Reason Roundup

Does Trump's Strike Against Iran Mean We Are Going to War?

Plus: State Department tells Americans to leave Iraq, the return of freedom fries?, and more...

|

Ready or not, here we go again. I'm pretty sure we just celebrated the start of the year 2020. But it's a bit hard to tell, with so many American leaders and TV pundits talking like it's 2003.

Following Thursday's U.S. attack on Iranian authorities in Iraq—a strike that killed Iranian military commander Qasem Soleimani—the same psychopathic warmongers who lied us into the Iraq War have been gleefully spewing their old nonsense, with some minor updates.

They will greet us as liberators? Yep!

An "imminent threat" negated normal channels of action? Yep!

 

Someone must be punished and damn the consequences: VENGEANCE IS OURS! Yep, yep, yep.

Cable news producers have even been dusting off Karl Rove and other Bush-era prevaricators to manufacture consent for a new generation of U.S. war in the middle east.

And we're about this close to bringing back Freedom Fries.

The hawks keep reminding everyone that Soleimani was "evil," and suggesting that this justifies just taking him out from on high as he arrived in Iraq for a diplomatic visit…and that anyone less than thrilled with last night's actions just loves the terrorists or hates Donald Trump too much to appreciate it.

It should go without saying, but it's possible to be against the actions of Soleimani and the forces he led and still believe that the Trump administration is handling this the wrong way. It's possible to think Soleimani deserves some nasty fate while still believing that the U.S. shouldn't just go around assassinating foreign leaders we don't like. And it's absolutely possible—albeit apparently not for a lot of empathy-deficient toads in the government and media—to believe that the lives of the American troops and others who are now in greater danger are worth more than the fleeting satisfaction of vengeance or of feeling like you've won a news cycle.

The Pentagon has said the point of the attack was to deter "future Iranian attack plans." Because if there's one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it's killing their leaders…

But the repercussions of this reckless act—and post-kill preening—will probably be huge.

Taking out Soleimani in the way we did is not like drone striking terrorists at their secret hideout or killing the leader of some rogue militia. The Quds Force Soleimani commanded may have been engaged in unconventional warfare, but they're also an official part of the Iranian Armed Forces, not some stateless terrorist cell. And Soleimani wasn't just some Osama bin Laden–like death prophet; he was a high-ranking figure in Iran's government.

Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump's cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function. And the public nature of the attack, magnified by the administration's foolish brags about it afterward, will leave Iran with little politically feasible choice but to hit back in a big, public way.

On Friday morning, the U.S. State Department warned Americans in Iraq to leave immediately.

Some suggest that because the strike on Soleimani took place in Iraq and the American military is allowed to be in Iraq, everything is legally sound. Even if you accept that, there's a big difference between allowed and should.

"Iran is a state with significant capacity to make mischief in its neighborhood," and "the death of Soleimani does not wish the Quds Force, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps or Islamic Republic of Iran out of existence," points out Daniel Drezner. "An awful lot of Iranians and other Shiites will want to retaliate. Standard international relations theory suggests that decapitating a key leader would not fundamentally affect that state's capacity to act."

Supreme Leader of Iran Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has promised that a "harsh retaliation is waiting." Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called Soleimani's killing "an act of state terrorism and violation of Iraq's sovereignty."

A lot of Democrats are now distancing themselves from this mess, but they have to answer for the fact that they overwhelming voted against a measure to deny the Trump administration money for offensive attacks in Iran.

QUICK HITS

  • Former Reason Foundation staffer Lauren Krisai—now an analyst at the Justice Action Network—rounds up the decade's best criminal justice stories, in what winds up an utterly depressing but thoroughly impressive list.
  • The European Union won't grant patents to robots.
  • Bill de Blasio is the worst, part approximately infinity:

NEXT: New York Cop Finally Quits—More Than a Year After He Broke Into a Woman's Home and Threatened Her

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. Soleimani was an active enemy combatant, more dangerous than evil men such as Bin Laden & Baghdadi & who operated without regard for the law of war

    Not entirely onboard with the strike but perhaps it will warn actors in the region that using proxies isn’t always an effective firewall.

    1. Hello.

      In the whole context of things? Yeh, the Americans saw an opportunity and took their shot.

      “Trump administration is handling this the wrong way.”

      This should be Reason’s new tagline.

      Trump: We want out of Syria!
      Reason: You’re going the wrong way!
      Trump: We just took out the worst guy in the world.
      Reason: You’re going the wrong way!

      1. how do they know where we’re going?

