Election 2016

Forget Scott Walker's ISIS/Unions Comments: Today's Republican Foreign Policy Scandal Is That GOP Elites Still Agitate for Pre-Emptive War

Judging by a conservative "debate," the options range from overthrowing the Ayatollahs to replacing them with explicitly pro-American leaders.

|

Scott Walker. |||

You would think, given the media coverage, that the most important foreign policy discussion today at the Conservative Political Action Committee came when current GOP darling Scott Walker, governor of a state with a considerably smaller population than New York City, uttered these comments about how he would approach Islamic terrorists:

"I want a commander in chief who will do everything in their power to ensure that the threat from radical Islamic terrorists does not wash up on American soil," Walker said. "If I can take on 100,000 protesters, I can do the same across the world."

Walker's comments produced exactly the outrage you might expect among the non-murderous members of American public-sector union class; even the conservative culture warriors at Twitchy, in a collection headlined "People who compared Walker to Hitler butthurt over ISIS comparison," acknowledged that "It probably wasn't the best choice to compare the throngs of protesters in Wisconsin to terrorists." Gov. Walker has since said that he was only referencing how he had already faced "that kind of pressure, that kind of intensity," that he was "in no way comparing any American citizen to ISIS," and that "that's the closest thing I have in terms of handling a difficult situation, not that there's any parallel between the two." He has been rehearsing such a line for a while; chances are he'll dial that back a bit in the next 23 months. Such are the fragmentary fascinations of American political coverage.

Meanwhile, at this event so many Beltway journalists love to cover, there was an actual foreign-policy discussion among conservatives who think and talk on a daily basis about foreign policy. It had the non-insignificant title of "When Should American Go to War?"—a phrase that gets you (or at least me) all of two Google News hits, both pre-writes. Which is unfortunate, since all four panelists at the conservative "debate" advocated pre-emptive war against Iran, significant jacking up of the U.S. military budget, and a sharply increased readiness to "go to war" in order to prevent having to go to war.

While the media spends a few hours huffing and snorting about the Wisconsin governor's flip analogies, here are come concrete, this-is-what-we-should-do quotes from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas), Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-Montana), former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton, and Heritage Foundation foreign policy chief James Jay Carafano:

ON IRAN:

Bolton: U.S. policy today, yesterday, and tomorrow should be the "overthrow of the Ayatollahs."

Cotton: Not only regime change, but "replacement with pro-western regime."

Zinke [just after Cotton's remarks]: Cotton should be the vice president.*

ON IRAQ:

Carafano: "The number one biggest bad decision we made was we left Iraq too soon." (Carafano also said that we shouldn't have gone into Iraq until after finishing Afghanistan, whatever that means.)

Zinke: "We did leave Iraq too soon," and now "have to re-engage." (Zinke was alone on the panel in saying he would not, knowing what we know now, support the 2003 invasion of Iraq.)

ON ISIS:

Zinke: "We have a duty to fight ISIS," though "air operations alone will not defeat ISIS."

ON TEDDY ROOSEVELT:

Zinke: "I love Teddy Roosevelt….As a country we need to think big again."

Bolton: [some other pro-Teddy sentiment I neglected to capture verbatim.]

ON PRE-EMPTIVE WAR:

Bolton: It's important to recognize that "Pre-emptive use of military force is necessary."

ON CYBER-ATTACKS:

Carafano: "If you lose the U.S.-Canadian grid for a long period of time, we're all going to die. Period."

Is this the acceptable range of foreign-policy opinion within the GOP big tent? Of course not; the mere fact that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is treated like a rock star at CPAC suggests otherwise, as does the existence of panel moderator K.T. McFarland, an old Reagan Administration hand who is nobody's neoconservative. And our later conversation with the party's grassroots (some of which you can watch tomorrow in this space) went considerably different.

But what I left the panel wondering about—in addition to my own sanity in being someone who is not petrified to wake up in the morning—was whether the McFarland/Caspar Weinberger/reluctant-realist wing of the GOP still exists in any meaningful way. Are there any Republican 2016 presidential candidates who evince any sense at all that there are lessons to be learned from 2001-2015 aside from not winning war(s) hard enough? I don't expect to hear such reflections from unexperienced blank-slates like Scott Walker. But the absence of such analysis from the intellectual bench that will likely provide key policy support to any new GOP president not named "Paul" is sobering, to say the least.

* UPDATE: Zinke's folks emailed to stress that he also had some differences on approaches to Iran, saying that he "called for domestic economic solutions to combat the situation, particularly developing American energy to strip Russia of its influence."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

202 responses to “Forget Scott Walker's ISIS/Unions Comments: Today's Republican Foreign Policy Scandal Is That GOP Elites Still Agitate for Pre-Emptive War

  1. Who are these people and when are they leaving to volunteer?

    1. Ah, the ‘chickenhawk’ argument.

      What strikes me about this is that while it’s liberally applied to those who haven’t served that advocate for the military, it’s never applied to those who haven’t served who advocate against the military.

      Aren’t their opinions equally invalid?

      Additionally, why does the chickenhawk argument never seem to lend greater weight to the opinions of those who HAVE served that advocate for the military?

      1. Great point! Sadly, too many here won’t be persuaded by such logic.

      2. You are conflating a couple of different issues. First is the underlying question of what our foreign policy goals should be and what means we should use to achieve them. I think we should invite many different ideas to the table, including from current and former military members, but service alone doesn’t make your ideas sacrosanct. The old adage of “when your only tool is a hammer” often comes to mind when discussing foreign policy with the military, just as the converse is true when discussing with the State Department.

