Iran

U.S. Air Strike Kills Iranian Military Leader Qassim Suleimani

Killing the longtime chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can't be good for avoiding another Middle Eastern war.

|

In a developing story—one that could develop in very hazardous directions indeed—an American air strike on a Baghdad airport has reportedly killed Qassim Suleimani, the leader of Iran's Revolutionary Guard.

In a statement, the Pentagon claims that "the U.S. military has taken decisive defensive action to protect U.S. personal abroad" by killing Suleimani, who they say "was actively developing plans to attack American diplomats and service members in Iraq….The strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans." The air strike followed an Iranian-backed militia's involvement in an attack on America's embassy in Iraq, which in turn followed earlier U.S. air strikes.

Suleimani has been responsible for decades of overseas crimes, and he is one of the most powerful figures in Iran. While this is not yet technically a shooting war with Iran, it seems more than likely that the Iranian regime will see the assassination as an act of war inspiring retaliation.

Trump's record of, while not ending any of our ongoing Middle Eastern military adventures, at least not starting any fresh ones, might be over as of tonight. Secretary of State Michael Pompeo was already on record wanting to force Iran to change its overseas policies, and Suleimani was a prime mover in that area. Pompeo has gotten his way.

This potentially war-launching act was done without explicit congressional authorization (although the Quds forces Suleimani commanded have been under U.S. sanctions and his Revolutionary Guard had been declared a foreign terror group by the Trump administration), and it is as fraught a political act as one could imagine: triggering a new war with unknown costs in lives, materiel, and the civilizational order.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Ct.) tweeted his concern, asking: "did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?" Indeed it did.

Advertisement

NEXT: Leftist YouTuber ContraPoints Explains Why Cancel Culture Mobs Should Drop the Pitchforks

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.

  1. “Killing the longtime chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard can’t be good for avoiding another Middle Eastern war.”

    Concern troll elsewhere cunto.

    1. Collateral damage. We were after the airfield.

      1. I saw an article where they said Katyusha rockets hit the plane carrying the Iranian general.

        Katyusha rockets are Russian.

        1. Katyusha rockets were launched at the airport by Kataib Hezbollah prior to the US striking back against Suleimani

          1. Yeah thanks. It was an early part of the developing story.

            I am sure reason will cover how Iranian backed militiamen have Russian equipment and got it into Iraq.

    2. Yep. Start some shit with us for and the Iraqis? That’s what happens man, that’s what that happens.

    3. Why are you quoting Rep Murphy? The target was not in Iran and was planning an attack. Labeling the air strike an “assassination” is a stretch.

      1. “Decapitation” is a better descriptor.

      2. “Why are you quoting Rep Murphy?”

        Why am I quoting from the article we are all commenting on?

        You have to ask?

        1. Quoting the article? That’s Godwinning!

          1. I legit have no idea WTF he is on about, you?

        2. “You have to ask?”

          I have to ask… Is Mary-Tulpa-Satan done having hissy fits yet? Is Mary-Tulpa-Satan ready for warm baba yet?

          1. Are you final,y ready to admit suicide is your best option?

            1. Hey Shitsy,
              I see you’re pimping for the Evil One yet AGAIN! So… HOW MANY people, so far, have you persuaded to commit suicide? Have ANY of these suicides brought you ANY long-lasting happiness, yet? If not, then WHY don’t you give UP your evil ways?
              I really don’t care one way or the other, if you or anyone else believes that the Evil One is “real”, or metaphorical. “Machs nix” to me. What I WOULD like for you, and others, to understand, is that by obeying the “spirit of the Evil One” (whether “real”, or not), you make the Evil One real… Just like obeying (or praying to) the Spirit of Peace and Love, makes it real! Whether it is “real”, or not! Because it is VERY difficult (actually impossible) for me to go off and stab my neighbor in the back, needlessly, immediately after having SINCERELY prayed for peace!
              On the flip side… By lusting for others (who think “wrong” thoughts, in Your Exalted View) to commit suicide, your spread hatred, destruction, and self-destruction. You’re PROUD of that?
              Next time you’re “channeling” the Evil One in Your Self-Esteemed Mind, and dreaming up new-and-improved ways to encourage people to kill themselves, I would like for you to ask the Evil One the same simple question that I just asked you: Have ANY of the suicides that you have solicited and enabled, brought you ANY long-lasting happiness? We already KNOW that the answer is NO! An excellent working definition of evil is “the unquenchable thirst”! So why not give UP on your FAR-worse-than-useless, EVIL quests?

              Evil Shitsy! Is THAT how you want to be remembered, after the worms start crawling through your rotting flesh? Or your cremated ashes are thrown in the dump?

              1. Shit in mouth has gone full retard now arguing trump is evil. How cute.

                1. Moron can’t read! Reading comprehension test VASTLY failed! Advocating that your fellow humans commit suicide is evil! Trump stoops pretty low, yes, but I have not heard of him stooping THAT low!

                  Learn to READ, moron! Maybe if you learned this basic skill, your comments wouldn’t be so stupid, and full of lies…

                  1. Your first sentence shit for mouth.

                    1. “I see you’re pimping for the Evil One yet AGAIN! ”

                      Sqrsly is too dumb to know what he wrote.

                    2. Evil One = Trump? I hadn’t thought of that… It just MIGHT be true…

                      A bit of projection on your part? Or are you just ENTIRELY TOO LAZY to read more than a few words of something, before offering YOUR so-self-important take on things? Or both?

                      JesseAZ knows he is evil, JesseAZ worships Trump, JesseAZ concludes Trump is the Evil One! This perhaps is starting to make sense…

                    3. Sure you didnt. You have the same intellectual depth as rose McGowan.

                      You’ve been calling him the evil one for days. Love how you’ll retreat so often because you’re wrong more often than Tony.

                  2. At least you admit you dont even read your own shit filled ramblings.

                    1. “The sky is blue”.

                      JesseAZ can’t read and comprehend it!

                      Must be MY fault for NOT having written clearly!

              2. I’m not evil, I’m good. You’re evil, so it will e good when you die. This is why killing yourself is a good thing.

                1. Keep right on worshipping the Evil One, Shitsy, and you will learn the hard way!

                  What comes around, goes around!

          2. “I have to ask…”

            I have to ask … why the fuck are you still breathing?

    4. I’m willing to hear arguments why his killing “can’t be good,” but I’m not going to accept it as some sort of self evident premise.

    5. The fucking funniest part of this is the Russians using the exact same denouncement and language as Democrats condemning the killing of this asshole.

      Truly proving once again trump is a russian asset.

    1. Qasem blowed away!

      1. SCTV reference. You can’t fool me.

  2. “Trump’s record of, while not ending any of our ongoing Middle Eastern military adventures, at least not starting any fresh ones, might be over as of tonight”

    Don’t be fucking stupid jackass, this has been slow burning for decades. You might as well blame Carter, or fuck, go back and dump it on Britain.

    JFC how do you get people to pay you to write this shit.

    1. Oh, well it’s been burning for decades. That’s a good excuse. “That powder keg’s been sitting next to the fire for weeks; I just pushed it in.” Anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously a jackass.

      1. Oh I said it was a good excuse?

        Oh wait I totally didn’t. I said it wasn’t accurate.

        You lose.

      2. So we’re going to ignore Iranian militias launching numerous attacks against American bases over the last few weeks, Iraqi government failing to do anything to stop them, finally an American being killed, then the US embassy being stormed.

        This was a bold, powerful, and appropriate response

        1. I know, amazing right? This asshole masterminded the deaths of hundreds of Americans. Hell, they gloated about it for years, secure that POTUS Obama would do nothing. The rules have changed.

          Memo to Iran: Guess who is next on the ‘hit’ parade. 🙂

        2. I blame all the “Trump’s Benghazi” rhetoric coming from the left side of American politics.

          They really should have known their inflammatory words would have consequences.

    2. You’re absolutely right Buttplug. There was some new cunt troll the other night blaming all the shit with Iran on what happened in 1953. I doubt the cunt knew it was Mohammad Mosaddegh who was removed, but things have been sideways with Iran since the inbred mullahs deposed Reza Shah. Goes to show how fucking weak Obama was for the leader of the revolutionary guards to be chillin in Baghdad after planning and starting the raid on the embassy. I can delightfully imagine the shock those dumb ass fucks in Tehran had when they got the call that the 2020 embassy redux didn’t go as planned. The mullahs in Iran are just as fucking stupid as the progressive Democrat mullahs in America, jumping on the Trump rake every chance they get only to get their stupid sloped foreheads smashed in again.

      1. How about we set aside two groups for the purposes of paying for these military actions in the ME? One for guys like you and another for guys who don’t want to pay one fucking dime for such a thing?

        1. You got banned for posting kiddie porn.

        2. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.2.2020 at 11:29 pm
          “How about we set aside two groups for the purposes of paying for these military actions in the ME? ”
          How about we set aside the whiny bullshit of some adolescent who can’t even pay his mortgage, you pathetic piece of shit?

        3. “ One for guys like you and another for guys who don’t want to pay one fucking dime for such a thing?”

          Like the 1.79 billion Obama gave Iran? Is that how much money not paying a dime for not taking action cost? I know, I know, I’ll save you your canned npc response and do it for you, “ iT wAS TheIR MuNnEY To BEGin wITh!!!!”. Never mind that it was the Shah’s money or that Obama is a stupid feckless cunt, just remember the idiot’s in Tehran asked for this shit.