        1. Best scene evah!

    2. Facts which ENB reduces to someone “we don’t like.”

      Mean gurrl arguments being sooo effective.

      1. Maybe ENB should stick to talking about clothes and boys.

      2. Someone we don’t like did something.

    3. Trump’s message is clear. STOP killing Americans. If you do, America will respond.

      reason acting like Iran is the angel here is hilarious. Iran is using proxies and Iranian military generals to create their Shiite brand of stability in the ME, so Iran can be the big boy on the block.

      Another huge mistake of invading Iraq and removing Hussein is that the Iran-Iraq animosity kept their two countries busy with each other. Now Iran has the time and Obama cash to export proxy war.

      1. Better to kill the terrorists in this manner and get our troops out of Afghanistan and elsewhere. They have attacked Americans and every reason for the US to strike back.

        1. Certainly a preferable approach, I’d say. And, as an added bonus, if there weren’t so many Americans in Iraw and Afghanistan and other places, they would have a lot fewer opportunities to attack Americans.

      2. Trump must remember what happened to the last President who did nothing when an American Embassy was attacked.

    4. perhaps it will warn actors in the region that using proxies isn’t always an effective firewall.

      No it won’t. Unless by ‘perhaps’ you include within the range of probabilities that ‘perhaps someday pigs too will fly’

      I’m pretty sure everyone else in the world understands that ‘proxies’ only work to fool those on your own side – not those on the other side.

  2. Because if there’s one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it’s killing their leaders…

    Ah-HA! So you admit he’s a terrorist leader. THE DEFENSE RESTS.

  3. The president repeatedly predicted years ago that his predecessor would attack Iran in order to get re-elected.

    But unlike Obama, this president follows through with his dog wagging!

    1. Here’s your primer for the upcoming commentary we’ll see today:
      When a Republican uses force, it’s measured, resolute and fuckin pure balls-out-Murica.
      When a Democrat uses force it’s too little/too much, ineffective, irresponsible, and makes us less secure.
      If you find yourself confused by the statements of supposed libertarians on a libertarian website’s commentary section, please refer to the primer above.

      1. Cry more you sad fucking kiddie porn posting pedo.

        1. Well. At least you’re back to accusing me of being Shrike, per usual.

          Btw. Yesterday was a bad one for you honey. Hopefully your shrink can get your meds in balance. Trump’s dick isn’t gonna fellate itself, and Reason needs it’s #1 troll at peak performance.

          1. Given that he’s devoted so much of the last decade to being a cunt on the internet, I’d say most days are bad days for Tulpa. What a shame.

            1. Aww I made Eric’s sock puppet cry!!!

              Cry more about me Eric!!!

              1. pssst. your projecting again cupcake. go get a tissue and rejoin us once you’ve composed yourself.

                1. Lololl and you’re Tony again Tony!!!

                  Cry more!!!

                  1. I told you to wipe those tears and compose yourself before returning darling. I’ll wait.

                    1. I’m not your prom date Tony ahahhahahaahahah

                    2. I admit, that one was good. See what you’re capable of when at the top of your game?

                    3. I’ll take the compliment and the win and say have a nice day Tones!!?

                    4. Tony’s pro, date was a 14” black double ended dildo, gay ganbang videos, and a bag of amyl nitrate poppers.

              2. I mean, you admitted last night that even you don’t believe the sockpuppet shit that makes up 90% of all of your comments. So what’s the point? Is attention from faceless strangers online really that valuable to you? Why is that?

                1. Well yeah, that’s why it’s so funny that you loser fucks get so bent out of shape about it. I’m invested literally zero, but here you are, crying as fuck and all butthurt lolol.

                  Now cry somewhere else for a minute Sparky.

                  1. “I’m invested literally zero”

                    Sure thing, bud. That’s why you spend hours posting here every day. No investment at all.

                    What a sad fucking loser you are.

                    1. And here you are still crying, proving my point ahahahahahahahah

                      Typing takes so long and is SOOOO HARRD AHAHAHAHAHAJAJ

                      HE WENT WITH THAT AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

          2. Hi Tony!!!

      2. Someone’s upset that the embassy attack didn’t turn into “Trump’s Benghazi”.

        1. Not at all. I have a son who’s approaching draft age. I have no interest in him losing his future to an unnecessary war. I truly hope Trump knows what he’s doing here.

          1. There hasn’t been a draft in over 40 years, you idiot. Your worry has about as much legitimacy as the lefties freaking out over “Ronny Raygun” having his finger on the nuclear trigger.