        A separate issue is the rampant “do as I say not as I do” hypocrisy of many of the hawks. If sending troops into harm’s way is a noble and just course, they and their children had better be on the front lines before they conscript another person or his/her child.

        1. No, I am not. I am pointing out that people who say you shouldn’t be allowed to talk about the military unless you’re willing to volunteer a) don’t apply that standard to themselves, and b) don’t treat the opinions of military members and vets with any more respect than the people they’ve initially told to shut up.

          Finally, THERE ARE NO CONSCRIPTS AT ALL.

          Forgive the yelling, but I figured it was needed to reach whereeverthehell you’re hiding to not know that we don’t have a conscript army and haven’t had one for decades.

      3. ‘Appeal to authority’ arguments, which this is – “You can’t talk about the military unless you served.” Sorry but I don’t have to serve to have an opinion.

        1. Funnier yet in absence in the argument line is, the fact, that the US brags alternately about it’s civilian control of the military – but if any civilians want to exercise some control…

          What the neocons do publicly the quisling socialists do privately, act like high schoolers ready for the footbal game, their latest aggressive war dream.

          No doubt the deeply in the red US government hoohah cheerleaders will continue to pretend the empty pot of lucky rainbow fed gold will never run out.

          Thus, the never ending desire to scream game time.
          They consider it a duty, according to their perception and declaration of the view of the enemy – “all the cards remain on the table”.

          That isn’t just posturing, because the egos of Congress are so out of whack, they will nearly all sign the bill to exert their world domination power trip – like the Iraq Resolution under Clinton became the war we still fight.

          So have no fear, they learned absolutely NOTHING – except, how utterly incompetent, wreckless, foolish, inept in war, and flaccid in follow up, they are, and how they already desire to go on many more wrecking missions to spread democracy across the entire earth and truly “end all history” – a dream and a goal almost none of their gigantic egos can pass up, hopefully accomplished before old age takes them away, and they are already wrinkled beyond recall.

  2. the options range from overthrowing the Ayatollahs to replacing them with explicitly pro-American leaders.

    And they do. Those are the realistic options for peace. The Iranian regime takes its Islam very seriously, and its existence is incompatible with peace. It must be destroyed, ‘petrification’ of Welch notwithstanding. The only question is ‘how’. Bleeding them dry with low oil prices, hard money, and Iran’s own stupid campaigns in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen will go a long way. Covert ops in Iran should do the rest.

    1. Ya know, I’d really like to cheer on the Cdn ‘freedom fighters’, especially with you on the point!

      1. So you shouldn’t advocate for the overthrow of a violent human-rights disaster of a regime unless you are serving in the military?

        That makes sense.

        1. He’s stupid, and all the more so for not realizing that he’s engaged in pathetic ad hom. Some people are just never the same after I beat them down in debate.

          1. Cytotoxic|2.26.15 @ 11:54PM|#
            “He’s stupid, and all the more so for not realizing that he’s engaged in pathetic ad hom”
            And Cyto is a slimy, fucking coward.

            1. What I am is irrelevant, and that escapes you because you are stupid.

              1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:09AM|#
                “What I am is irrelevant”
                No, stupid cowards need to be recognized as such.
                Fuck off.

                1. I was going to fuck off, but I think I like pissing you off more. You still can’t can’t argue against my point.

                  1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:13AM|#
                    “You still can’t can’t argue against my point.”
                    You don’t have a point, asshole.

                    1. See ‘original post’, up above. Proceed to read. Try comprehension.

                    2. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:21AM|#
                      “See ‘original post’, up above. Proceed to read. Try comprehension”
                      I’ve seen, read and responded to your ignorant comments, asshole.
                      You should learn to read.

                    3. You’ve responded but only in the same way a spoilt child responds to getting told what they don’t want to hear.

                    4. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:29AM|#
                      “You’ve responded…”
                      Keep repeating the lies, asshole. Maybe someone will believe you.

        2. Tman|2.26.15 @ 11:51PM|#
          “So you shouldn’t advocate for the overthrow of a violent human-rights disaster of a regime unless you are serving in the military?”

          It makes it a whole lot more believable when you put YOUR OWN ASS on the line instead of telling him to fight that guy.
          Just in case you’re stupid enough not to know that.

          1. So what you’re saying is that the military should be the only ones making the decisions about whether or not they go to war or engage in operations and not civilians?

            You don’t seem that stupid. Maybe Cyto’s right.

            1. It makes it a whole lot more believable when you put YOUR OWN ASS on the line instead of telling him to fight that guy.

              “Believable”? What? Do you think I am just making the argument up for giggles? I don’t even

              Maybe Cyto’s right

              I usually am.

              1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:08AM|#
                “Believable”? What? Do you think I am just making the argument up for giggles? I don’t even

                No, asshole, I think your a coward who loves to get others to make your warboner hard.
                Fuck off.

                1. Nope. Not fucking off. You’re as impotent as you are stupid.

              2. Your fantasy, we’ll stay out of it.

                Grab a gun and head on over, brochacho, or STFU. Go all Wolverine on them, bitch.

            2. Tman|2.27.15 @ 12:06AM|#
              “So what you’re saying is that the military should be the only ones making the decisions about whether or not they go to war or engage in operations and not civilians?”

