategists are talking about whether mid-term losses will be a mere 20 seats or grow into a wave that might limit effective control of the agenda. In other words, it's not about Israel or Iran. It will be another month before we have reason to think this is more than an outlying sample overly weighted with respondents from the left.
25 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
20 | andy-london - Israel is responsible for most of the problems in the ME today. Ypou're on your own. Figure it out. When did you paranoids start something ? A special ops unit enters Lebanon in a tank. They made it pretty far in before Hezbolah blew the tank up killing 6 and capturing 2. You weasels alter the story to say they came across and kidnapped the 2. Your excuse to invade Lebanon. Did you ever get the remains of your tank back ? OR how about when the Israeli navy shelled a beach killing most of a family and then denied it just as you deny every provocation. Sick em Rex, go spot !
26 | Pedro, Phoenix AZ, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Attacking Iran will definitely cause oil prices to sky rocket which will lead to hyperinflation (if you don't know why, do some research) in most parts in the worlds, especially in the U.S., and this will worsen the U.S. economy even further, i.e. more people will lose their jobs and we will end up with chaos over here. And for what? because baby Israel is scared?? You think that because Israel only "feels" threatened that the U.S. will drag itself in a war AGAIN?? with even a stronger enemy like Iran?? Impossible.
Sorry, you're on your own this time Israel.
27 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Pedro. Sounds like you're the "baby" who is scared. Sounds like you only "feel" threatened that you won't be able to afford gas. I think you could find a better reason for more people to lose their jobs that Israel's concern for its national security, but that might actually require you to think.
28 | burt - Canada, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
Funny. God says that those that Bless Israel will be blessed. Those that curse Israel will be cursed. Name one Islamic country that you would be willing to move to? Exactly. They are all stinking dunghills reminiscent of the 7th century. Those countries that have blessed Israel has prospered. I suggest that if the US is really interested in its own interest, it better stand with Israel.
29 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
28 | burt - Yes that is what it says in the bible Burt. Just one problem, it doesn't say jews where the word Israel is. The jews are not now and never have been Israel. The tribes of Judah and Benjamin were a part of the 12 tribes before they were kicked out of Israel and became the jews. It is all in the bible Burt once you put your magic marker down and quit crossing out the parts that you don't want to hear. The covenant is NOT with the jews. The covenant is with the northern 10 tribes of ISRAEL.
30 | Tom, US, Wednesday Oct 21, 2009
You talk bold Feldman. I bet you never served in uniform even one day of your cowardly life. So why don't you suit up Feldman with the Israeli military and be the first one in on the ground because an air strike isn't going to do didly squat but kick the hornets nest. So Israel is looking at a ground war in Iran. If you think that's such a great thing Feldman have Canada expend ALL of their Canadian dollars to fight a no win war. You jews run Canada so have Canada be your vanguard in to Iran Feldman. Minus you placing your own life on the line take a nice strong cup of shut the F up !
31 | lydia, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
28 You'd like to make Int.Law like the Bible into a pick and choose buffet? God also said Thou shalt not kill, Palestinians. Thou shalt not steal, Palestinian land, their taxes. Thou shalt not covet, Palestinians homes, trees, farms, seas, air. Thou shalt not bear false witness claiming relation to Biblical jews and to the people of the ME. Your illegal state lack morals and decency in it's apartheid and genocidal policies against the Palestinians. Nothing dunghill about UAE Burj Al Arab, a definite draw card, Abu Dhabi, Tunisia, Maldives, better than Israels racist apartheid regime.
32 | Daran, UK, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Tom, the full extent of what khan network was dealing in was revealed by the Libyans. The Iranians didn't volunteer this to the IAEA nor have they confirmed the locations and personnel of certain nuclear experiments that have no peaceful use. I not so naive that some Iranian security official might not consider it his "duty" to examine steps Iran might have to take to produce a weapon. How far beyond theoretical and knowledge based rather than production based we can only guess because until today Iran has been in total denial about these activities which only adds concern. cont.