            1. I hope you’re right.

              1. We have a volunteer military and no interest in going back to a conscript military. And, as Red Rocks pointed out, we haven’t used the draft since Vietnam and have been able to fill out our military quite well without it. Why would the draft even be a consideration at this point?

                Fact is that we took out a terrorist leader as he was planning attacks against the U.S., and it was a legitimate act of self-defense by the U.S. as well as a legal exercise of authority by the President. There’s nothing more to it. We’re not obligated to go to war because of it and all the talk about that from the leftist media is just standard TDS hysteria and “blame America first” naysaying.

              2. If we didn’t go to war with China over us literally bombing their embassy during Allied Force, we’re not going to (open) war with Iran over them attacking ours or us killing one of their generals.

          2. “…I have a son who’s approaching draft age. I have no interest in him losing his future to an unnecessary war….”

            You ought to be tickled pink the hag lost the election.

            1. I am. But I’m not going to give Trump a pass just because he’s “not Hillary” either. I wish he’d do what he said he do and get us the fuck out of SW Asia. I still hope that’s his plan.

              1. “”I still hope that’s his plan.”‘

                Sure, but look how well trying to get out of Syria went for him.

                Also if Congress budgets money for war, must he continue the war? We have heard a lot lately about Trump having to spend the money the way Congress intended. Else it be impeachable.

                1. Stop trying to be consistent when discussing the behavior of liberals.

            2. Hilary started the unnecessary war in Libya, long after Kaddafi was not an issue. She needed to prove she was tough.

          3. Draft? What a stupid thing to say. Not surprising as you’re a stupid person.

            1. Oh? Did they repeal the Selective Service act? Could you point me to a link?

              ps. I still love you Shitty. You are by far my favorite of the angry little cons on this site.

              1. Yet there is no draft. And good to know I take up so much space in that little brain of yours.

                I own you, and that is entirely of your own doing.

                1. In my mind’s eye I like to picture you like Critical Bill from Things To Do in Denver When You’re Dead. Paranoid, living alone in a dilapidated trailer, surrounded by jars of your own urine and half assembled firearms.
                  You are one magnificent bastard Shitty. Never forget it.

                  1. Oh? Did they repeal the Selective Service act? Could you point me to a link?

                    LAST OF THE SHITHEADS FAILS THE CHALLENGE … again!

                    Last of the Shitheads ALWAYS lies about what you say, so he can sound tough ridiculing people smarter than him (90% of all adult humans)

                    Here, you mention the Selective Service Act was never repealed … Genius says “Yet there is no draft.”

                    THEN closes with:

                    I own you, and that is entirely of your own doing.

                    ALWAYS THE SAME!
                    1) Makes a total ass of himself.
                    2) Claims victory!

                    In truth, he’s just a sock puppet.
                    Of Donald J Trump.

                    But, ohhhhhhhhhh soooooo MANLY! 🙂

                    1. Hihn? Damn, I thought you were dead.

                      Might as well be. Worthless communist.

                  2. I called you on the draft, so you divert and come up with some bizarre, weak analogy.

                    Typical. On the plus side, your kid is safe from being drafted.

      3. Eric with his common projection.

    2. Trump is even CRAZIER than Obama?
      Nothing new here. Moving on ….

  4. The European Union won’t grant patents to robots.

    But they just developed a human with robot genitals that was going to corner the sex doll robo-market!

    1. Save our scrolling fingers and just put all these quips in a single post.

      1. Get a load of this asshole.

  5. This is like watching mass incarceration happen in real time — this is exactly how it went down.

    He wants to look more presidential than 90’s-era Biden.

  6. An employment tribunal judge sitting in Norwich has ruled that ethical veganism is a philosophical belief and is therefore protected by law

    When the vegan is inevitably too malnourished to work you can find him a desk job where he doesn’t need to lift his arms.

  7. It should go without saying, but it’s possible to be against the actions of Soleimani and the forces he led and still believe that the Trump administration is handling this the wrong way.

    It should also go without saying that this publication has been carrying water for Iranian terrorism for well over 20 years, and that when you raucously celebrated Obama’s killing of Bin Laden, Her Holiness’ killing of Gaddafi, and the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen and his 16 year old American son overseas, you lost any credibility on this or any other issue. When the only middle eastern assassinations you object to are the ones that disrupt Iranian terror operations it’s hard to dodge the charge that you’re actually a terrorist sympathizer who doesn’t give a fuck about Islamic fundie terrorism except to the extent that you hate Donald Trump.