              Let’s try again: Cowardly warboner assholes with no skin in the game ought to STFU.
              Got it this time?

              1. Let’s try this again: make a real point or log off and spare us your usual sub-childlike attempts at ‘argument’.

                1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:14AM|#
                  “Let’s try this again: make a real point”
                  Cyto is a coward with a warboner who hopes everyone else will fight his battles.
                  Got it, asshole?

              2. Yes Sevo.

                Only Sevo decides who has cowardly war boners and therefore is allowed to have an opinion about regime change involving the US Military.

                Loud and clear.

                1. Tman|2.27.15 @ 12:14AM|#
                  “Yes Sevo.
                  Only Sevo decides who has cowardly war boners and therefore is allowed to have an opinion about regime change involving the US Military.”
                  Yes, Tman, only you and that asshole Cyto decide.
                  Loud and clear.

                  1. “I couldn’t comprehend his point so I’ll just repeat it ad verbatim. That’ll get ’em.”

                    1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:22AM|#
                      “I couldn’t comprehend his point so I’ll just repeat it ad verbatim. That’ll get ’em.”
                      Well, at last the asshole admits his stupidity.
                      Fuck off.

                    2. Oh God that’s hilarious.

                    3. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:30AM|#
                      “Oh God that’s hilarious:
                      Here’s your hat; what’s your hurry?

          2. So basically a military dictatorship is the only form of government that can appropriately address military situations. In your opinion.

            1. Actually I pegged it as an angry internet pacifist unwilling to erect any boner except his current e-peen condition, his biggest thrill in life.

    2. I don’t get the super-Iran-hatred thing. What exactly would replace the current regime? Why, given recent history, would you think the replacement would be better?

      1. “I don’t get the super-USSR-hatred thing. What exactly would replace the current regime? Why, given recent history, would you think the replacement would be better?”

        1. Way to completely ignore the pertinent question: why, given recent history, do you expect a less fundamentalist regime to take power? Or a civil war between nutjobs that drives out the liberal Iranians and spawns more terrorist cells?

          1. Recent history? Like the 2009 revolution that could have succeeded if America had just given weapons to it? The Iranian people-particularly their numerous youth-are increasingly unhappy with the regime. They are not like the regime. The people of Saudi Arabia are like their regime. Backwards. Different kettle of fish.

            1. You are really serious that if we could somehow shipped aircraft carrier loads of arms to the Iranian opposition that regime would have gone down?

              While I’d shed no tears if that regime bit the dust you are fucking delusional on a Tony level if think that had any chance of happening.

              Jeebus, you make Botard look logical.

              1. Yes, he really is that fucking stupid.

                No doubt he believes the US could have won in Vietnam, too.

              2. Thank you, this needed to be said. Its getting downright strange how many of our fellow commenters are just downright excited about war-making.

            2. Like the 2009 revolution that could have succeeded if America had just given weapons to it?

              Says the Canuckstani chickenhawk coward who doesn’t have to pay a penny…

            3. Like the 2009 revolution that could have succeeded if America had just given weapons to it?

              Truly delusional. It wasn’t that type of “revolution.”

        2. I don’t want to go totally off-topic here, but my argument is that totalitarian regimes, communist and theocratic, are inherently unstable. They will collapse under their own weight.

          If you contain them and minimize the threat they pose, that process will reach its natural resolution.

          If you attack them, be it militarily or with non-targeted sanctions, you just make Joe Blow (or is it Muhammed Al-Blow?) rally around the current regime.

          1. “If you attack them, be it militarily or with non-targeted sanctions, you just make Joe Blow (or is it Muhammed Al-Blow?) rally around the current regime.”
            Regardless of the push-back, you also get people killed.
            And I think those who propose actions against those who they think might present a danger ought to be the first in line to confront them.

            1. I guess my response was a simple “how to best effect regime change” to Cyto. I’m beginning to think that any response at all was a bad idea.

              1. In Cyto’s thinking if you don’t support the wholesale destruction of anyone and anything in the Middle East that he doesn’t like then you’re a “PeaceNazi”. He has no endgame other than sending Americans to die to satisfy his war boner.

          2. You don’t just attack them. You destroy them, humiliate them and round up in further troublemakers. See Japan (& to a lesser extent Germany) 1946-1952. This is the model. Completely bury the Islamist Totalitarianist, place them in the ash bin of history where they belong. Then, get out and let the people rebuild their own country from there. The one and only goal is to destroy the threat, not nation build.

            1. America did not just “get out” of Germany and Japan after WWII. And the Germans and Japanese are quite different from many of the peoples in and around the Middle East. The Iranians already had a relatively liberal government, and that was overthrown for a theocracy.

              1. You’re right, we didn’t just get out of Germany and Japan. We are still there today. Fighting malevolent authoritarianism the world over is no mean feat. How else can libertarians create world peace through global trade, if there isn’t also global stability?

            2. Well Wall, it made sense to me, in fact I expected just that when Iraq was ” freed” – but then, I kept hearing the shrieking left, along with the neocon cowards, wailing and whining that you just can’t tell a people what kind of government to have… over and over they repeated it – not sure how that jibes with spreading freedom and democracy all over the world, but yeah, the PC cowards announced they were caving and the Iraqi people would “have the government they wanted”, thus it wouldn’t “be a pupppet”…

              Yes our “leaders” are that stupid nowadays. Utterly incompetent. Cowardly, and thus, all have suffered greatly, with not much improved, and much more turned to a deeper hell.