33 | Daran, UK, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
This situation will end badly (with the people of Iran likely suffering a great deal more than others) if the Iranian gov. does not realise the dire risks their actions entail. I think your right about Iranian capabilities being a threat to Israel without nukes. Israel is not "target" of these nukes but Saudi and gulf states because of theological view of Khomeini version of shiaism, dragging Abu Bakr out of his grave and all that. These problems unrelated to Israel you'll note but every bit as grave if not more so (sorry Israel) given the complications of oil. Israel nukes another time.
34 | Jay, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
The "Iranian threat" is too far down the list of priorities for Americans. Iran is not really considered a direct threat to the US. Since we've got troops in Afghanistan, IT is going to continue to be the lead "foreign policy" story for Americans. Healtcare, Jobs and the overall Economy are all priorities to Iran for Americans. One reason for the inconsistencies could be that Americans are not really focused on Iran as a "priority".....No focus leads to inconsistencies.
35 | Jonah in Jamaica, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Julie: Israel needs nukes as a final fall back position to preserve its national existance. Why does Iran need nukes? So that the despotic regime can threaten anyone which would like to see regime change? Israel has never threatened Iran. Until the mullahs took over there were good relations. Why does Iran threaten Israel? Isn't Israel entitled like every other nation to protect itself?
36 | Siedjan - Indonesia, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
To #28, and why did your white ancestors came to Islamic countries from 16th to 19th century? Yes, they invaded the Islamic countries, enslaved native populations, sucked their natural resources dry, and treated native people like animals. You are right. People like you who blessed Israel regime fits perfectly with Zionism: both of you are colonialist, racist, and apartheid.
37 | Tom, US, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
32 | Daran - You already said they admitted it and now you say they didn't. Make up your mind. Also please add in the time frame because YES, Iran did have a nuclear weapons program back in 2002 which they have since abandoned. There is NO way that they could keep something like the production of a nuclear weapon a secret. There are too many items that have to be procured in order to have the ability to make such a weapon. As big of a mouth as Ahmadinejad has, do you think he could possibly keep it silent ? If they had a nuke ?
38 | betz55, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
We fought your war in Iraq and that was enough. If Israel wants Iranian nuclear transparency then Israel better be just as transparent. When will Israel sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections?, which Iran has already done, and as a member of the NNPT is legally allowed to enrich uranium. Why don't more American support Israel on Iran? Gaza, the illegal settlements, the illegal settler squatter terrorist, illegal house demolitions in east j'lem, Gaza, apartheid and oppression of the Palestinains people. You just don't get it do you? Nothing but isolation, sanctions and no aid for you.
39 | andy-london, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
# 27 mike i think 30 and 31 have their madress written fairy story books as they dont have the inteligence to respond to ANY normal question.#36 it's a good job that our european ancestors came to your country as they did, otherwise you'd still be living in a 6th century mindset killing everyone who wouldn't adhere to your religion.If you lot hadn't been stopped by spain we'd all be using camels instead of cars that's if they'd be any of us left as we'd all be killing one another to appease your bloodthirsty diety.
40 | andy-london, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
#38 you explain the pallis and hamas to a T .It's about time Israel took back ALL gaza and got rid of the squatters on their land and ask those muslim so called brotherhood brigade in the un to open up their vast ares in the m.e.which has in all over a million square miles of land ,instead of trying to take Israel's sliver of land which is only the size of a pea.Who do you lot think your kidding you WANT Israel BECAUSE it's the ONLY democracy in the m.e. Israel can forget about hussein obama as he's one of you lot.Still hard luck Israel stays.What happens to your lot "WELL"
41 | Daran, UK, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Tom then the Iranians could have no problem granting access to the site of these activites which "ended" or to the personnel who carried it out. Tom what do you make of claims Iran has made about such a weapon being "haram" was it not "haram" when they conducted the sorts of experiments they now have been forced to admit took place? Tom can you remember the Iranians ever saying that they intended to build a nuclear weapon? yet this program did take place you accept. Also any such program is of course outside of the treaty obligations they themselves undertook
42 | Tom, US, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Daran, I don't have all the details of the history on that. I never worked in the ME. I worked in Eastern Europe during the cold war. With Israel having between 300 and 400 tactical nuclear weapons who in their right mind could blame ANY of Israel's neighbors for wanting to have a nuclear device ? Israel has a long track record of preemptively attacking all their neighbors, many times on false pretenses. When did Iran sign the NPT ? Before or after 2002 ? Because if it was after 2002 it's irrelevant regarding their prior attempt. The NPT isn't all of what you think it is. Take a look at it.