    1. When you argue with straw men you always win.

      1. Oh look sarc is bitchy and drunk again.

        1. He’s not drunk, he just naturally operates on the level of a severely inebriated retard.

          1. Potato, Sparky, it’s all the same.

            1. Fuck you I ain’t no Sparky. Ke$ha sucks.

              1. ” I ain’t no Sparky”

                Is it too late to take back everything I’ve said about you?

        2. “Oh look sarc is bitchy and drunk again.”

          Why do you say that? What Sarc said is true. “when [Reason] raucously celebrated Obama’s killing of Bin Laden, Her Holiness’ killing of Gaddafi, and the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen and his 16 year old American son overseas.”

          That is a complete fabrication. A straw man.

          1. I say it because sarc is bitchy and drunk a lot and the odds are good.

          2. Sarcasmic said something mean about Tulpa, and Tulpa’s still mad about it 10+ years later. Just a guess, but I’d bet money on it.

            1. AHAHHA your guess is as good as your sockpuppet hahaahahahahahha

              Cry about me more!!!

              1. “lololol these losers can’t stop crying about me cause their jealous of how much fucking time I waste on this comment board posting nothing of value”

                That’s you. That’s what you sound like. And it’s sad.

                1. Ahahahaha look how butthurt you STILL ARE 10 years after I said something mean to you ahahahahahahj

                  Cry more!!!

                2. Just ignore it. It won’t go away, but responding only makes it worse.

                  1. And you lose. Don’t forget you always always always lose. If you thought you had any chance at winning, you’d try.

                    But you don’t. So you quit. It’s like drinking for you, but in reverse.

                    1. “I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.”
                      -George Bernard Shaw

                      I’m not wrestling, pig.

                    2. Right. You lost. You learned. Like I said.

                      Lol.

                    3. “I just ignore Tulpa, unless he zings me, in which case I exercise the same lack of self control that made me an alcoholic and totally talk to him because what he said got to me” – sarc, at AA explaining what he did today

        3. Wait, are you saying Sarc is my mom?

    2. Did you take your meds this morning? There’s Reason, then there’s the imaginary one you thought you read.

    3. True fact: Lizzie’s nickname for her favorite dildo is “Barack”.

      (Shikha’s is “Osama”.)

      1. She always wanted Osama to TERRORIZE THAT PUSSY!

  8. The disruptors have largely become the new establishment, and unlike a decade ago, it doesn’t look like the new leaders will be displaced any time soon.

    Like the counterculture hippies of old now being professors and policymakers.

    1. Establishment is only bad when its not the Lefties.
      /Lefty

  9. “”The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?””

    The Commander in Chief does not need additional congressional authorization for this. The AUMF regarding Iraq covers it.

    1. Iran is conducting a proxy war in Iraq. As part of that, its forces attacked the US embassy. The US responded by killing one of the leaders of those forces in Iraq. Somehow, according to the media it is the US who is the aggressor here. WTF?

      1. Remind me. Did we target Soviet leadership during the Cold War? Did they target ours? There were a shit ton on both sides killed in proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam and Afghanistan.
        But we never actually targeted the Soviets because the consequences of a war outweighed the feelz of revenge. Iran isn’t the existential threat that is the Soviet Union, but we’re playing a dangerous game with geopolitical ramifications that I sincerely hope Trump understands.

        1. Iran is not in the Soviets’ weight class, and they don’t have nukes (yet).

          Oddly enough, the rules for retaliation against a pipsqueak regional power are different from the rules for retaliation against a global superpower.

          1. I wouldn’t call Iran a pipsqueak. Especially with their close relationship with China and Russia they have the potential to punch well above their military capabilities.

            But just like with everything in SW Asia, my opinion is that we should be extricating ourselves from that region, rather than throwing fuel on the fire.

          1. That wasn’t us targeting the Soviets themselves, but rather their proxys. But you also point to belligerent behavior to justify more belligerent behavior. Exactly the kind of interventionalism rejected by libertarians for years.

            1. I thought we were talking about proxy actions here since Qud forces are acting through proxies. I do live goal post shifts though. This wasnt a direct strike on iran. And iran is no russia.

              1. “This wasnt a direct strike on iran.”

                Well, Iran certainly disagrees with you.

                Also 4,000 more troops headed to Iraq on top of the 750 additional already sent. #AntiWarPresident

                Remember when you losers tried to claim abandoning the Kurds to Turkey was all about pulling out of the ME? Hilarious stuff. Iran should invite Trump to build, err sorry, he’s not allowed to build things any more. I meant ‘brand’ a hotel in Tehran. Then they could simply ask him to leave Iraq. Everyone wins.