              So, this government is no longer the government of our forefathers, it is the government of big flappy mouthed goobers.

          3. Or try this: What would you do if ANY country, for ANY reason, bombed, droned or invaded our country? Would you take that as a reminder that you need to be a better citizen and adhere more closely to democratic principles – or more precisely, to whatever principles those bombs were pushing?

            Well, would you?

            Me neither.

            And what would you do when they left? Remember the important lessons they taught you about how you are supposed to live, because they said so?

            Unlikely. So why do any of us believe for a moment that it will EVER go any differently when we do the invading – or destabilizing or whatever?

      2. Their history rivals Saddam and Kim Jong-il. I don’t argue with you that the alternative is unknown but the regime they have now is like top five worst right now.

        1. More importantly, they are a prime state sponsor of terrorism. The USG’s immoral appeasement and tolerance of these regimes is the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

          1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:12AM|#
            “More importantly, they are a prime state sponsor of terrorism.”

            OK, asshole. Sign up and go over there and give ’em a look at your warboner!

          2. “The USG’s immoral appeasement and tolerance of these regimes is the root cause of Islamic terrorism.

            Not even close. The root cause of Islamic terrorism is the fact that Islam has not gone through a reformation yet. Ultimately whether we get involved or not it will fail, the question is how many people will get killed before that happens.

            1. That’s not the root cause. We didn’t have Islamic terrorism before Iran and Saudi Arabia started promoting it.

              1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:24AM|#
                “That’s not the root cause. We didn’t have Islamic terrorism before Iran and Saudi Arabia started promoting it.”
                Cite missing, asshole.

                1. Please name the significant transnational Islamic terrorist organizations from before 1979. We’re not considering the Pakistani ones that terrorized India because they are Pakistani-Saudi creations, and that does not contradict my point.

              2. Sure we did. Ask Israel about it. They are well familiar with the issue.

                Iran, a Persian nation, is currently the de facto caliphate of the shiite nation, which is primarily Arab. ISIS is the sunni nutjob caliphate answer.

                The best break down I’ve read recently of the whole issue is here.

                From Muhammad to ISIS: Iraq’s Full Story

                1. That wasn’t Islamic terror. Israel’s initial enemies were secular Arab nationalists, be they the Nasserite states they fought or the alphabet soup terror groups they crushed. Hamas and the Islamist types came later after Iran and Saudi funded them into existence.

                  1. “the Nasserite states/the alphabet soup terror groups”

                    What did they all have in common besides being Arab and Persian?

                    Hair color?

                    1. Persian? What are you talking about? Before 1979 Iran was a friend of Israel and the west. What all those groups had in common was pan-Arab national-socialism. Their anti-semitism was a secular variety.

                  2. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:32AM|#
                    “That wasn’t Islamic terror.”
                    Doesn’t that make you dizzy?

              3. That’s not the root cause. We didn’t have Islamic terrorism before Iran and Saudi Arabia started promoting it.

                That’s largely because global terrorism is a fairly recent phenomenon as it’s only become something that can actually be tactically deployed with the post-WWII era. Prior to that, terrorism was by nature localized rather than global.

                1. No. Black September was a terrorist organization that attacked internationally as was the Abu Nidal Organization. All secular. There were secular international terrorists before Islamist ones.

                  1. So the Muslim Brotherhood was because of US involvement too?

                    You’re losing me here Cyto.

        2. I remember when the war bonerz were screaming that if DPRK gets the nuke, they will immediately, with any doubt whatsoever, use it – because dear leader is not just all powerful but CRAZY.

          Yes, they repeated that mantra on the news over and over and over, right until whack job dictator got the nuke, then they STFU and pretended they never said it, ever ever ever ever – and just decided it came to them out of the blue concerning Iran – who of course…will use it… the nuke … as soon as they get it…

    3. It’s refreshing that somebody who calls for war on Iran at least has something of a plan. It’s painfully rare in the “On to Tehran!” group.

      But I don’t share your optimism that covert ops will get the results you want, even if the current regime is overthrown.

      1. None of these wackos should do it till they have the new Iranian Constitution drawn up and the various articles of their new administrative laws also at the ready –

        Then we just need about 500 MEN, which we do not have anymore, to actually declare it will be implemented, then follow through and give the poor schmucks the democracy our leadertards keep promising to spread.

        Expect it as soon as Niburu returns and crowns Obama Christ the King.

    4. Have fun spending YOUR money and giving YOUR life for that. Now, stop stealing MINE.

  3. Forgive me for being skeptical, but I don’t think going to war has been a proven path to peace.

    The U.S. Has Only Been At Peace For 21 Years Total Since Its Birth

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com…..-1776.html

    1. Given that the world has only gotten less warlike over the past 100 years, we seem to be doing something right. Your article does put a hole in the notion that ‘war is the health of the state’ though.

      1. Cytotoxic|2.26.15 @ 11:55PM|#
        “Given that the world has only gotten less warlike over the past 100 years, we seem to be doing something right.”

        Fucking coward, let us know when you enlist.

        1. Fucking twat, let us know when you come up with a real argument.

          Another loser pwnd by Cytotoxic. In real time!

          1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:06AM|#
            “Another loser pwnd by Cytotoxic. In real time!”
            Fucking asshole fancies there was something in your posts.
            Fuck off, coward.