          1. You beat me to it.

            Persia been f’d up since the last Achmeneid

    3. The counter tribalism a strong here.

    4. Targeted assasination/decapitation of an aggressor beats the shit out of taking out a bunch of civillians/conscripts/civillian-infrastructure. That said, that the Quds General felt confident enough to set foot on territory where we could so easily do that is a strong indication that we should maybe get the fuck out of there.

      1. I think its more of a sign of how weak Obama was on this shit, that they were confident nothing would happen.

    5. Reason authors are pining for the days when the most we could do is re-flag oil tankers to get them through the Gulf.

      But that also points out how much things have changed since Chocolate Jesus left the stage. Thanks to fracking we no longer need to keep the Straits of Hormuz open, we only need the ability to close them.

  3. “did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?”

    The only time a Democrat’s tears are genuine is when a powerful sociopath meets their end.

    1. Like when that ‘austere cleric’ Al ‘Big Daddy’ got sacked.

    2. I feel so sorry for Brian Doherty. This seems to have hit him really hard.

    3. Rose McGowan and John Cusack are very upset by all this.

      1. Huge patriots both of them. I can just imagine their USO act.

  4. Have I mentioned that Hillary Clinton was literally the most qualified Presidential candidate ever? And that her lengthy record of foreign policy success was certainly on my mind when I voted for her in 2016?

    #StillWithHer

    1. +1

  5. An attack on a US Embassy (which is considered US soil) is an act of war. Killing 608 American soldiers during the Iraqi war (was announced in April of 2019 that Iran was responsible for 608 Americans KIA during the Iraqi War) is also an act of war. But Doherty claims this was an unprovoked act of war? We were already at war with Iran it appears, only we weren’t shooting back until now.

    1. What we’re all those drone strikes for soldier?

      1. To kill pedophiles like you? I dunno was a guess.

      2. It wasn’t an American soldier, it was a contractor (i.e. a civilian) and that makes my point about we are finally shooting back. The Iranians launched military actions against soldiers for over a decade with no reprisal until Trump but somehow Trump is starting an unprovoked war? Even for you that is a pretty big level of stupid.

    2. The selective amnesia of Reason employees is stunning. Always they lead with the Blame America First slant to their writing. Sad to see.

  6. Oh well… the GOP didn’t start a war for a whole 3 years. That’s like a record.

    1. Perhaps one was stopped today.

      1. Yeah? By assassinating a military leader of a country that doesn’t pose any threat to us? How does that work?

        1. Cut off the head of the snake.

          1. Like Saddam Hussein, right?

            1. You got banned for posting kiddie porn.

            2. OK, wise guy, post a link to anyone killed by Sadam after he was executed.

        2. Is assasination more or less libertarian than removing an enemy by invasion?

        3. Hes the leader of a designated terrorist group dumbass.

      2. Don’t look at me!
        January.2.2020 at 11:25 pm
        Perhaps one was stopped today.

        Very likely.
        It’s clear that they were planning offensive action prior to the strike on Suleimani and the leader of Kataib Hezbollah, which is why they were killed together near the Baghdad airport (which had just been attacked via rocket by Kataib Hezbollah). This, just days after storming the US embassy and another rocket attack that led to the death of a US citizen. There are reports that Suleimani was in the midst of planning more attacks against the US and assassinations of US diplomats.
        The Iranian regime is desperate. They’ve been attacking US personnel and facilities as a means to distract from internal unrest among their own population and the Iraqi people. Hundreds of Iraqi civilians were just killed by Iranian directed Shia militia while protesting Iranian influence in Iraq. Hundreds of Iranian citizens were just killed by Iranian security forces while protesting the regime there. The Iranian regime has decided to lash out in the hopes of making us “evil Americans” the bad guy again. It’s the only move they know.

        All they can really do against the US is either: a) exactly what they’ve been doing the last few weeks, or b) activate some terrorist cell to attack here.
        Don’t know what their capabilities of pulling the latter off are, but even if they could… Khomenei would have to worry about the next missile having his name on it.
        They could attack Israel, or send Hezbollah after Israel, but they’re stretched pretty damn thin in Syria to do much beyond shooting off rockets- and then they’d have worry about Israel’s capacity for a substantial response.
        The Iranian regime is going to have to reassess their plan. There are now going to be consequences to pursuing their imperial ambitions, both from the US/abroad and their own population.
        The regime is facing revolt both in Iran and in Iraq. One of the main complaints is the regime investing too much in foreign “adventurism”. And the US killed the guy spending all their money on foreign attacks while planning more foreign attacks, so I wouldn’t assume the Iranian people are going to be all that outraged.
        The regime might be down to pursue nuclear weapons at all costs and reconstitute the Persian Empire, but it doesn’t look like the people are. Preventing them from obtaining these two objectives are the only ways their sovereignty is being threatened.
        The regime’s only hope of staying in power is to give up the nuclear weapons program and pull back from their investments in foreign conflicts. So there’s something to lose.
        The Iranian people have plenty to lose, and don’t seem to see anything to gain from the regime’s ambitions.

        1. Excellent post, Nardz.

          An interesting fact is that an high-ranking official from Lebanon Hezbollah was also killed in the strikes. That Lebanon was present suggests the meeting was to coordinate regional action, not just Iraqi strife.

          Iran will retaliate, but how? They’ve tried half-assedly mining tankers in the Straits. That didn’t work, beyond briefly spiking oil prices a few percent.

          They could try to close the Straits to traffic, which would doom their Navy. Interestingly, AIUI, a decent chunk of that navy is conducting exercises near Oman with the Chinese Navy (PLAN). I think the US has enough persistent ISR and anti mining assets, such that the Iranians can’t meaningfully close the Straits. Though they could give Lloyd’s a hard time, and bring joy to frackers here. (which my phone auto corrected to ‘crackers’, LOL.)

          They tried attacking O&G production facilities in KSA, and did some damage, but no lasting effect on either oil markets or the Kingdom itself. They can try to kill US personnel in SW Asia, and will probably succeed a few times, but it won’t meaningfully impede US influence, Trump’s reelection chances, or the likelihood the sanctions go away.

          So what will they do? Demonstrate a nuke? Try to assassinate Trump in turn?

          1. I think the Baghdad embassy attack was an attempt to saddle Trump with another 444 days situation in an election year. Failing that, provide a propaganda black eye when the embassy guards channel their inner Samuel L. Jackson, and turn beltfeds on the crowds. Neither happened, and frankly, the US has shown a great deal of restraint over the whole Iran-Iraq-Gulf crises for the last two years or so.

            The sanctions must really be hurting the Iranian regime.

            1. The sanctions are killing them. They just dealt with demonstrations against Tehran all across Iran by killing anywhere from a couple hundred to 1500+ of their own people. Then there were demonstrations against Tehran in Iraq dealt with similarly. Indeed, there’s video of at least some Iraqis celebrating the death of Suleimani.

              That’s interesting about the Lebanese Hezbollah presence. Hadn’t heard that, though I know Lebanon Hezbollah was involved with training and supplying Kataib Hezbollah.

              And contrast the Iranian navy absence with US troop and battle group movements. That they’d pull these moves while their navy was away doing exercises shows that they really didn’t expect a strong US response.
              Oops

              1. I’m not sure the Iranians expected anything to happen, outside of the immediate vicinity of the embassy. Trump hadn’t responded overtly to their previous provocations, beyond tweeting and sending a [I]Burke[/I] here and there in the Gulf.

                I also think they had a titanic amount of faith in the inviolability of their comms or their intelligence concerning US local operations. No way Soleimani steps foot in Iraq if he thinks the US knows one iota about it.

                Per Sky News, but yet unconfirmed, Naim Qassem, the deputy chief of Lebanon Hezbollah, was the Lebanese Hez guy killed. If so, wow. Kicking over the hornets’ nest.

                1. I just don’t think they thought we’d touch Suleimani, after the precedent set by Obama and restraint shown by Trump to that point.
                  It was an incredibly ballsy move

                  1. Always show your enemies that NOTHING is beyond your reach.

        2. “And the US killed the guy spending all their money on foreign attacks while planning more foreign attacks, …”

          While in a foreign country. I bet a lot of Iraqis approve. Iranians too.

          Hitting him *while in Iraq* was a smart move.

    2. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
      January.2.2020 at 11:20 pm
      “Oh well… ”

      Oh, well, this pathetic piece if shit hasn’t paid his mortgage for at least ten years.

      1. People who pay no mortgages can’t have ANY valid facts or thoughts at ALL? WHO KNEW?

        Now how about people who get rich by going bankrupt and stiffing their creditors MULTIPLE times? How about Donald Trump?

        1. Weren’t you just talking ethics 2 days ago? Opening a contract with agreed to payment plan and then not paying it is ethical to you shit in mouth?

          1. WHY do you say that the Zorstmastrian Extra-Galactic space alien Strawmen are hijacking ALL of our brain waves?!?! WHAT is your evidence? I can see that it is HIGHLY likely true of YOUR brain waves, but on what basis do you generalize that to the rest of us?

            1. You’re broken.

              1. I want him to stop functioning altogether.

                1. Make me, Satan-worshipping punk!

  7. So exactly who is the POTUS not allowed to kill?

    1. Apparently you’re not allowed to kill people who actually pose a threat to us.

      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

      … but some general of a sovereign country that doesn’t pose a threat to us is ok.

      1. But a US citizen is totes cool if you are the light bringer.

      2. “General”
        Weird title for a militia leader.

        1. I know. Noriega and Quadaffi ran entire countries, and they were just colonels!

          1. Hitler was just a private!

            Trump was just a civilian!

            I don’t know where FancyPants was going with this… Since Trump was just a low-ranking civilian, other nations (or at least, those nations who have leaders of higher former FORMAL military rank) are entitled to sneer and fire at will?