                1. I dont give a shit whether Iran agrees with me. Unlike you I dont look at them for analysis. This was in direct retaliation for actions occurred in proxy fighting through militias in iraq.

                  Keep bowing down to iran though, makes you seem smart.

                  1. Pedo Jeffy, in addition to his solidarity with child rapists, is also with the terrorists.

                2. Remember when you losers tried to claim abandoning the Kurds to Turkey was all about pulling out of the ME? Hilarious stuff.

                  Remember when you had a bitchfit about pulling SOF out of northern Syria and are now shitting your pants that the US is sending more troops to Iraq? Hilarious stuff.

                3. The strike was in Iraq. Let Iran explain what he was doing there.

        2. Fairly certain that if some Spetznatz “consultants” got taken out when we smacked down some comie fucks in a third world country, no one cried. Fairly certain the same happened to any CIA/green berets who got iced in ‘Nam or Afghanistan. The difference is that we didn’t have our VP doing this shit. That was Iran’s decision.

      2. So John….How long before Team D calls for an additional article of impeachment? They are dumb enough to do it.

    2. Where was this pearl clutching by Reason (other than Sullum) when Obama ordered the assassination of Bin Laden, which involved violating the sovereignty of a nuclear-armed country with US military personnel? We invaded Pakistan to kill him. Right next to their military academy and the homes of most of their senior government people. And officially without their permission, any briefing of Congress, or any thought given to whether this invasion might not only trigger war with Pakistan, but might inadvertently cause a full-blown war between the nuclear powers of Pakistan and India.

      It would be difficult to have a more proportionate, restrained response to the invasion and vandalism of the US embassy in Baghdad, than how the US retaliated last night. The leaders responsible were killed on Iraqi soil and no innocents were harmed. Hell, you have police operations in the US that don’t go this smoothly, or that punish only the guilty.

      1. That wasn’t Trump so they were cool with it.

        1. Pbbbt….

          One little incursion? Obama toppled the government of Libya, without consulting congress before hand. Without complying with the war powers act. Without seeking a declaration of war. He never complied with any requirements to work with congress.

          And they did absolutely nothing.

          1. Meh, it’s Libya. Are they even a country anymore?

            That and the anti-Khadafy forces seemed to do an all-right job of toppling him themselves, once NATO stepped in to take away his air cover, and to bomb him a bit.

            But yeah, not a lot of pearl-clutching there either.

            1. Worst foreign policy decision in US history

      2. You mean right here: https://reason.com/2011/04/04/how-libya-fails-the-weinberger/ ?

        Reason did not support intervention in Libya. There are many more articles like it. I can’t find a single article in support of the Libya intervention.

        I know, I know. They don’t support dear leader uncritically, so they hare hard to trust.

        1. 2 minute video from Cato guy says Libya war not justified.
          True.
          Couldn’t help but notice it’s decidedly different tone though, and the real softballing of its points

    3. The irony of the Chris Murphy tweet is that he called Trump impotent on Iran just 2 days ago.

      1. Then I guess Trump just got himself some Iran Viagra.

      2. Call me when the geopolitical situation has changed.

        1. Call me when the geopolitical situation is stable.

          What a dumb comment.

          1. Compared to your thinking that a targeted assassination is somehow evident of Trumps lack of impotence. Any schmuck can order a military response. Obama did it all the time. Does it change anything? I’d present the last 30 years as evidence that military options won’t solve the problem.

            1. Compared to your thinking that a targeted assassination is somehow evident of Trumps lack of impotence.

              He didn’t argue that, you dumbass. He pointed out that Murphy was dunking on Trump about 48 hours ago for not being capable of a forceful response to the embassy attack, only to turn around and cry like a bitch when Trump provided a forceful response.

              1. I guess I was processing the term “potency“ as meaning the ability to do something meaningful. I forgot who I was talking to.

                1. You process things really badly. My comment was pretty fucking clear. I was giving no advice on potent actions but calling out the irony of chris Murphy dumbfuck.

                2. Eric, just kill yourself. It will end your shitposting. Plus, you are not deserving of life. You’re with the terrorists.

                  1. I love you Shitty.

    4. Not so sure the AUMF “covers it”. But all the AUMF’s have been stretched to the point that any president can do whatever they ant now. That shipped sailed long ago.

      It is the position of the Iraqi government that the strike violated our SOFA. Iraqis are supposed to give approval for strikes in their country now. We asked them to approve the strikes, they declined to, we struck anyway.

      Iran was also targeted by the recent protests. They were feeling the heat of unpopularity among the Iraqi populace. We probably relieved some of that pressure from them, as common Iraqis and Iraqi government are all more angry with the US than Iran now.