            1. Still here. Still kicking your ass.

              1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:25AM|#
                “Still here. Still kicking your ass.”
                Yep, you’re still here, getting your ass kicked!

                1. I’ve got to agree with Sevo here. Move your Canadian ass to the States and sign up to go kick some ISIS ass. Fuck you and your war boner.

                  1. Wait……did you just say he is Canadian? Holy shit we have the Red Michael Moore haha.

        2. Sevo,
          Do you always stay at attention when John makes an argument?
          He served.

            1. Some of us tire of the Canadian chickenhawk that’s so ready to send American servicemen the Middle East to satisfy his war boner.

              1. I’ve always wondered why he doesn’t just play call of duty like a normal war boner…

              2. Some of us are beyond tired of that slimy coward more than willing to let others die for his fantasies.
                Fuck that miserable little asshole.

                1. I’m way past tired of it but I was trying be “nicer” about it. 🙂

                2. Others of us are tired by the argument the war mongering slut must die in duty, and really could care less, literally, how many ragheads are laid to waste, as it never occurs to them, ten or a hundred fold, will.

              3. ^^^This, fuck this prick, if he wants some the recruiting office is open for bidness. Go for it “toxic”, go kick some jihadi ass.

          1. grrizzly|2.27.15 @ 12:37AM|#
            “Sevo,
            Do you always stay at attention when John makes an argument?
            He served.”

            grrizzly, WIH does that mean?

            1. You asserted that only people who served in the military could seriously discuss foreign affairs. Everyone else belongs in the pacifist camp.

              Have you served? Or is your position completely determined by your civilian status?

              1. grrizzly|2.27.15 @ 12:52AM|#
                “You asserted that only people who served in the military could seriously discuss foreign affairs.”

                I did nothing of the sort; you have it backwards.
                I suggested that those who think people should die for their fantasies should be the first in line to do so.
                And, yes, Vietnam.

                1. A hypothetical for Sevo:

                  Say a man of your generation didn’t serve because he was fortunate enough not to get drafted during Vietnam, and opposed that war while he was of serving age. Later in life, say Iraq I, he’s gotten old and fat and would be burden in a sphere of battle but believes the cause an appropriate use of force. Is he ipso facto wrong to advocate use of force in that situation based on his physical inability to fight? He’s never been in a situation where he’s advocated use of force while simultaneously being capable of contributing? S

                  1. Interesting question, and I had not thought of it specifically that way, so:
                    1) Old people who don’t fight and die start wars where young people do so; that’s pretty much a given.
                    2) Which means that the old people who do so are given a pass on the mortal costs of war.
                    3) Which then means that, given the possible bias (Caesar’s wife and all that), their advice to start a war is suspect and subject to very careful examination. VERY careful examination, both for principle and utility.
                    4) So, no, (the hypothetical) he is not ipso facto wrong, but he is very suspect.
                    5) And to get to specifics, Cyto has proven neither utility nor principle and isn’t even paying the damn taxes required to fight his war; fuck the slimy twit.

                  2. One other comment:

                    “Later in life, say Iraq I, he’s gotten old and fat and would be burden in a sphere of battle”

                    Cannon fodder comes in all ages and sizes; just ask those who tote the butcher’s bill.

                2. I suggested that those who think people should die for their fantasies should be the first in line to do so.

                  A million times this ^

                3. I’ve never been a police officer but I think we need them. Have you ever been a police officer, and if you haven’t but think we need someone to do the job, doesn’t that make you a “crimeboner” of the same order?

                  Rhetorical question, I expect an insult in response.

                  1. Yeah, you should get an insult; comparing what cops do to a war is pretty silly.
                    Happy?

              2. I’d like to take this one step further and assert that anyone who desires a giant hard war boner on Iran should first advocate Iran invade and attack the city they reside in, thus proving once and for all they are down with it.

      2. So the world has gotten less warlike over the last 100 years, but international terrorism was invented in 1979.

        Derp.

        1. He’s talking about how the growth of Islamist violence since 1979 has been created by Iran and Saudi Arabia. It’s a Shia versus Sunni authoritarian thing.

          Militant Islam has always been around though. Religious difference was a reason the Barbary pirates attacked U.S. shipping in the Mediterranean.

      3. “Given that the world has only gotten less warlike over the past 100 years, we seem to be doing something right.”

        what makes you thing that war is making things peace. I always thought freedom and trade was responsible.

  4. Oooh, people at something called CPAC are saying scary things. I am afwaid. Vewy afwaid.

    1. Yeah, I am a bit curious over the handwringing.
      Gas bags gas bagging.

    2. Don’t worry, laugh for now, but, they have in the past produced their 7 nation list and have impressed so far checking off on most – with war.

  5. “If you lose the U.S.-Canadian grid for a long period of time, we’re all going to die. Period.”

    Wow! These people have clearly lost touch with reality. How can you take that kind of panic serious? I couldn’t stop laughing when I read it. Does he really believe loosing the electrical grid for a prolonged period of time will turn North America into “The Walking Dead”?

    1. fatal conceit all the way down

      1. How you doin’?

        1. It’s been an interesting few weeks, some changes coming at work. Some looming uncertainty and risk but there’s an opportunity there to grab too.

          1. Gotta strike while the iron is hot.

    2. Well, not “all” of us, but yes, if the grid went down for a long period it would be a catastrophe with a large death toll.