            1. Hitler was a corporal. And you’re a subversive traitor. Kill yourself.

          2. The “General” didn’t run Iran. Try harder guys.

        2. Suleimani was a legit badass (not a moral endorsement).
          Hed been in some level of command for almost 40 years, and his machinations abroad were nothing if not effective.
          He reportedly convinced Putin to intervene in Syria (though I’m skeptical; I think Putin had more or less made up his mind to do so and wanted to be assured of Iranian commitment – Suleimani’s battle plan assured him of it, both Iranian willingness and capability).
          Glad he’s dead.
          Iran was not only sent a clear message, but also lost their most capable military mind.

          1. And the IRGC is the main military of Iran, while also serving as a political/police/economic force.
            Suleimani was a real big deal. Probably the most powerful individual in the country outside the ayatollah

            1. Nardz, you do something like Trump did here, and you have to have some ability to manage what happens next. There are plenty of things Iran can do next which Trump has no clue how to manage, except maybe with an all-out nuclear strike against Iran. What would your answer be to a germ-warfare attack on New York?

              1. A biological attack by Iran in NYC is unlikely. They need a delivery vehicle, and unlike Hollywood movies, actual delivery of biological agents is not so easy. Knife against knife. Gun versus gun. WMD versus WMD. The answer to a WMD attack is a WMD attack of greater lethality. That is the answer to what you asked, lathrop.

                Don’t go all hysterical, Ok?

                1. “Don’t go all hysterical, Ok?”

                  Not hysterical, just pants shitting.

              2. Since the last idiots who attacked NYC are all dead, I seriously doubt Iran is so suicidally stupid as to try that.

              3. Does anyone (that is foreign power) have a ‘clue how to manage’ such actions?

                I highly doubt the chess player Obama was ‘ready’ for whatever blow back OBL represented after he was whacked. I’m sure there are measures in place or whatever else that comes with this sort of thing but no one goes out and has ‘Plan B, C, D’ set up. When an opportunity presents itself I reckon the U.S. can take advantage or ignore it depending on the political winds. They took their shot here.

                This shit has been going on for decades and again TDS kicks in with the ‘he doesn’t know what he’s doing’.

                Can I get a Foghorn Leghorn ‘ah shaddap’ here?

                1. I flipped CNN on for a few minutes to get their take.
                  It was all “I’m so confused! Does Trump know what he’s doing? Ahhhhhh, how to react!”
                  Funny stuff

              4. I wish I had a dollar for all the times you leftists claimed that Trump was going to get me killed.

                1. Those millions of dollars wont matter anyways because trump will get you killed.

              5. “What would your answer be to a germ-warfare attack on New York?”

                Take out some mullahs, and maybe the ayatollah

                1. Yep. Cut the head off the snake.

              6. “What would your answer be to a germ-warfare attack on New York?”

                I don’t think the Iranians are that nutty. They know the gloves would come off for WMD.

                But if the Ayatollah is tired of being alive, Trump can help him out.

                I doubt we’d respond in kind with WMD. More likely we go after leadership and Quds hard.

                1. The 64 dollar question to a germ, slime, or glowing crud attack on the US would be: how would we know who to blame? The stuff doesn’t come with a Xmas tag on it: “To the Great Satan, with Hate. From the Iranian Revolutionary Council. Worst wishes!”

        3. Not a militia leader. The head of Iran’s Green Berets is closer to what his duties actually were. Plenty of militia leaders got blown up with him though, or arrested later that night in Iraq by US Marines.

          There’s something very end-of-The Godfather-esque about the timing and actions last night. A whole lot of normally very hard to find and kill people, got themselves found and killed or arrested, all at once. That doesn’t happen without thorough surveillance on their whereabouts, and penetration of their security and counterintelligence capabilities. It must be earth shattering for other terrorists/guerrillas/militiamen on Iran’s payroll, to learn of these guys getting rolled up this quickly.

          1. Who will have to answer for Santino?

            1. “Look how they massacred my boy!”

          2. It was a truly shocking move.
            Tehran has no idea what its going to do yet

      3. You got banned for posting kiddie porn.

        1. You SHOULD get banned for endless thread shitting!

          1. No Squirrelly, that’s you.

          2. Irony shit eater.

          3. All this going on and all YOU can do is yell in at mirror …

      4. “… but some general of a sovereign country that doesn’t pose a threat to us is ok.”

        He doesn’t pose a threat to us because we blew his ass to hell. And that is A fucking OK!

      5. “LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
        January.2.2020 at 11:33 pm
        “Apparently you’re not allowed to kill people who actually pose a threat to us.”

        Apparently getting honest people top pay the mortgage you bailed on is considered just fine by pathetic pieces of shit.
        When you grow up, your posts might be worth reading. Fuck off and die.

      6. You keep saying general of a sovereign country… he was a general of the Quds, a designated terrorist group.

  8. An attack on a US embassy is not a declaration of war. A retaliatory strike for an attack on a US embassy is a declaration of war.

    Is that correct?

    There’s some strong TDS going on here.

    1. The US is supposed to be a cowering doormat always begging for approval from everyone. According to progtards and Reason.

  9. Funny how everyone seems to think they have to praise one side of war and denigrate the other.

    Everyone seems to have forgotten the principle of butting out. We don’t belong there. Iran doesn’t belong in Iraq uninvited either, but that is not our problem.

    Even from the practical side, our lives and politics and budget would all be so much easier and better off if we simply left, and left them to each other.

    1. Fuck off Hihn.

    2. Exactly, I agree 100%!

    3. Bug out and call it even.

    4. That’s some very good, old-fashioned horse sense!

      Unfortunately, it doesn’t satisfy all of the chicken hawks and Arm-Chair Generals back home, who want to fondle their war boners some more!

    5. Maybe people should have been a tad been more supportive when Trump pulled back in Syria.

      Instead we heard all sorts of dire warnings about how he was “abandoning our allies the Kurds.”

      Forgive me if I find the ‘have your cake and eat it too’ rhetorical bullshit a tad bit, well, bullshit.

    6. So you’re ignoring the decades of terrorist attacks promoted by the Quds forces?

      1. So you’re ignoring the decades of US/allied interference in the internal affairs of Iran?

        1. Yes, AND he is ignoring that USA (under Trump’s decision) unilaterally welched out on a multinational no-nukes agreement with Iran… Which is a MAJOR root cause behind the current troubles!

          1. Welched put of something that was never ratified. God you’re fucking stupid. Glad to see you’re a self admitted globalist.

            1. Under the command of the POTUS, years-long, agonizing multinational negotiations are all wrapped up, finalized. Tied up, bows and ribbons and all.

              Then the POTUS yanks the rug out… Is THIS a friendly gesture to ALL of the other nations involved? Would YOU (as an official or negotiator from the USA, getting treated this way by another nation’s “leadership”), want to even bother negotiating with them any more?

              1. You are truly dumb enough to believe funding a murderous regime in appeasement works. You would have done well in the lead up to WW2 as an appeaser to russia and germany.

                All the agreement did was give billions of dollars to Iran which then fed into the Quds forces and other terrorist proxies such as Hezbollah, leading to an uptick in regional acts since the agreement was formed. Iran continued its nuclear research and even its mid range deployment technology. They were also encouraged to clamp down on in country protestors through murder and imprisonment of protestors. Butnpleaaw do tell us all how great this deal was.

                Some of you are so fucking stupid.

                1. “…funding a murderous regime…”

                  Engaging in trade with someone is “funding” them?

                  Excluding total, complete hermits… We are ALL funding EVERYONE! Because we ALL trade!

                  I am funding your lies and distortions!

          2. You fucktard.
            It was an executive order NOT a treaty ‘cos the “multinational no-nukes deal” sucked and wouldn’t pass the Senate.
            Next POTUS can do whatever he wants with it ‘cos the “multinational no-nukes deal” sucked and couldn’t pass the Senate.
            Called the Constitution, you Fascist Putz.
            Stupid Theocratric Mullahs should have known that.
            So much for that Magick Phone and Pen …

        2. Yes. I am. Because your definition of decades was on instance that changed leadership in the 50s. Since the overthrow the us has not interfered much outside of sanctions which are normal avenues of pressure. Unless you want to link me the thousands of terrorist funded bombings weve done in Iran.

          Do you have another false equivalence for the class?

          1. So to prove your false equivalence… start with countering this…

            Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq (AAH), also known as “the League of the Righteous,” has also re-emerged. This Iranian-backed, Shi’a militant organization has claimed responsibility for over 6,000 attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq since its creation in 2006.

            1. Refresh my memory on where in the US Iraq is located.

              1. Remind me again, isn’t a US embassy considered US soil?

                1. Remind me again, when were there “6,000 attacks against U.S. and Coalition forces in Iraq” inside the embassy.

                  1. Well, considering this attack was a direct response to the embassy attack, it is pertinent. Also, was Iraq allied with Iran? No, so they attacked US troops in a foreign country, for their own gain and you want to excuse this because of your disagreement with the congressionally approved invasion of Iraq. That seems logical. It’s totes okay for them to kill American soldiers not in their own country, for their own gain with no retaliation.

                    1. I repeat, Iraq is not in the US. It is not “totes okay” for our soldiers to be there in the first place. It is not “totes okay” for us to conduct attacks inside Iraq without the approval and coordination of the Iraqi government. It is “totes okay” for Iran to consider the US an enemy engaged in aggressive action against them. I don’t want to “excuse” anything. I want us to bug out and call it even.