      I think there was moral/tactical justification for the strikes, and it certainly feels good to hit back at an enemy, but I hope the damage to US/Iraqi relationship isn’t as bad as it seems. In other words, I hope the strategic outcome is as good as the short term victory feels right now.

      1. Gonna need some citations on that official policy of Iraq. I do know russia condemned the strikes further clarifying trump as Putins bitch.

        1. “The air strike on Baghdad airport is an act of aggression on Iraq and a breach of its sovereignty that will lead to war in Iraq, the region, and the world, Abdul Mahdi said in a statement.

          The strike also violated the conditions of U.S. military presence in Iraq and should be met with legislation that safeguards Iraq’s security and sovereignty, he added. ”

          https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-reaction-factbox/reactions-to-the-killing-of-iranian-general-in-a-u-s-air-strike-idUSKBN1Z2070

          1. Awww widdle baby cwying aren’t you widdle baby!!!

            1. Ahahahahahahah THAT SHIT PILE OF EDITORIALS IS THE BEST HE COULD FIND AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              HE KNOWS HE WAS VAUGHT LYING AND NEEDS ANYTHING HE CAN TO EXTRICATE HIMSELF AHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

              IT’S NOT THEIR OFFICIAL ANYTHING AHAHAHAHAHAAHAJ HE WAS TOTALLY LYING AHAHAHAHAHAHH

              REUTERS

              AHAHAHAHAHAHA

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAH

              1. AAHAHAHAHAHHA. SOME FUCKING GUYS CRYING LIKE HE IS AND HE THINKS WE DON’T SEE THAT IT ISNT A CITATION AT ALL

                AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                NO WONDER YOU HUD UNTIL YOU THOUGHT EVERYTHING WAS OVER IN THIS THREAD TONY AHAHAHAHAHAHA

                1. AHAHAHAAHAHAH

                  HE WAS ASKED FOR CITATIONS

                  AND HE POSTED AN EDITORIAL WITH A SHIT LOAD OF BLEATING IDIOTS INSTEAD

                  AHAHAHAHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                  HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                  HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                  1. Everyone “citations please”

                    Tony “here’s some GUYS SAYING SOME SHIT”

                    AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

                    HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

                    AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHHHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHAAH

          2. Weird.. you’re only citing the shiite backed PM and clerics. Where is the official resolution of their government? This would be like citing Trump or Chris Murphy and ignoring everyone else.

            1. You’re ridiculous. Who said “official resolution of the Iraqi Government”? I didn’t. Like they’ve even had time to pass a resolution, or that a resolution is even required. The Iraqi PM is a spokesperson for the Iraqi government.

              Why are you such a pedantic fuck?

              1. “You’re ridiculous. Who said”

                Who said you said that?

                We saw what you did, which was try to make it look like it was their official position while leaving yourself the ability to deny that you ever explicitly said that.

                You’re not clever Jeff. We have seen all your stupid tricks.

              2. You said.

                “It is the position of the Iraqi government”

                Are you fucking imcompetent?

                1. Of course not he’s doing exactly what I said, trying to claim it is their official position while leaving himself the ability to deny he explicitly said that.

                2. The Prime minister isn’t the head of the Iraqi government? He isn’t in charge of foreign relations? Are you saying that the Iraqi government secretly loves this strike? Like a reverse good guy deep state?

                  The Iraqis are not happy about this. If you can’t accept the fucking prime minister’s own words, then that’s on you and your continued denial of reality.

                  1. “The Prime minister isn’t the head of the Iraqi government?”

                    Oh look he’s doing that thing were he pretends people said things.

                  2. “Are you saying that the Iraqi government secretly loves this strike? Like a reverse good guy deep state?”

                    No, he’s saying the claim that you couldn’t support and when cornered move the goalposts quite a bit and are now doing exactly the same thing.

                    “The Iraqis are not happy about this”

                    Which is of course nothing like “It is the position of the Iraqi government” which was your original claim that you totally failed to support. That’s why you’re moving the goalposts again.

                    “If you can’t accept the fucking prime minister’s own words”

                    Which of course no one said.

                    what is being said is that the prime minister’s words are not in any way proof of your original claim and you know this which is why you’re getting so frustrated. You got caught. Now you’re having a tantrum.

                    1. My claim: Iraqi government views this as in violation of SOFA. I have the Iraqi prime minister saying so.

                      Your claim: The Iraqi PM is not authorized to speak for the government of Iraq? I dunno, it’s not really clear here.