      1. Is culling the herd a bad thing….. ?

        1. Well, not if you’re a callous, bloodthirsty piece of shit.

          1. Thus I recommend more sanction on Russia and Iran, Cuba, and any others whose indigenous population shows a disturbing amount of young vibrant war age males !

            Kill em with the power of the pen !
            Perhaps a few more Oil for Food decades !
            Then a big kaboomer when tens of millions are dead from starvation – then we can go over evil polpot mao and stalin killing fields, perhaps we can win that once and for all !

            Onto SANCTIONS ! The pretty silent death !

      2. It would be extremely disruptive, especially economically. And, I’m sure there would be some loss of life. Mainly from lack of power to run medical equipment. But, let’s keep things in perspective here. The 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was a catastrophe. Loosing the power grid would be a minor inconvenience in the grander scheme of things.

        1. In a severe winter, if the grid was out for a month the death toll would easily be in the hundreds of thousands, and that’s if FEMA was working efficiently.

        2. Wait a minute – I see a sort of Social Security and Obamacare “balancing” act in the making —

          All the elderly – very high death risk – the very ill – gone in weeks – the baby boomer cabal wiped out – a new Darwinian strength remains …

          Good plan for a false flag save the USA.

          Anyone all in ?

    3. Why, once upon a time we did just fine without any electric grid at all. We would get along just fine without one.
      [/sarc]

      While the likelihood of, as you call it, “loosing” the grid for a prolonged period of time is vanishingly small, the consequences of not having it would be serious, no?

      1. Well, the consequences would definitely be pretty bad. But, there is serious, and there is WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE serious.

    4. If it’s the result of EMP or a mega solar storm, it won’t just be the grid. It will be everything with a computer chip to include all forms of transportation. No food to the cities. No potable water. Half the population would be dead in a month or two.

      1. I suspect that’s what he was talking about. And a massive storm is not only likely, it’s a certainty, given enough time. The last one was in the late 1800s.

      2. I don’t believe a single EMP blast could take out the entire North American continent what with the curvature of the earth and all. But, even if it can, I would hope that the rest of the world would pitch in so half our population doesn’t die. I don’t think a terrorist is going to be able to trigger a solar storm. So, I think we are safe there. But, that’s kind of my point. Yes, be very afraid of a mega solar storm. Terrorist taking out the power grid. Sure, be worried and take measures to prevent it. But, don’t be a chicken little. Because, the sky isn’t falling when it comes to terrorism.

        1. It would require 3 blasts at altitude to take out the entire US.

          I agree, I’m not worried about terrorists being able to do that any time soon.

          The mega flare scenario, however, needs to be addressed. It’ll be UGLY if it happens before we do.

          1. How many megatons a blast? Can the Russians pull that off?

            1. The Russians could easily pull it off. The worry is more that someone like Iran could put a nuke on a SCUD on a freighter and launch it off the East coast and take out the power grid for a third of the country. It would destroy large pieces of equipment that we don’t have spares of and which take months to manufacture.

              1. Glad I live in Texas. We have our own grid.

            2. I recently read a long, tedious article about this. I believe the answers are:

              Way less than are currently fielded

              and

              Yes

              1. Did that article address whether Putin is willing to risk retaliation?

                1. Good question. Most of the Russian population lives in the European region of Russia.
                  You wouldn’t need to EMP all of Russia to achieve a real nasty effect.

                2. To Sevo:

                  No, it was just a technical article.

                  I was only responding to the technical aspect, not the political.

      3. A lot of it depends on how an evacuation would be handled, what time of year it was, whether it was a severe winter…

        It’s not at all clear, either, that the grid going down would end food deliveries to cities. It would slow them down, to be sure, but with a Democrat in office things might not be catastrophic.

  6. I’d just like to add that the notion that things in Iraq would be better if only America had stayed in there longer is totally laughable and divorced from reality. Anyone parroting that crap should have their mic cut off. Iraq’s collapse was the fault of the Iraqi government. Corrupt and weak army. US troops there would not have improved anything. They would have just gotten killed as their Iraqi ‘partners’ abandon or even sell them out.

    1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:11AM|#
      “I’d just like to add”
      Fuck off, coward.

    2. So your position is that the current mess in Iraq was worth ~4500 American KIA, tens of thousands WIA, and trillions of dollars?

    3. I’d just like to add that the notion that things in Iraq would be better if only America had stayed in there longer is totally laughable and divorced from reality.

      Which means that this will be parroted by nearly every candidate for the GOP 2016 nomination as long as it can be pinned on Obama.

    4. Not necessarily true. It’s debatable whether or not ISIS expands into Iraq like it has, if we are still there.

      And we might have been able to control the worse Shia versus Sunni violence coming from Shia dominated government. We’ll never know though.

    1. Psst… hey, buddy… I got some balls for sale. Need some testes? They’ve been shaved and sanded, good quality.

      1. It’s an urban legend come to life!

  7. Here come all the “libertarians” who believe in the initiation of force.

    1. Here comes a guy who doesn’t understand what ‘initiation of force’ is and who seriously believes giving Iran the nuke would make the Middle East peaceful. John’s air force partner in batshit insanity.

      1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:20AM|#
        “Here comes a guy who doesn’t understand what ‘initiation of force’ is”{
        Posted by a slimy coward who hopes everyone else fights his battles.

        1. No loser like a sore loser.

          1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:26AM|#
            “No loser like a sore loser.”
            Tired of getting your ass kicked?