43 | betz55, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
We fought your war in Iraq and that was enough. If Israel wants Iranian nuclear transparency then Israel better be just as transparent. When will Israel sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections?, which Iran has already done, and as a member of the NNPT is legally allowed to enrich uranium. Why don't more American support Israel on Iran? Gaza, the illegal settlements, the illegal settler squatter terrorist, illegal house demolitions in east j'lem, Gaza, apartheid and oppression of the Palestinains people. You just don't get it do you? Nothing but isolation, sanctions and no aid for you.
44 | rih, atlanta, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Iran is Israel's problem and Jews should not expect any help from anybody, including the US. The main issue would be find safer route to reach Iran. The US will not allow Israel's planes to pass Jordan or Iran and will try to harm them. Iran is indeed existential threat to Israel. They many times declared that they will eliminate Israel with no reaction from the world. The complicity of the whole world in this matter is just one more evidence of unquenching Jew-hatred. The US is paper tiger and will lose war in Afghanistan or any other place. It was led by traitor Bush who allowed Bin-Laden
45 | rih, atlanta, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
team to leave the US days after 9/11 monstrosity when no other planes were allowed to fly. He sacrifices more than 4000 soldiers in the war in wrong place Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. That war could be won without any losses if nukes, planes and rockets would be used. To add insult to memory of 3000 burnt alive in 9/11, Americans elected Muslim and enemy of America as its president. US will go down the drain without a peep.
46 | rih, atlanta, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Amerikistan and Sharia law instead of Constitution are coming. American elite, academia and media are bought by Saudis and other Arabs and Americans scream that Zionists control the media and wail about sufferings of so-called Palestinians. They don't care when millions murdered in Congo, in Darfur, in Chechnya and other places where Muslims murder Christians, Hindus and other non-Muslims: Iraq, Pakistan, Philippines, Tailand, India. As long as Muslims kill Jews all sympathies of the world are with them. But Israel will survive and be stronger without "allies".
47 | Barbara ODonnell, USA, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
The Bush White House supported Israel and wanted to bomb Iran but the Democrats prevented him from doing so. The Obama administration is stuffed with Communist and are anti Israel and pro terrorist. American Jews who voted for him were fools to believe he was going to support Israel. Not only is he weakening Israel but America as well. He wants a dictatorship here, he is not what the majority of Americans were made to believe about him. The Far right the Conservatives are very concerned about Israel and understand the threat but we can't do anything until 2010 elections. Dems don't support you
48 | CARES1996, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Well it seems were all in agreement,there`s a problem in middle east.rih,if your cousin killed his wife should you go to prison,pres. BUSH is more honorable then any in recent history,he told us in 02 state of union address,he stuck to it ,for it was best chance for success with minimal casualties,a war on terrorists isn`t normal the enemey has sancuarties(not bases)all over the globe,possibly iran is the head,i honestly doubt it,to many issues to many places this monster has many heads were attemptemping to decapitate them on unapocaliptic timeframe not easy.barb your close but there`s more
49 | disgusted american, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
if israel is so convinced iran has nuclear programes without proof (never ind that iran is a signatory to the NPT WHILE ISRAEL IS NOT) Then u israelis should go to war with them on your own.wy do u keep asking for our help.why should we fight for u?in fact what the middle east needs is another nuclear power to balance israels military might so that israel can no longer molest its neighbours like lebanon with impunity .if u are so convined go to war alone .we americans dont wanna fight for u anymore.
50 | Stuart Creque, USA, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
Take a look at the disparity between other recent Washington Post polls and other organizations' polls. The WP polls skew to the left and are not reliable.