        3. I’m no expert on this. Here is another take on it… Is CNBC known for Trump-worshipping? I kinda doubt it…

          For FYI on CNBC stance…

          https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/02/trump-just-took-out-the-worlds-biggest-bad-guy-qassim-soleimani.html

          Op-Ed: America just took out a man many consider the world’s No. 1 bad guy

          1. You’re not an expert on anything but shit eating.

            1. You’re an outstanding expert in lying!

              1. Oddly you cant point put lies. Again, trying to attack with moral arguments because you have no intellectual arguments. Fucking hilarious. You’re broken.

                1. “Words can’t be crimes!”

                  Case closed!

                  1. SQRLSY One expires of self-immolation.
                    Case closed.
                    … and there was much rejoicing!

                    1. You’re joining Shitsy now in Satan-worshipping? How many people have you egged on into suicide? Has it brought you ANY long-lasting joy? What good has evil done for you lately?

    7. “Both sides!”

  10. There’s always trillions lying around for new wars, but nope can’t possibly afford even a dime for social services, gotta gut the ones we have too.

    1. A libertarian website is an odd place to push social services.

      1. So is advocating for an assassination.

        1. Right but you got banned for posting kiddie porn.

        2. “Fancylad
          January.2.2020 at 11:42 pm
          A libertarian website is an odd place to push social services.

          LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.2.2020 at 11:49 pm
          So is advocating for an assassination”

          AAHAHAHAHAHAH

          YOUR STUPID PEDO WHINE DOESNT EVEN MAKE SENSE

          AHAHAAHAHAJHA

          ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAH YOU’RE FLUSTERED PEDOPHILE AHAHAHAHAH!!

          AHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

          1. Ok, i’ve Never done this before, but i’m Reporting you. Mostly for your own good.

            1. ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

              YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU SAD PEDO AHAHAHAHAHAH
              AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              YOU GOT BANNED FOR POSTING KIDDIE PORN AHAHAHAJAHAJAJJAJ

              AND YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE BECAUSE OF HOW FLUSTERED YOU ARE

              AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

              HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

            2. AAHAHAHAAH

              I MADE HIM CRY TO REASON ABOUT ME BECAUSE HE HATES EVERYONE BEJNG REMINDED HE’S A PEDO AHAHAJAHAHAHJA

            3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
              January.3.2020 at 12:07 am
              “Ok, i’ve Never done this before, but i’m Reporting you. Mostly for your own good.”

              First, would you please grow up enough to understand you should pay the mortgage you agreed to?
              As regards your inability to deal with the English language, that is no great surprise. Stupidity and infantalistic desires for mommy to provide for your needs is pretty common to lefty fucking ignoramuses like you.

          2. Oh no, Kiddie Raper is reporting people?

          3. Are you capable of having actual arguments? Or are you just an ad hominem attack?

        3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.2.2020 at 11:49 pm
          “So is advocating for an assassination.”

          I’m proposing advocating suicide by fucking lefty ignoramuses.

          1. Sevo… So you are now stooping so low as to totally advocate that other humans commit suicide? You joining forces with Shitsy… And with the Evil One?

            Are you PROUD of pimping for the Evil One? So… HOW MANY people, so far, have you persuaded to commit suicide? Have ANY of these suicides brought you ANY long-lasting happiness, yet? If not, then WHY don’t you give UP your evil ways?
            I really don’t care one way or the other, if you or anyone else believes that the Evil One is “real”, or metaphorical. “Machs nix” to me. What I WOULD like for you, and others, to understand, is that by obeying the “spirit of the Evil One” (whether “real”, or not), you make the Evil One real… Just like obeying (or praying to) the Spirit of Peace and Love, makes it real! Whether it is “real”, or not! Because it is VERY difficult (actually impossible) for me to go off and stab my neighbor in the back, needlessly, immediately after having SINCERELY prayed for peace!
            On the flip side… By lusting for others (who think “wrong” thoughts, in Your Exalted View) to commit suicide, your spread hatred, destruction, and self-destruction. You’re PROUD of that?
            Next time you’re “channeling” the Evil One in Your Self-Esteemed Mind, and dreaming up new-and-improved ways to encourage people to kill themselves, I would like for you to ask the Evil One the same simple question that I just asked you: Have ANY of the suicides that you have solicited and enabled, brought you ANY long-lasting happiness? We already KNOW that the answer is NO! An excellent working definition of evil is “the unquenchable thirst”! So why not give UP on your FAR-worse-than-useless, EVIL quests?

            Evil Sevo! Is THAT how you want to be remembered, after the worms start crawling through your rotting flesh? Or your cremated ashes are thrown in the dump?

            1. Squirrelly, if you killed yourselves, the world would be a better place, and life improved for many. As you are a massive piece of malignant shit.

              So really, fuck off. You know you’re just a stupid troll, and have no real value.

              1. You know you worship Satan. I hope you don’t infect too many other people. The Evil One is NOT going to do you ANY good, Shitsy!

    2. Yeah, we don’t spend a dime on social services.

      1. We spend way more on the military than “social services?”

        1. ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

          YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU SAD PEDO AHAHAHAHAHAH

        2. “There’s always trillions lying around for new wars, but nope can’t possibly afford even a dime for social services, gotta gut the ones we have too.”

          Here I would insult you for poor reading comprehension since this is what I was responding to, but you’d probably report me for it hypocrite.

        3. It’s pretty obvious why you defaulted on your mortgage. Numbers aren’t really your strong suit, are they?

          1. Did LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian ‘fess up to defaulting on his mortgage? Or is this just another lie, as cooked up by well-documented liars like JesseAZ and Mary-Tulpa-Satan of the billion handles?

            If it is true, I wonder how it compares to the magnitude of how often, for how much money, Trump went bankrupt MULTIPLE TIMES, stiffing his creditors so as to get rich?

            Trump has made noises about doing similar things; partially stiffing creditors who have been stupid enough to load their money to Uncle Sam, ya know…

            https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/us/politics/donald-trumps-idea-to-cut-national-debt-get-creditors-to-accept-less.html
            Donald Trump’s Idea to Cut National Debt: Get Creditors to Accept Less

            1. Love who you’ve teamed up with in your tribe sqrsly. Hoping you brought enough shit for everyone to eat.

              1. Asking a question is a badge of tribal affiliation? This clearly shows that ignorance and arrogance VASTLY out-rank knowledge in the JesseAZ tribe!

                1. You’ve been siding with them for days my dear shit eater.

                2. You claiming knowledge is the height of hilarity with the way you’ve been knocked down recently with common knowledge.

                  Go back to thinking wiki is the truest form of knowledge. Fucking hilarious.

                  1. Says the liar who claims that mere words (lies) cannot be crimes… Says the one who believes (and says) that POTUSes (or maybe only “R” POTUSes) are NOT bound by the USA Constitution!

                    1. Words cant be crimes as I shut down every one of your actual examples. Crimes, not civil infractions, require actions dumbfuck. Your most hilarious example being contracts for murserbwhich require an exchange of money.

                      You’re really really dumb.

                    2. Can I have a murserbwhich? On whole wheat, with the mayo on the side?

                      “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, false representations concerning products or services for sale… these are all “merely” cases of just “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear from JesseAZ!

                      And you expect readers to believe what you post?

            2. Yeah, he was quite gleeful about it, in fact.

            3. When will you slag on Dumbfuck Hihnsano for declaring bankruptcy?

              1. Hihnsano doesn’t carry a nuclear football, so any lack of good character on his part doesn’t bother me so much…

                Did you know that Trump is in charge of the nuclear football, and what the function of this device is?

                Do you have any MORE stupid questions?

                1. Hihnsano doesn’t carry a nuclear football

                  What does a bankruptcy have to do with the capability to carry out a nuclear strike, shit-muncher?

                  1. They both show that a lack of good character and good ethics (morals) can whomp a boatload of hurt on your fellow human beings. Such people shouldn’t be in positions of power. Bums under the bridge? They don’t worry me so much…

                    Next stupid question?

                    1. In other words, there’s no correlation.

                      Next stupid assertion?

                    2. Oh Noez!!!1 The nukular football!!!!

                      Strangely enough the $100BB+ paid out in ransoms and appeasement to a budding nukular terrorist state didn’t worry you very much. It’s almost as if you really don’t care and are just desperately seeking more pearls to clutch. Or was that footballs?

                    3. “…$100BB+ paid out in ransoms and appeasement to a budding nukular terrorist state…”

                      Citations please! Other than your head voices!

                    4. You stupid shit, it’s widely reported that Obama unfroze $150 billion of assets belonging to the previous regime and various Iranians. Then gave it to the mullahs, even though it was never their’s.

                      Do you need a citation that water is wet too?

                    5. Shitsy
                      January.3.2020 at 1:17 pm
                      You stupid shit, it’s widely reported that Obama unfroze $150 billion of assets belonging to the previous regime and various Iranians. Then gave it to the mullahs, even though it was never their’s.

                      “…assets belonging to the previous regime…” “…it was never their’s.”

                      What does “belonging to” mean in Shitsy land? You can’t even stay consistent in one mere paragraph of Shitsy shit! Does stuff belong to people, only if Shitsy (AND the Evil One as well, maybe?) says it REALLY belongs to them? Or does EVERYTHING belong to Shitsy and the Evil One?

                  2. Right here.

                    It uses words longer than three letters so I can understand why you missed it the first time.

                    1. Two wrongs don’t make a right, supposedly, and all’s fair in love and war… Two opposing each-sometimes-valid ideas there.
                      I’m not making any excuses for Iran taking USA diplomats hostage… It’s hard to figure out, but Jimmy Carter was a nice guy for “merely” freezing assets, instead of nuking Iran for that clear and gross violation of ages-old international norms.