      2. Yep, nothing worse than a country that Cytotoxic and the Republicans can’t preemptively attack. I can see how such a scenario would put a crimp in your bloodlust.

        1. “Wah! Stop whaling on me and my retarded illogic! It hurts my brain!” /FdA

          I’ve wrecked you before. I can do it again. I would prefer to go to bed in 5 minutes however.

          1. You couldn’t wreck a matchbox car. You are an ignorant, immoral fool.

          2. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:36AM|#
            “I’ve wrecked you before.”
            It’s amusing when some asshole claims ‘victory’ for no reason at all.
            Does it make you feel like a hero?

            1. Sorta like like that americansocialist tool or Tony poo.

    2. It’s not a simple issue, and a lot of it depends on what you mean by “initiate.” Iran has sponsored terror attacks on Americans. ISIS has murdered Americans and has threatened to attack the US (even before our airstrikes, I believe).

      I’m still not sure how the US should respond to threats and terror attacks. Currently I’m leaning toward a unilateral cease-fire in the War on Terror, and just let the Muslim world burn on its own. But every time there is a terror attack on Americans, we send out the bombers and blow up a lot of shit. And then we stop. Repeat as necessary.

      1. A tyranny like Iran’s has no rights and destroying it is never initiation of force. FdA talks of what he doesn’t understand but what’s new.

        1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:33AM|#
          “A tyranny like Iran’s has no rights and destroying it is never initiation of force.”

          You stupid shit; you think you can mae up new definitions and the rest of us will nod?
          Fuck off, asshole.

          1. You never knew or understood the original definition, or much else.

            1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:37AM|#
              “You never knew or understood the original definition, or much else.”
              Enough to call you on your stupidity; quite enough.

        2. A tyranny like Iran’s has no rights and destroying it is never initiation of force.

          The people of Iran have no rights? The innocent people that get killed in a preemptive strike mean nothing because there government is tyrannical?

          We need to kill them in order to save them?

          You are a fucking monster.

          1. Cyto and others need to not collectivize an entire nation that way.

            If specific operations were done: let’s say some woman is scheduled to be hanged and mercenaries staged a rescue operation and in the process killed some of her death row guards or leaders who put here there, then it would not be initiation of force if it were limited in that fashion.

            As you say, going to war inevitably involves collateral damage. Wrecking someone’s town just because a couple bad guys were suspected of being there (drone missiles destroying buildings occupied by others; soldiers raiding homes) not only is an initiation of force, but it will engender resentment among the people for whatever leader is installed by foreigners next.

            In Ukraine, people that had stayed out of the fighting turned against Poroshenko when their entire town was indiscriminately shelled (in the hopes of hitting rebels suspected of hiding out), killing many, many civilians. There’s video of perfectly peaceful day, dashcam footage of people driving along when suddenly rockets and shelling rain down upon them. It’s a good way to turn people against pro-west forces.

      2. Unless we toss people over there, there really is no danger to any US citizens.
        So any claims that “we” are in danger require near cyto-stupidity to invoke.
        Yep, those are really nasty folks and those who are in danger really ought to do something about it.
        And I would hope that it would get the Euros to act as if they had a stake in their own defense rather than rely on the US taxpayer to do it for them.

        1. Unless we toss people over there, there really is no danger to any US citizens.

          I’ll take ‘what are embassies?’ for $500 Alex.

          1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:35AM|#
            “I’ll take ‘what are embassies?’ for $500 Alex.”
            You’ll take stupidity for nothing, you stupid shit.
            Yeah, let’s put a legation in Libya; that’s not putting people in harm’s way.
            What a fucking ignoramus.

      3. Of course, it’s not just the Muslim would that would burn.

        You’d basically be condemning every non-Muslim in the Middle East to death. And much of Africa.

        Not that we are doing much to slow that down, but it’s not just letting them kill each other.

        1. I am willing to help non-Muslim victims of Islam, either through material/intel support or taking them as refugees. No Muslim refugees, though. Sorry.

      4. I’m still not sure how the US should respond to threats and terror attacks.

        You treat them like the crimes they are. You find the perpetrators, you apprehend them, you try them and you punish them. If you cannot apprehend them, you try them in absentia and if convicted, you kill them.

        The thing you DON’T do is hold entire populations accountable for the actions of segments of the population. NOTHING creates terrorists like killing innocent people.

        1. NOTHING creates terrorists like killing innocent people.

          I keep hearing this, but I don’t think it’s true. Where are all the German and Japanese terrorists created by our destruction of entire cities in WWII? Who were all the innocent people killed that caused the PLO to be formed in 1964? And what about all the innocent people killed by terrorists? Shouldn’t we see terrorists spawned by those deaths? Shouldn’t 9/11 have created a bunch of American terrorists?

          I am not advocating “holding entire populations accountable.” But war involves some collateral damage, and by my understanding of the Geneva Conventions, when irregulars (or terrorists etc.) hide among civilians, any deaths and injuries to those civilians are the fault of the people hiding among them, not the attacking force.

          1. Shouldn’t 9/11 have created a bunch of American terrorists?

            According to Welch’s article, it did and they’re all speaking at the CPAC gathering.

            1. I second that, if the US military stood down post 911 you can be CERTAIN a gigantic contingent of gung ho blood drooling monsters – err I meant USA freedom fighters – would have descended upon the caves of Afhganistan – Kabul, the Peshmere – whoever they could find.

              Instead, they signed up – called in for re-up, or did some support in one of hundreds of ways.