51 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Thursday Oct 22, 2009
#30 Tom Didn't see your blog till now. Been there done that. Born in the U.S.A. Wore uniform. Served my country. Looks like you're loosing your cool, weeny. Speaking of uniforms, did you play dress up a Mr. SS to-day or are you waiting for Halloween (ie)
52 | David Kohen, Texas USA, Friday Oct 23, 2009
What happened? America elected a president who allied himself his entire career with arab and muslim causes and went to a "church" where the preacher laughed that "Israel was a dirty word" and propagated the worst of arab lies. That president has set out to poison American public opinion against Israel directly, and Jewish people in general. It's a very bad and dangerous time.
53 | jeanne USA, Friday Oct 23, 2009
31-lydia and all you others referencing the Bible. Read the original land grant to Abraham from God in Genesis 15: 18-23. His 'descendnts" being referred to are those coming from Isaac.(chapter 17). Chapter 16 covers Ishmeal and his fate. Give it a read.
54 | Valerie Georgia, Friday Oct 23, 2009
55 | Valerie Georgia, Friday Oct 23, 2009
America got a new president and this administration is NOT a FRIEND to Israel. That is why the support for Israel is going down hill fast .
56 | Ahmed, Friday Oct 23, 2009
#28 burt canada.Why do you insult good arab and muslim people.You say about stinking dunghill
which is our home.It not your business maybe it is stinking dunghill but it is our country and where we are living you should be shame.We love middle east contrys we are proud people.
57 | Jonah in Jamaica, Friday Oct 23, 2009
Hey Tom: Who would you be complaining about if there weren't Jews or Israel?
58 | Curious Observer, Friday Oct 23, 2009
53 jeanne your post is quite interesting and suggests that you may have some in depth knowledge about
the Jews. One often hears about Ashkinaz and Saphardi Jews and its confusing. Whats the difference and
was Issac Ashkanaz or Saphardi? Can anyone else out there contribute in a respectable way?
59 | Avner, London, Friday Oct 23, 2009
Who cares?
Israel has had a policy of retaliation since 1948, and they will never accept a nuclear Arab-state. Jews practically invented nuclear weapons so if there is one country that deserves them its ISRAEL. The reality is Israel would rather a chance a war with Iran and lose than not take action and be gone for good.
60 | Gerry ,Australia, Friday Oct 23, 2009
Why should America support military action against Iran?,what happened to diplomacy?,shoot first and negotiate later!,well with Iraq and Afganistan as ongoing with no easy way out in site why would the Yanks want to try their luck with another Middle East invasion?,its bad idea to open up another can of worms without credible evidence of WMDs ie hard proof not pretend evidence just to start another war.
61 | Jeanne USA, Friday Oct 23, 2009
58-curious observer-according to Wikipedia, Ashkanaz Jews have ancestory in eastern Europe , mainly Germany and surrounding area. They can also trace back to Japheth. Read Genesis chapters 10-12 to get general picture. Saphardi Jews are from western Europe, mainly Spain and Portugal.
Isaac lineage goes to Shem (Noah's son).
62 | Curious Observer, Saturday Oct 24, 2009
#61 jeanne thank you So the Jews wherever they may be are linked to the source of the Old Testament
and are as the expression goes"people of the book" and all that it states such as the lands given to them? If it is so must they not take precedent over the arabs in the region? I would appreciate your
view.
63 | the real McCoy american, Saturday Oct 24, 2009
#49..disgusted american..your comments show you as a DISGUSTING american and an ignorant moron.
Get off your budweiser hot dog mentality and educate yourself buddy.
64 | Jeanne USA, Saturday Oct 24, 2009
62-curious observer-I believe the Bible to be the inspired Word of God,and therefore believe what it says about Him, His promises and His people(both the Jews- Messianic or not- and the Gentiles that have chosen to follow Jesus). No where in the Bible will you find a passage that will show that God withdrew the land grant He gave to Abraham. To get the land they were originally given back to them, you would have to convince the world to believe in the Old Testament. That will not happen. Remember though what Genesis 12:3 says .
65 | Daran, UK, Sunday Oct 25, 2009
Jeanne, could you define the extent of the "land grant" you are referring to? Also does not the passage you cite refer to Abraham personally as the rest of the passage implies rather than the modern secular Israeli state as I think you seem to suggest.