                      Giving them back THEIR money? After punishing them by holding some of THEIR money for more than a generation, for what SOME of them did, way back when? The Shah of Iran isn’t coming back! We can’t wait till the Shah comes back, to give them THEIR money back, and expect peaceful relations!

                      Endless retribution means endless war! Do you want the USA to be like crazy Middle Easterners, who are still carrying grudges concerning what “Christians” did to them in the Crusades? Peace means letting war-grudges go!
                      How’s it working for you in Afghanistan, by the way?

                    2. PS, thanks for the link, I did read the whole thing. What a mess! I hate to think of how much money went to all of the lawyers to run this whole shit-show!

                2. “Do you have any MORE stupid questions?”

                  Yes.
                  Just when is it that you will actually off yourself?

                  Asking for a friend.

            4. Donald Trump went bankrupt multiple times? Oh dear, another short bus libertarian who doesn’t understand incorporation and US bankruptcy laws.

              Don’t worry, I’m sure there are plenty of programs to help with your ADL needs.

              1. So… Are YOU gonna loan YOUR money to Trump? Good luck with that!

                You ever get stiffed on a loan? You LIKE that? “It’s legal, so it’s OK”?

                Slavery was legal (under a “democracy” yet, at that) in the USA… It was legal, so it was OK? Right, slaver?

                1. No, I’m going to let your candidate Bernie take it from you.

        4. Well if you don’t include Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, then yes, the US spends more on the military.

          1. If you include social services provided by the states, where they should be provided, then the numbers get much closer. It’s like the argument we here often that “the federal government spends more on X than they do on education.” It’s a neat slight-of hand given that the vast, vast majority of that spending is at the state and local level. Of course, as always, leftists expect the federal government to do everything here.

        5. No we don’t spend more in the military than we do on social services. In fact, medicare spending alone is greater than military spending. Medicaid spending is just slightly less. And none of that takes into account welfare and the like.

          1. You’re dealing with know nothing idiots. I believe they made sqrsly their leader.

            1. lol – even the short bus has a smartest 🙂

        6. Look up how much is spent on social security, welfare, Medicare and Medicaid. Then compare it to the DoD budget. Guess what? It dwarfs military spending and is over 60% of our budget. Try again loser.

  11. This has been in the cards for decades.

    Iran attacked our citizens, then deliberately attacked our embassy

    1. Multiple times.

      Iran has gotten many passes by the USA for its killing and kidnapping of Americans.

      Persians have been aggressors for millennia. Keep it up and find out how America writes the victors history of World War minus 3.

  12. Boy, once the rubber hits the road I guess you can rely on libertarians to support whatever the government wants— as long as the President has a (R) by his name, at least.

    1. ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

      YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU SAD PEDO AHAHAHAHAHAH

      1. LOL… you are a mess. Try this… breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. Breathe in, breathe out. Better, handle douche?

        Not that it matters, but You’ve got the wrong person. I’m the mortgage welcher or— maybe worse— I could be Tony.

        1. ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

          YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU SAD PEDO AHAHAHAHAHAH

        2. “I could be Tony.”

          Tommy Lee Jones in the fugitive.jpg

          Youre super stupid, so of course you don’t understand. It doesn’t matter WHO YOU ARE, only that the idea that you’re socking is disseminated. You don’t even understand what is being done and it’s HILARIOUS!!!

          Thanks for doing my work for me Eric!!!

        3. Remember when you first created this sock for the purpose of doing parody, but you’re shit was so unfunny that you just decided to go back to being a sad and angry little man? Good times.

          1. I member.
            It was truly awful parody.
            Leftists can’t meme

            1. Nope.

    2. Iran made a video. I hear that’s the best casus belli.

    3. I do love this new breed of ignorant and naive libertarians who believe having your teeth kicked in by others is real libertarianism. Nothing in the ethos stops tit for tat retaliation, in fact it requires it. You cant have liberty by cowering to others shit for brains.

      1. Cucktarians

      2. I believe in militant libertarianism:

        Libertarian: leave me alone

        Militant Libertarian: leave me alone, or else

    4. Seems to me that Iran violated the NAP… several times over. Seems to me also that Trump ordering a drone strike on the head of the Iranian special forces, where he was working with multiple terrorist leaders to set up strikes against us, is a bit different compared to Obama’s drone strikes on an American civilian

      1. They had it coming.

  13. I wonder how our friends at antiwar.com, who have been telling us about how Dear Leader is the peace candidate, are feeling now? Hmmm.

    1. ADVOCATING FOR AN ASSASSINATION IS A WEIRD PLACE TO PUSH FOR SOCIAL SERVICES?!?!?

      YOU CANT EVEN MAKE SENSE YOU SAD PEDO AHAHAHAHAHAH

    2. So appeasing foreign aggression leads to Peace? Ask Chamberlain how well that works out.

  14. Karma is a bitch.

    1. Your problem with the whore you hired is your business Eric.

    2. So sorry for your loss.

      1. You’re confused.

        1. Did you just lose a personal mentor? I’m soooo sorry.

    3. Yes, attack America and get killed. For once I agree with you, though I doubt you realized what you just said.

  15. Finally we shall have peace in the Middle BOOOOOOOOOM.

  16. We’ve just gone down the rabbit hole.

    If that’s where we wanted to go, then a double decapitation of Soleimani and al-Muhandis is probably the best way to start. But anyone who thinks this will just play out solely as some move against only Iran is clueless as to what’s about to happen.

    1. Who’s more pissed off? The Iranians, or John Bolton for not being involved?

    2. JFree
      January.3.2020 at 12:38 am
      “We’ve just gone down the rabbit hole.”

      You’re missing anything like evidence, and as a fucking lefty ignoramus, that is no surprise at all. Lefty assertions =/= arguments or evidence.
      Hint: Predict what the market will do since Trump was elected, so we can all laugh at you. Again.

    3. JFree
      January.3.2020 at 12:38 am
      We’ve just gone down the rabbit hole.
      If that’s where we wanted to go, then a double decapitation of Soleimani and al-Muhandis is probably the best way to start. But anyone who thinks this will just play out solely as some move against only Iran is clueless as to what’s about to happen.

      Please tell us what you think can/will happen.
      Iran has already been attacking Americans and US bases with increasing frequency over the last few weeks. Suleimani was in Baghdad planning more attacks and assassinations of US diplomats.
      So they’re already doing just about all they can do (see my post above for more details).
      They can try to provoke us to invade, which again they’ve already been doing, but we’ve shown no signs of taking the bait.
      So they can either keep doing what they’re already doing, knowing it’s ineffective and that there are severe consequences… not the least of which is open revolt against Tehran.
      They have no hand.
      Or, they can’t win, giving up their nuclear and imperial ambitions, pull back from foreign conflict investment, and work on building an economy. It’s the regime’s only hope for survival.

      1. Please tell us what you think can/will happen

        To start – full scale Shia revolution in Bahrain and eastern Saudi. Or – shutting down a very fat logistics tail for all our forces in the region – which are dispersed as well. The tit-for-tat stuff will likely get headlines but is irrelevant.

        Whatever dissent there was against the regime in either Iran or Iraq – that’s now gone. Always the response everywhere to being attacked. Dissent dries up. Which is a problem for us since that was one of the few things working in our favor.

        1. The people in iran dont support the Quds forced no matter what you think. This had no effect on the revolutionary groups in Iran. The attackers at the embassy were already spray painting praising the quds general. They already support his actions. They, the ones committing attacks, will be the ones enraged, not the revolutionary groups in iran.

          1. The people in iran dont support the Quds forced no matter what you think.

            You are, of course, proclaiming the irrelevant. The protests in both Iraq and Iran are based on domestic stuff/dynamics that you or I can’t hope to understand. I at least understand that none of it remotely fits neatly into domestic US politics – which is the only thing that ever matters to US decision-makers when it comes to foreign policy.

            re Iraq specifically. Bet you didn’t know this tidbit – that Soleimani is the guy who brokered some ‘reform approved by everybody’ – about a month ago – in IRAQ – to deal with the IRAQI protests. Now I don’t pretend for one second that that sort of ‘deal’ is anything but a bunch of elites trying to cover their own butts re protestors who want to get rid of all of them. IOW – ‘everybody’ doesn’t actually mean ‘everybody’ at all. But if there is one entity inside Iraq that is even more dependent on elites than Iran is, it is the US. And while this Shafaaq site is at least focusing on something new and unknown to Western audiences – they are hardly an ‘objective’ source within Iraq since they are (or were – apparently they shut down at year end) a news source for a subset of ‘Feylis’ Kurds – and who knows whether their English translation is remotely the same as their Arabic or Kurdish versions.

          2. The people in iran dont support the Quds forced no matter what you think.

            And re Iran itself – here’s a recent (October) poll re what ACTUAL Iranians think of their various leaders, policies, etc.

            Including apparently 82% approval for Soleimani himself – “the highest ratings of the prominent Iranians evaluated”.

        2. “Whatever dissent there was against the regime in either Iran or Iraq – that’s now gone.”

          I guess you haven’t seen the celebrations in Baghdad?
          The Iranians are pissed that their regime spends all its money on foreign fighters.
          Don’t think they’re going to rally behind the guy in charge of spending all their money on foreigners, especially if the plan is to respond by spending even more money on foreigners

          1. Well Americans have spent 20 years rallying behind our permawar justification of – ‘we gotta fight the terrorists over there or else we’ll have to fight them over here’.

            The poll above indicates that Iranians are generally almost exactly the same as us re that sort of nonsense. That in fact they have about the same opinion of American involvement right on their fucking border as we would have if the IRGC and the Mexican drug cartels decided to cooperate re ‘how to control the American border’ to ensure their own sanctions regime re our exports.