  8. Popcorn Time With Cytotoxic: If there’s one thing I am even more superior at compared to many Reasoners than foreign policy, it’s taste in movies. With that said, Red was a disappointment. ‘Ironic detachment’ the spy movie. No tension. Zombieland was great and better than Shaun of the Dead which I also liked and is better on second viewing.

    1. Citizenfour FTW

    2. Why would Red not be a disappointment?

      And as a non-Trekkie, I consider this Zombieland heresy to be more offensive than the NuTrek heresy. Zombieland is a try-hard snooze fest. Shaun of the Dead is a near-perfect blend of comedy, horror, and character drama.

      It’s time to bomb Canada. Apologies to Rufus, but it will be worth it.

      1. Zombieland is a try-hard snooze fest.

        I’m sorry you have no sense of fun or humor except in the presence of British accents. I’m also sorry you haven’t accept The One True Abrams into your life.

        1. Cytotoxic tends to treat his movie taste and his politics in the same manner: like an unfalsifiable religion.

          And it’s humour, wannabe.

    3. Due to girlfriend influence, I’ve seen a number of documentaries recently, all of them good: Milius, Tim’s Vermeer, and 20 Feet From Stardom. And I highly recommend The Grand Budapest Hotel.

      1. And I highly recommend The Grand Budapest Hotel.

        I keep hearing this. I thought it meh.

        Maybe I need to give it a second viewing.

        1. Don’t bother. Watching once is enough.

          1. I’m glad I’m not the only one then. I had trouble finishing it. I know sometimes you catch a movie in the wrong state of mind, but I can usually tell when that’s the issue. I didn’t think I’d really rave about it in the right state of mind either.

            1. I’m into design/art direction and history, so it very much appealed to me. It had drama and romance and the Wes Anderson humor really gelled and fit with the rest of the film. I wouldn’t say it was a great movie on the Citizen Kane level, but it all came together and worked in a way movies rarely do. A small- to medium-sized gem.

    4. People who are actually “superior” don’t ever say they are “superior”.

  9. Another thread gloriously dom’d by Cytotoxic. So much so that it’s breaking my software and I cannot see the text I am typing here. It’s all white except for the cursor and my typos. I appreciate everyone who came with good-faith non-retarded arguments. FdA and Sevo OTOH can share the dunce cap. Well at least the preview works.

    1. Cytotoxic|2.27.15 @ 12:44AM|#
      “Another thread gloriously dom’d by Cytotoxic”
      If you eat all your own shit, you’ll come to believe you don’t shit.
      Congratulations, you stupid prick.

    2. Okay!

    3. OMG U REELLY SHOWED US U SHULD PROLLY JUST LEEVE US ALOWN TO CRIEZ FEELZ BAD

  10. The people who were offended by Walker’s comments aren’t going to be donating to his campaign and few of them will be voting in the Republican primary–and at this point, when he’s competing for Republican donors and Republican primary voters, why should he care about what offends the unions that already hate him anyway?

    P.S. Fuck the FCC!

    1. He doesn’t care what the public union leech class thinks and looks to put them in their place…fine by me, if he or Paul gets the nod I may even cast a vote for an R, something I’ve never done.

  11. Avijit Roy was hacked to death with cleavers in Bangladesh

    http://www.theguardian.com/wor…..bangladesh

    Guess they were upset over American Imperialism. Blowback, right? Oh wait, he was an Islamic critic

    1. And I love this part

      “The secular government of Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina reacted by arresting some atheist bloggers.”

      Hide your head in your sand if you want, but that sort of thing is coming to the West…

      1. JeremyR|2.27.15 @ 1:29AM|#
        “Hide your head in your sand if you want, but that sort of thing is coming to the West…”
        Cite missing.

      2. Which part, the jailing bloggers part or the machete mobs? We have amendments that have largely secured against both.

        But I guess we’ll keep an eye on Dearborn and see, huh?

        1. Well said, I’m guessing most Muslims in Dearborn like their freedom and lives and don’t pose a threat to me.

          Those that don’t agree will get their day in court.

        2. What’s the amendment against machete mobs?

          1. 2nd – don’t bring a machete to a gun fight?

          2. Yep, 2nd. Hard to go hacking people in the street, and if it were to become a thing, more people would go out armed.

            Not that it couldn’t be pulled off against a single target in an American city. But we already have plenty of urban violence.

  12. Have you ever dealt with unions when they’re on strike? They are terrorists.

  13. Scott Walker pwning union thugs gives me a raging war boner. It feels so satisfying, I just want to throw him a twenty afterward. I do believe that the point of his comment, yes?

  14. I get paid over $87 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing,,,,,,
    http://www.wixjob.com

  15. I’m a bit surprised by all the interventionists in the comments section here. Are all these commenters really otherwise Reasonesque, or does a contingent of interventionists just hang out here to argue on one of the relatively few non-intervention leaning sites? I don’t have a problem with that, if so. As a non-interventionist I have been known to inhabit the comment section of interventionist sites. I’m just curious what the dynamic at play is here.

  16. Completely agree and democrats are offering up their own war hawk Hilary who has backed every war and even started some on her own.

  17. It is observable in the short and long term and therefore undeniable that the more we engage militarily in the Middle East the worse it gets, for everyone including us. Until that reality changes most people advocating for “more” – especially those who do so virtually regardless of the “details” – are trying to sell us something.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.