66 | Jeanne-USA, Sunday Oct 25, 2009
65-Daran, Genesis 12:1-3 is God talking to Abraham. In verse 2 He tells Abraham that He will make him a great nation (group of people, ethnic group). He goes on to tell Abraham that He will "bless you". Since the statement immediately proir to this is talking about the nation I believe God is telling him that he and the nation coming through him is who will be blessed. I agree with many pastors and theologians that this refers to all of Isreal and Jews. As to the land grant, you can find that in Genesis 15:18-21, Numbers 34: 2-15, Joshua 11: 16-23 ; 13:1-22 and Ezekial 47:13-28 and chapter 48
67 | Ben Hur, Monday Oct 26, 2009
Jeanne.Its interesting that the likes of #65 Daran continue to seek to discredit Jewish entitlement to the land by drawing "red herrings" to cause confusion.He concedes the land in question was given to Abraham
then absurdly uses the word "personally" To suggest that the land was confined to Abraham alone just for
his lifetime is clearly the working of a retarded moronic mind speaking.
68 | Daran, UK, Monday Oct 26, 2009
Ben I just want to know where people are coming from and if they have thought about the things they write. I don't concede anything at all. Jeanne's belief in the bible confuses her to modern realities I would contend. While I support Israel I don't do it because of anything in the bible, rather I think of the Jews as a people deserving of a homeland to protect themselves after the expulsion (second one, you sure that curse is working) by the romans has lead to persecution of Jews in other lands (again that curse does'nt seem to be very effective). Including my own in our history. .
69 | Mike Feldman, Canada, Monday Oct 26, 2009
Daran. I believe Abraham was originally called "Avram", meaning exalted father. Later he was called "Abraham" meaning father of many nations. However, I too do not look to biblical interpretations as the only justification for the creation of to-days's Jewish State. I highly doubt that should the Palestinians and Israelis ever come to the table, that the Israelis will pull out a map which indicates the borders as Abraham would have drawn them. I also think Ben Hur's last sentence is out of line.
70 | Daran, UK, Monday Oct 26, 2009
Ben, the passage which Jeanne quotes goes on to cite how Pharoah is "cursed" by a plague over machinations about Saria , yet examples of this curse protecting Jews in history seem non existent to my "retarded moronic mind" perhaps you or Jeanne could provide examples from the bible or else where that confirm the "aid/protection" of this curse after the lifetime of Abraham.
71 | Jeanne USA, Monday Oct 26, 2009
Joseph-became pharoah's second in command and saved his people and egypt from starvation. Moses was protected as a child to grow up to lead them out of Egypt. Ester found favor in the king's eyes and saved her people from anhilation. David slew a giant with a rock and was anointed as king over a madman. His son was the wisest ruler of all time and the richest. Daniel was protected and became a wise and trusted cousellor. These are just he obvious ones that pop into my head. I agree with Mike, Ben's last statement wasn't nice or necessary. I have enjoyed the conversation thus far.Thanks.
72 | Ben Hur, Tuesday Oct 27, 2009
Daran, the first sentence in #68 fits your personna admirably.You clearly linked the "land grant" to Abraham not denying there was a land grant only questioning its "extent" My observation of your "retarded moronic mind" goes to your use of your absurd notion that Abraham was "personally" granted the lands for his exclusive use confined to his lifetime alone.No sane functioning mind could possibly come to such a conclusion.I dismiss your #70 blog as nonsense and mischief.
73 | Paul, US, Thursday Nov 05, 2009
Polls can be so misleading. If I ask Americans the question "Are you willing to take military action to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?" I think most would answer yes. If I ask "Do you favor diplomatic action against Iran and oppose military action?" I think, again, most would answer yes. In the first question you've assumed Iran is on the cusp of getting nukes and in the second you have not. Those are very different situations. You might counter that surely most Americans realize how close Iran is to getting nuclear weapons. Sadly, I think most people in the US don't know that.
|
 |
Search this blog
The Israel Factor, Sep. 2009: Obama is rapidly losing favor with panel of Israeli experts
Tags:
Blogroll |
Post your own comment