            But hey – keep pretending that they are gonna throw flowers at us. That delusion apparently always works for R’s.

            1. Please keep having a hysterical fit about the US being so weak that it cannot even defend itself without fearing the worst

    4. Enlighten us JFree, what is “about” to happen?

      1. I’ll tell you what’s about to happen. Now Iran will use it’s opportunities to strike against American assets in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East when they feel they have reasonably good chances for success. Oh, wait….

        1. For some reason the authors here and the naive libertarian set ignore all negative actions already set in place in their analysis whether it is global politics or trade markets. It is freshman level sophistry.

        2. “when they feel they have reasonably good chances for success.”

          Exactly. And this strike did exactly what to their chances for future success? Not to say that they will never recover from the losses, but that they are not insignificant.

  17. Yeah, those poor fucking Iranians who attacked our embassy.

    Give me a fucking break with your blame America first bullshit, Doherty. Go move to Iran and live there if you think they’re so fucking noble, you cosmo hack.

    1. Yeah, America should not have invaded Iraq but a US Embassy in Iraq is perfectly legit. Iran Attacking a US Embassy….again is just not going to Iran the moral high ground.

      1. Agreed about the Iraq invasion. We shouldn’t have been there, but this really has nothing to do with that. They went after our embassy to take shots at us and get themselves some credibility, it was an attack on our country, and we are 100% justified in killing any of their leaders who were involved in the attack.

        Retaliation is not simply justified in situations like this, but demanded. Trump’s gone easy on them twice already, so they had their warning.

  18. My comment on it…the Iranians have been stirring up shit with Trump for months, they were warned about what would happen if they attacked Americans, they ignored the warnings and attacked our embassy, and now the pain arrives.

    We can reach out and touch a whole lot of their leaders if we want. Maybe we’ll knock the Ayatollah off his little throne next.

    1. UCrawford…I agree. What I would like to see now is continuous broadcasting into Iran of footage of Soleimani’s body parts laying around the fucking airport….with a very simple message: Who’s Next?

      Press reports state he was blown to pieces. Rub Iran’s eyes in it.

      1. There’s a particularly gaudy picture with his severed, scorched hand lying on the ground, still wearing that giant red ring he was always photographed with.

        Either he, or one of the guys he was with, was photographed on the ground, blown up—removed or pulped extremities, scorched torso, eviscerated in places—yet with the broad leather belt he was wearing, largely undamaged. Lots of wags asking where he bought it, their work belts keep falling apart, that sort of thing.

        Explosions do weird things sometimes.

        1. War is as much psychological as it is kinetic. And we’re at war now with Iran (and have been for months now), whether or not it was declared. What I want every Iranian military officer to see repeatedly is Soleimani’s dead body, and wonder if they could end up the same way. Disrupting your enemy’s ability to think clearly and unemotionally is critical to winning any war.

          1. “And we’re at war now with Iran (and have been for months now), whether or not it was declared”

            Years, really. EFPs supplied by Iran, with training, killed hundreds of American military personnel. As well as everyone that happened to be near them. Hezbollah/Islamic Jihad killed plenty of Americans before then. This has been a long time coming.

            As far as responses, that’s up to Iran. I don’t think the US will strike further, beyond additional arrests of unruly Iraqi militia leaders, at the behest of the official Iraqi government. That changes of course when Iran responds.

            I mentioned upthread several ways Iran has tried to use force to respond to the sanctions against them, and how those have failed to either remove the sanctions or embroil the US in a war with Iran. I don’t think they can afford to not retaliate before the US election, the question is how. I also don’t think they think Trump at present will lose, i.e.: the sanctions will continue until morale improves. If Trump does lose, I think it likely the sanctions cease.

            Accordingly, they need to get Trump out of there. Occupying an embassy with American hostages for a bunch of days worked with Carter, but didn’t work here. The embassy guards didn’t butcher the crowd on camera, which would have horrified the media and international observers, maybe even affecting undecided voters. They haven’t been able to induce the US to invade or commit large numbers of troops to fighting Iran (82nd QRF and 1/75 don’t count.)

            My guess is that they show they actually have nukes; they try to remove Trump and Pence, thinking they can do business with either Pelosi, the Dem nominee, or a Republican like Romney; or they commit an atrocity and try to make it look like the US did it.

            If they did strike the US citizenry, they have to know that will only make Trump stronger, and that it would cause their lives to be forfeit. China might not care about that, but the mullahs would.

            1. If they did strike the US citizenry, they have to know that will only make Trump stronger,

              I’m extremely skeptical that they’ll figure that out. And they can’t do it anyway…their leader is an authoritarian and his rule only exists because of the fear it strikes in the hearts of Iranian citizens. If he isn’t seen as taking direct action against the Great Satan, it’ll be interpreted as a sign of weakness after we just greased his biggest general. And Khameini has already staved off a couple of popular revolts…he doesn’t need to invite another by appearing weak.

              I’m sure they’ll be up to all kinds of underhanded fuckery in the Middle East, but they’ll likely try a response for which they can claim direct credit in regards to this. And if that happens, we should take out one of their oil fields or oil platforms and show the Iranians we can do far worse to them than they can ever do to us.

              I also agree with you that I don’t think Trump will escalate from this point unless the Iranians retaliate. He’s been consistent in not wanting to involve us in new wars…his response was both proportional and reasonable given the circumstances, and directly addressed the problem we were facing. And that’s a good thing…he’s measured in his use of military force and we certainly need that.

              1. This was a game changer.
                The regime has an opportunity to reassess here.
                At some point, admitting weakness is a wise choice

                1. They’ll never admit weakness, because they really can’t, but I think they may just let it die away or bank the animosity for a later date.

                  Maybe they’ll save it for closer to election time.

                  1. no, the democrats won’t give up that easy; they and the never-trump establishment republicans are full trump derangement crazy and will throw caution to the wind … oh, you were discussing the iranian regime. nevermind.

  19. Let’s start with this: the fucking lefty ignoramus who adopts the moniker of “Leave Trump Alone Libertarian” is pretty much confirmed as the fucking lefty ignoramus who used to post here as American Socialist; it’s not turd. Am Soc is far more sophisticated in his bullshit, but equally full of bullshit. Grow up and pay your mortgage, you pathetic piece of shit. His moniker is open to theft for anyone who desires; he’s smarter than turd, but so is the average septic tank effluvia.
    Ken S mentioned the other day that justified response may well not be the best response, as it may not serve the US interest. Valid comment and that consideration may well have kept Obo and that hag from engagement in Libya, but neither of them had the sense to use such consideration.
    Here, it seems there is no ‘engagement’ with the foreign power; simply the targeting (and removal) of an individual there who (seems no doubt) was the coach of the attack on the US embassy.
    That’s not anything like an attack on a country but it is a clear warning that the US now has intel enough to target an individual who makes himself that target.
    Think Reinhard Heydrich without the SS retribution.

  20. Evil terrorist responsible for assault on US embassy killed. Reason hardest hit.

    It takes special effort to be this obtuse.

  21. Sir,once the rubber hits the road I guess you can rely on libertarians to support whatever the government wants— as long as the President has a (R) by his name, at least.

    1. Oh bullshit. The fact is that killing this Leone of shit made sense. Plus, they had it coming.

      Enough is enough.

  22. Poor reason and its lack of knowledge about the Iran-Iran War.

  23. In an active theater of war, we killed the leader of forces that have been fighting us in that theater, and who mere days ago attacked our embassy.

    If an entirely proportionate response to a despicable attack on civilians in an active theater of war threatens to escalate into a wider war, it’s only because the state behind the attack has already decided that it wants a wider war. And one cannot avoid a war through pusillanimity in the face of an attacker determined to start a war.

    1. DRM, please explain what national interest of the United States justifies the war you apparently think the nation should be willing to fight. While you are at it, please estimate the number of American casualties you are willing to accept, and the cost of war in dollars which you think the nation ought to be willing to pay. Also, a war for how long? Compared to Iran, Afghanistan has less than half the area, less than half the population, and about 0.045 of the gdp. And the U.S. is incapable of winning in Afghanistan. Why will it go better for the U.S. fighting a war in Iran?

      1. lathrop, the act of war was attacking our embassy. Or have you forgotten that already? I mean, I realize it was more than 24 hours ago so it is ancient history. For your edification: This was an appropriate response to an act of war committed by Iran and their proxies. But hey, if you want to side with Iran’s mullahs lathrop, why not just come out and say so?

        I guess they thought we would do nothing. They thought wrong. The moral of this story is: Don’t attack our embassy if you want to live.

      2. Now do the same for the Kurds in Syria, you disingenuous hack.

      3. It’s a sign of shallow thinking to assume “war” automatically means invading Iran.
        The US has no need to do so

      4. How’d that JCPOA work out? You mean appeasement failed once again? I’m shocked!

  24. Great to have in down, I like it attack on iran

  25. One less asshole to deal with. The world is materially a better place today.

    1. But…… what does Greta Thunberg think?

      1. Greta who? 🙂

      2. “what does Greta Thunberg think?”

        Nothing. She is demonstrably incapable of thinking, and I don’t give a damn about her emoting.

  26. Embassy or occupation force headquarters?

    The citizens of the Middle East are living a red, white and blue dawn reality.

    Get our “bad guy” military the fuck out of THEIR land.

    1. Give the Blame America First meme a rest, Misek.

      Yeah, we need to get out. That said, the son of a bitch Soleimani needed killing, and now he is taking the one way Paradise Train to allah, or hopefully someplace really warm. Either way, this asshole is dead. Good riddance.

      1. “Yeah, we need to get out. “

        Get the fuck out!