                      No one got caught, other than you and Jesse got caught in a locktite standing 69 again. And it’s disgusting.

                    2. Pssst… the SOFA expired under Obama. We dont have a clear agreement.

                      Do you know anything? Honest question.

                    3. Pedo Jeffy, just go back to your NAMBLA message board. Adults are talking here.

                      And don’t ever pretend you’re a vet here ever again. Things could get real fucking bad for you for that shit.

                  3. The Prime minister isn’t the head of the Iraqi government?

                    Not really, actually. In my understanding, the PM is appointed by the president, and Abdul Mahdi specifically represents the interests of southern Shi’ites who would like to see Iraq returned to Iranian rule. His ties to the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution are well known. And he’s currently only an interim PM, as he was forced to resign by widespread protests in which hundreds have been killed.

                    When he speaks on this situation, he is speaking as a representative of Tehran, not as a representative of “the People of Iraq.”

                    The Iraqis are not happy about this.

                    This is the root thing: there is no such thing as “The Iraqis.” It’s a manufactured country. It’s probably a good bet that the people in the Shi’ite dominated areas around Basra, where Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was from, and where Iranian influence is strongest, are not happy. It’s not surprising that Arabs in Baghdad are celebrating Sulaimani’s death, and I’d bet cash money the various non-Arab/non-Persian peoples of the Mosul area aren’t too broken up about it, either.

                    1. Great. Now you made him go find new goalposts.

              3. “It is the position of the Iraqi government”

                You said that. When cornered?

                “The Iraqi PM is a spokesperson for the Iraqi government.”

                He’s also a mammal. He is neither the Iraqi government ( which was your original claim) nor all of Mammalia.

                You call it pedantry because we see through your stupid fucking games and you hate it.

                1. Is pedant the new code blue word of the day? It has been used a lot when I point out flaws in their arguments lately.

                  1. He’s out of moves so he’s trying to dismiss you.

              4. I love how dumbfucks start screaming pedantic when you expose their arguments flaws. You’re the one who used the broad Iraqi government term, not me dumbfuck. You pointed to some Shiite members of the government as proof. The PM is not a president, he is not the official spokesman to the same level as the US president. So he is not the voice of the Iraqi government. Every other iraqi in that article was a shiite cleric members. Basically you’ve solely proven Shiites back iran. No shit dumbfuck.

                1. What is your argument? That the Iraqi PM is not authorized to speak on behalf of Iraq? This is case in point pedantry. Stop being such a tribalistic, mendacious prick.

                  1. Yes. But then again I have a base understanding of how their government works. See squares comment above.

          3. DOL….I am perfectly Ok with Iraq asking us to leave. We can hang out in Kuwait for a while.

            1. Or bring the troops home?

              1. Even better, Eric. The Far East and EU need the arabs way more than us. The EU are a bunch of whiny ingrates. Let them protect their own oil supply.

            2. Well, sorry to say DJT just sent 750 more troops to Iraq.

              Remember guys, he’s anti war.

              1. hey remember when you lied about the Iraqi government’s position on this and then resorted to backpedaling towards the prime minister’s words because you’re caught lying

                1. Remember when you had a happy fulfilling life? Yeah didn’t think so.

                  1. Weal response after being caught in another lie.

                2. Remember when he also claimed to be a SF vet who knew Eddie Gallagher? Some people think that assholes who lie about that shit should be beaten to death for it.

                  Some people.

          4. “The strike also violated the conditions of U.S. military presence in Iraq and should be met with legislation that safeguards Iraq’s security and sovereignty, he added.”

            Met.
            With.
            Legislation.

            HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHHHAHAHHAHHHAAAAAA.

            Good one Jeff!

      2. Fuck off Tony.

      3. from what I’ve seen, most Iraqis are happy the SOB is dead, they were partying in the streets. That doesn’t necessarily mean they like us, they kinda want us out so they can rule their own country, but they’re happy we killed him.

        1. The protestors were happy, yes. But now they are scared. Scared because they think this will set off another war.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/iran-strike-live-updates/2020/01/03/3779f55c-2e33-11ea-bcb3-ac6482c4a92f_story.html

          1. hey remember when you got caught backpedaling by me and Jesse like a few minutes ago and told me look like a fool and have to realize that everyone’s onto your stupid games and you’ll never be able to pull any of that shit ever again

            1. This is “magazine not clip” level of pedantry.

              The one upside of being 2 really, really stupid losers on the internet is that you and Jesse never have to lose an argument. Congrats.