        If the west wasn’t there in destabilizing force for the last 100 years, things would be different.

        I don’t like cowardly bullies.

        The US wouldn’t use air strikes against Russia out of fear of a nuclear punch.

        So the US COWARDLY BULLIES a smaller guy.

        1. Bullies? Occupation force HQ?

          You’re an idiot.

          1. Can’t look in the mirror eh?

            If the situation were reversed and Arab military occupied the US conducting air strikes with impunity, what would you call their embassy in Washington?

            1. Arguments sure are easy when you ignore reality and use hyperbole to the point of lying.

              Not that you’re likely to pay attention, but being in an embassy is not occupation. If it were, then all large nations currently occupy all other large nations, including the US who is currently occupied by China, Russia, and many others.

              1. “ but being in an embassy is not occupation”

                Seriously? That’s your “argument”?

                During an occupation, the occupiers “embassy” is merely a headquarters as their respect for the sovereignty of the nation is but a distant memory.

                1. The Iraqis elected their own leaders, in case you missed it. Their government’s been their government for quite awhile.

                  But you go ahead and see where taking the pro-terrorist side gets you. Personally, I think it won’t do much more than convince everyone that you’re an idiot.

                  1. Rob should be executed as a traitor.

                2. And if the US embassy in Iraq closed you would justify attacks because we still have a presence in Kuwait. Then Saudi Arabia. Then Israel. Then Italy.

                  At least the masks have finally come off all of the wokatarians.

        2. “If the west wasn’t there in destabilizing force for the last 100 years, things would be different.”

          Sure, the Middle East (except Israel, of course) would be a haven of good governance with their leaders focused solely on the good of the people over whom they exert their beneficent leadership, right?

          1. Of course, just look at Africa. Not to mention that Europe and the Sino-Japanese Empire were peaceful paradises until the US decided to become a destabilizing force in those regions.

        3. Hint for you… america isnt the destabilizing force there. The regional tribes hell bent on killing each other is the destabilizing force. 90% of the conflict is shia vs sunni bullshit. That shit goes on regardless of US presence.

          But you go with they were peaceful until the US got there. Makes you totes seem smart.

          1. The propaganda brainwashed citizens of the occupation force of course see their “work” (war) in other lands as beneficial for everyone.

            1. Get that straight from Vox or MSNBC?

          2. Rob wants them to unite so his dream of a second holocaust may be realized.

        4. Fuck you Rob. You goddamn traitor bitch. You’re with the terrorists.

    2. Its all the fault of the Jooooooosssss isn’t it Rob?

  27. Nice to see the ghost of Chamberlain lives on in Reason staff.

  28. It should be understood that Iran’s primary objective in antagonizing the United States is to drive a wedge between the U.S. and our European allies–so as to end Europe’s cooperation with the U.S. led sanctions regime that is currently devastating the Iranian economy.

    It should also be remembered that, since October of 2019, protest movements against the Iranian government have been spontaneously erupting–among Shiites–everywhere from Iraq and Lebanon to within Iran itself.

    Anyone who supports direct conflict with Iran is supporting Iran’s own objectives–whether they intend to or not. Direct conflict between Iran and the United States will probably make the Europeans abandon our sanctions regime, and once the U.S. goes into open conflict with Iran, internal protests will no longer be able to protest the Iranian government without appearing to support the enemy.

    I remain hopeful that Iran will not escalate from here, but considering the devastation to their economy that easing sanctions will help alleviate, I don’t see why they wouldn’t want an escalation at this point. We should note what escalation is likely to look like, as well. Hezbollah has more than 100,000 rockets in southern Lebanon, and if Iran tells them to unload them all on Israel, Israel will have no choice but to invade southern Lebanon.

    Fighting a war in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria against both the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and the terrorist entity that is Hezbollah is not in the best interests of American security. It’s a war that isn’t worth winning and the American people won’t support. Further, it undermines the great work Trump was doing in forcing Iran back to the negotiating table on nuclear weapons with sanctions. It undermines the internal opposition to Iran that has escalated throughout the Middle East since October.

    If President Trump can’t think of a way to show restraint when it’s in America’s best interests to do so, then he has no business talking about “America first”. President Trump has done a great job of showing restraint up until recent weeks, in the face of provocation, and I hope he gets back on track with that. If present trends on sanctions and protests continued, the future was bleak for Iran. I see no reason why we should volunteer to save them, which is exactly what we’re doing by escalating this situation.

    1. Small quibble. There have been protests on and off since the early 2000s. There’s serious unrest in Iran so they can’t really sustain a long-term war if their own people are protesting I reckon.

      And absolutely armed-conflict with Iran is not in American’s best interest. Years ago I read an article by Ledeen at NR where he argued to avoid the direct conflict route and to help topple the regime from within playing off the anger of the people.

      I don’t know where he stands on this these days but it still seems like the best option.

      1. The difference in these protests that have erupted since October has been their severity, their spontaneity, and the fact that they’ve erupted among especially pious Shia in Iraq.

        These protests haven’t seen much coverage in the news, maybe because they don’t put Trump in a bad light–and if it doesn’t make Trump look bad, then what’s the point of reporting it?

        “As a new wave of demonstrations engulfs the Middle East, one common factor connects the protests from Baghdad to Beirut: a deep and widespread feeling of antipathy toward the Iranian regime. This is especially true in the bloodied towns and cities of Iraq—a country Iran’s leaders have regarded as theirs since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

        Since the outbreak of the protests in early October, various security forces, including Iranian-backed Shiite militias, have killed more than 400 Iraqis and wounded some 20,000 others. Not only is there good reason to believe that much of the brutality has taken place at the behest of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Qassem Suleimani, the notorious commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ (IRGC) Quds Force, but the available evidence seems to confirm it.

        Aware of the anti-Iranian mood on the Iraqi streets—exemplified by protesters beating their shoes against portraits of Khamenei, just as they had done with former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in 2003—an unnerved Khamenei did not hesitate to intervene.

        Referring to the unrest as a conspiracy orchestrated by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and the “Zionist regime” (Israel), the ayatollah called on forces in Iraq to “remedy the insecurity and turmoil”—a metaphor that served as a green light for Iranian-backed militias to quash demonstrations in Iraq.”

        —-Foreign Policy, December 11, 2019

        “Iran’s Regional Influence Campaign Is Starting to Flop”:

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/12/11/collapse-iranian-shiism-iraq-lebanon/

        Go ahead and read the whole article. The trend for the Iranian government was all downhill as of a couple of weeks ago. The best hope to make support for the sanctions and the protests go away is provoke the United States into a foolish series of retaliations, and that is why Iranian regime is trying to antagonize the United States into attacking them. That is why they hit tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. That is why they hit Saudi production facilities. And that is why they went through this latest series of provocations.

        Let’s not take the bait.

        1. Don’t be naive. There is no threshold for the US to take action by your logic, which is just encouragement to the regime to continue to ratchet things up. They learned that lesson quite well during the previous toddler administration.

        2. Doing nothing is not an option, Ken.
          That’s not how human nature works.
          Taking out Suleimani was a brilliant move, as it sends a clear message and avoids harming the Iranian people.
          In fact, many Iranians are going to be quietly grateful

    2. The answer to a country that subversive is to annihilate the shit out of it, not to appease its subversion because they’ve caught you with your pants down and fighting them might be chaotic.

      1. How many times has Israel “annihilated the shit” out of southern Lebanon?

        You’ll get the Taliban out of Afghanistan before you get Hezbollah out of Lebanon and Syria, and you’ll get the Taliban out of Afghanistan before you get the Iranian Revolutionary Army out of Iran.

        In the context of this argument, the only idea more irrational than 1) the suggestion that Iran or their allies can be removed from Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, or elsewhere by way of a ground war is 2) the suggestion that they can be removed from those countries without a ground war. Why would you look at the history of our conflicts since 2001 and believe either one of those stoopid ideas?

        1. The problem with your example of lebanon is the fact it is fed and curated by iran. So annihilating lebanon isnt the actual real issue. That is like fighting the flu with vic’s vaporub. nothing of consequence was annihilated in those retaliatory strikes.

          1. If “annihilating the shit” out of Lebanon didn’t do anything to displace Hezbollah, there is no reason to believe that “annihilating the shit” out of Iran will be successful either.

            Do imagine the American people would support nuking Tehran?

            Do you imagine Trump is even considering such a thing?

            Israel, despite its resolve and the direct interest of fighting to defend its own people from rocket attacks on civilians from across the border, was unable to dislodge Hezbollah despite repeated invasions of Lebanon–and there is no reason to believe the United States would succeed where Israel failed.

            Multiply that times 100 for Iran.

            1. Why would the US invade either?

              1. Because “war!”
                Retaliation means war, and that’s what war means.
                No other possible way of fighting.
                Nope. It’s unpossible!
                Fighting back means you must invade and occupy. It is known!
                Totes insightful

    3. ” I see no reason why we should volunteer to save them, which is exactly what we’re doing by escalating this situation.”

      Perhaps you would see differently if you were running for re-election. Americans are suckers for this kind of targeted assassination.

    4. Hezbollah attacks Israel with rockets.

      Would Israel really mind an excuse to go after Hezbollah hard in Lebanon? Or go after the Iranians?

      I don’t see the big problem here for the US.

      1. Hezbollah has a shitload of rockets.
        Israel got bloodied up pretty good last time they went in.
        Of course, Hezbollah is tied up in Syria now, where it’s lost a quarter to a third of its fighters.
        And their overseer was just killed.
        Israel doesn’t need to invade Lebanon, they can tit for tat with targeted strikes.
        Iran’s only real play here is to fold

        1. One giant difference between now and the last time the Israelis went up to Lebanon in force, will be that Hez et al won’t be able to easily get sanctuary or help from Syria.

          Still not going to happen though. I doubt Israel will want to spend the cash or manpower. And the world won’t let the Israelis pacify the area on a South Vietnamese scale.

          I guess that can all change though, depending on the scale of the provocation…

    5. If President Trump can’t think of a way to show restraint when it’s in America’s best interests to do so, then he has no business talking about “America first”. President Trump has done a great job of showing restraint up until recent weeks, in the face of provocation, and I hope he gets back on track with that.

      Ken, I generally agree with your approach, but the point here is suspect. Meaning, the attack on our embassy required a response. 100%, no debate. This was an act of war. There is no way we let something that grave go by the wayside. Maybe other POTUS’ did that. Not this one.

      That aside, Soleimani has American blood on his hands. That was a score that needed to be settled, regardless of the geopolitics.

  29. Trump’s record of, while not ending any of our ongoing Middle Eastern military adventures, at least not starting any fresh ones, might be over as of tonight.”

    Except USA has been embroiled in ‘war by other means’ with Iran for decades. And he did try to pull out of Syria and we saw the reaction from the establishment including – disappointingly I might add – Reason magazine. Furthermore, we don’t know what the blowback will be if any.

    “did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?” Indeed it did.”

    Did he ask the same thing when Obama was doing it?

    The United States just took out a major tumorous cancer in modern Middle-Eastern politics. At the very least the calculus could be, ‘Well, we don’t like being caught up in all this mess but we’ve been there for decades and in the case of Iran, we did help orchestrate a coup in 1953. Consider this finishing the job. Moving forward let’s reassess’.

    1. If Trump had just taken out the Iranian equivalent of a Sudanese aspirin factory I’d be more supportive of Ken’s argument.

      But this was a major accomplishment that has significantly degraded Iran’s operational capabilities. Whoever tries to fill in is going to be spending a tremendous amount of their time and energies on operational security, and just plain staying alive, leaving much less time for anything else.

      1. Whoever tries to fill in is going to be spending a tremendous amount of their time and energies on operational security, and just plain staying alive, leaving much less time for anything else.

        And they probably won’t be traveling through Baghdad anymore, which is another bonus.

    2. I don’t think we should lump all Reason staff together. I can disagree with Doherty and Sullum, but I see no reason to lump them in with the likes of Boehm or Dalmia, the latter of which don’t seem to care about integrity or rationality.

      Sullum, for instance, did object to the unconstitutionality of killing Osama bin Laden, and he went after Obama for assassinating an American citizen who was working for Al Qaeda, too. I remember responding to Sullum’s arguments on the killing of ObL being that if the House wanted to impeach Obama for killing Osama bin Laden, they were free to do so. However, if President Obama had the opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden and decided not to do so, that might be an even better argument for impeachment.

      I might add that I find the Pentagon’s assertion that they killed Suleimani because there was an imminent attack to be hard to believe. For one thing, killing Suleimani probably doesn’t prevent that or any other attack. It’s not as if Suleimani were planning to lead the attack himself. Furthermore, I see little reason why the Pentagon would believe that targeting Suleimani would prevent further attacks on Americans in the near term. Why would escalating the conflict lead to fewer attacks on Americans in the short term?

      1. “I find the Pentagon’s assertion that they killed Suleimani because there was an imminent attack to be hard to believe. For one thing, killing Suleimani probably doesn’t prevent that or any other attack. It’s not as if Suleimani were planning to lead the attack himself.”

        I don’t find it hard to believe ( although I do find it rather convenient.) It is entirely understandable that Iranian assets may have all sorts of operations planned, and staged, but would not proceed without the direct authorization of a Suleimani, or someone of similar authoritas.

        This being the greater middle east, where your friends as as much of a threat as your enemies, and displays of excessive personal initiative often being a death sentence.

        1. “It is entirely understandable that Iranian assets may have all sorts of operations planned, and staged, but would not proceed without the direct authorization of a Suleimani, or someone of similar authoritas.”

          They’re more likely to retaliate now than they were before they assassinated Suleimani–surely the Pentagon is smart enough to know this.

          1. They were most likely to keep escalating until they got a response.

            The real question are:

            1. Is this the sort of response they anticipated?

            2. Are they now more or less capable of mounting operations against the US or our allies?

            1. Bingo. Ken understood that appeasing Iran with JCPOA was a bad idea. He’s got a special set of blinders on here to not see it’s exactly the same thing.

          2. But you were correct above that Iran’s retaliation will be against Israel, not directly against US forces or assets.

            1. They will go after whoever they can whenever they can. Practically speaking that does tend towards Israel because they have greater exposure and Iran can more easily use throw away proxies.

              The last thing Iran wants right now is some sort of embarrassing screw up.

            2. That suggests and interesting win-win scenario:

              US get out of the mid-east, including any support of Israel. Israel is quite capable of taking care of itself, whereas our presence there gives the bad guys an “asymmetrical target” for any retaliation they feel is in order.

              Get out now. After that, it’s not our problem.

          3. Ken, so you think a demonstration that the man ordering the attack will be among the first to die will encourage other men to order more attacks?

  30. I find it funny that people complaining about Trump siding with the Russians is treason, but siding with some who is responsible with US deaths on the battlefield is not.

  31. “Sen. Chris Murphy (D–Ct.) tweeted his concern, asking: “did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?””

    Yes. Yes, it did, and if Congress had been at all interested in doing its job of being the sole party responsible for authorizing wars for the last 2+ decades, you would a) have had a clue about this, and b) have prevented a sitting President from thinking — strike that, knowing — they could do so without you.

    This is YOUR failure, you Constitutional responsibility-shirking piece of crap. Stop ceding all your powers to the branch of government you’re supposed to be keeping in check.

    1. 72 hours ago, that two-faced piece of shit was claiming that Trump didn’t have the nuts to stand up to the Iranians, and was parroting the Blue Checkmarks about “Trump’s Benghazi.”( way to confirm that was a black mark on Obama’s record, Chris!)

      Now he’s parroting the DNC line (see Stephen Lathrop above, another DNC shill), that this is going to start a war with Iran. I don’t he realizes that we’re already there.

  32. So where are all those fauxtarians excusing Trump by saying “at least he won’t get us into a new conflict”?

    1. We don’t have a “new conflict” yet.

    2. Probably because the conflict has been going on for a while; this is just the first time the US has actually responded.

    3. “So where are all those fauxtarians excusing Trump by saying “at least he won’t get us into a new conflict”?”

      Fortunately, nowhere near the TDS victims trying to scare up some new reason for their derangement.

      1. Or displaying their historical ignorance.

    4. Say hi to the fellow wokatarians who blame the US for Iranians storming another US embassy for me.

    5. So where are all those fauxtarians excusing Trump by saying “at least he won’t get us into a new conflict”?

      This is a misrepresentation. We were promised cattle cars and a World War with both Iran and N. Korea. This promise was made, not by Trump, but by his detractors. Clinton, OTOH, only promised to ramp up US involvement in Syria and Sanders only went as far as to say that he would support the Saudis more fully than Obama.

      I continue to express my extreme disappointment not in Trump, but in those who sold him as the next Hitler. For a while, my investment in Hugo Boss based on this insider information looked like it would pay off but now I just look like a fool.

  33. In a developing story—one that could develop in very hazardous directions indeed—an American air strike on a Baghdad airport has reportedly killed Qassim Suleimani, the leader of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. […] While this is not yet technically a shooting war with Iran, it seems more than likely that the Iranian regime will see the assassination as an act of war inspiring retaliation.

    The act of war would seem to be an Iranian military official ostensibly cooperating with the Iraqi government supporting an attack on the US embassy on Iraqi soil.

    Either way, the US should just leave Iraq. We should certainly not go to war over this crap.

  34. Interesting photo choice Reason.

    Plenty of photos of the guy in military uniform, why choose to show him at prayer?

    1. When they first posted the article last night, he was. They changed the photo early this morning.

      1. +100

      2. Interesting. Word must have gone out. Journolist part Deux, no doubt.

    2. reason is all about non-Americans having US Constitutional protections outside the USA and getting an upper hand over Americans.

  35. “Did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran?”

    No. He was in Iraq.

    1. And a Congressional AUMF that covers Iraq.

      Maybe Congress should discuss that. Once they finish this non-impeachment impeachment.

  36. It’s really quite simple, Reason. This was nothing more than a late term abortion. Why are you so anti-choice now? I’m starting to question your commitment to liberty.

    1. Remember kids, it’s never too late!

  37. I’m kind of surprised that Trump isn’t getting more flack for alerting the Russians about that upcoming terror attack in St. Petersburg, it seems the sort of thing the TDS idiots would jump on.

    With regards to Suleimani, it’s good we took him out, and I agree with the decision 100%, but I am a little worried about the after-effects. Not Iran’s response necessarily but the fact we just took out Iran’s top connection to all the local terrorist cells, along with most of those cells leaders. That sort of loss of centralized authority means we could get some loose cannons deciding to launch attacks that Iran wouldn’t have allowed.

    Again, not saying that we shouldn’t have taken the shot, we needed to respond to the embassy attack, and Iran will know we aren’t fucking around now.

  38. It is long since past time for the US to get out of the hell-hole that is the middle east. As with all other governmental actions, each move results in an ever bigger problem, ruining the lives of more and more people.

    I’d like candidate Trump back, ending this foolishness.

    Ah well, it could have been worse, it could have been that oh-so-qualified Hillary running the show.

    1. If Hellary had won, much of the Middle East would already be steaming black glass.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.