        2. Yes. But it is likely to be a celebration with a big hangover.

          Their main goal has been for Iraq to be something more than just a puppet of outside powers. Short-term, they can certainly be happy that we killed the guy who was coordinating a violent crackdown on them. But that action also just reinforces that – Iraq is merely a puppet of other powers. And the outside power that is even more dependent than Iran is on the kindness of elites-who-wanna-be-puppets is – the US.

      4. Loving the armchair diplomacy. Iraq gave consent, but allowed public denial to avoid domestic criticism and regional retaliation. Pollyanna.

  10. Trump did exactly the right thing. Iran was hoping for Trump to either do nothing and be humiliated or launch strikes on Iran itself which the Mullahs hoped would stir some nationalism that would shore up its support among the Iranian people. Instead, Trump hit Iranian leaders in Iraq. This isn’t going to stir up any nationalist ferver in Iran since the Iranian population is tired of spending blood and treasure in Iraq. And it also let the Mullahs know that the US will go after them personally in response to attacks on US interests, which takes all of the fun out of attacking the great Satan.

    Trump managed to preserve US credibility without sparking a wider war with Iran.

      1. Talk is cheap. And they say that every day. Yeah, they want to kill us. Big fucking deal. They have been saying that for 40 years. The fact that they now know that we can and will kill any one of them whenever and wherever we want makes their talk ring a bit hollow.

        1. Good observation. It’s rivers of blood all the way down!

          1. As long as it’s the blood of Iranian generals and politicians, it’s fine by me.

            1. Yep. Burn the fuckers. The Iranian people appear to want to do the same thing.

    1. I know very little about this particular situation, its history, or the players. However, I know for sure that this Iranian Mister Salami fellow is a dumbass for gamboling around Iraq, especially right after an attack on the U.S. embassy there.

      1. I was stunned to hear that he was in Baghdad. I cannot fathom the scope of their planned operation that would require his personal presence outside of Iran, along with a senior head of Lebanon Hezbollah and several high Iraqi militia leaders. They couldn’t meet in Iran?

        I guess the Iraqi militia would not agree to meet in Iran.

        1. The fact that he was walking around the city in broad daylight, without a care for his own personal safety or security, shows how deep the Iranian regime has their fingers in Baghdad’s political affairs.

          1. it also explains why the USA didn’t bother to let the Iraqis know ahead of time, similar to Osama Bin Laden & Pakistan.

        2. He flew into Baghdad from either Syria or Lebanon. He was also in Baghdad at least last month brokering a deal with all the political parties there re how they are gonna deal with the protests there.

          And Kataib Hezbollah is not the Lebanese Hezbollah. Hezbollah is just Arabic for ‘Party’ of God. Kataib (Arabic for ‘brigade’) is an Iraqi Shiite militia

          1. Ah, so you’re the one they fooled with that shit.

          2. “And Kataib Hezbollah is not the Lebanese Hezbollah.”

            True. Didn’t say the Lebanon guy was with Kataib. Sky news was reporting that Naim Qassem was killed too by the strike. Qassem is a deputy commander with Lebanese Hezbollah.

            It should have been easy for Soleimani to broker the protests, considering Iran was the one sponsoring them. Let’s see how much protesting is done, now that he’s in little bitty pieces, other pro-Iran Iraqi militia leaders are arrested, and (unstated) giant briefcases of cash and little boys are passed around to keep the local rulers happy.

            1. Actually the protests in Iraq are by young people against corruption, sectarianism, the US, Iran, and all the existing political parties and elites. It’s quite encouraging – if one thinks that Iraqis should finally have a chance to have their own country and not be a pawn in everyone else’s game. Or was. That protest is kinda dead now.

              Soleimani’s ‘deal’ was a deal re how those elites/parties would respond. But if I were to guess, it is that deal that gave him the confidence to plan out how to undermine the status of forces agreement. That is the easy to see goal of Iran re US forces in Iraq. To get them out. And assuming Naim Qassem was also there, that would also fit – Lebanese Hezbollah has good tactical experience in how to get ‘Westerners’ into quagmires – and how they respond to that.

              But I’m not sure that the tactical goal there is really very difficult. Just keep goading the US while we sit in our bases. IOW the decapitation is not really ‘fatal’. Assuming those Iraqi parties are still in synch with how to respond to those protests. If not – then the ‘solution’ for the US is to stoke sectarianism or lash out blindly – neither of which will work.

              1. “Actually the protests in Iraq”

                I love when somebody like you with no credibility whatsoever uses idiotically biosources and swallows a bunch of crap f and then tries to peddle it here like you’re correcting someone

                1. Not forceful enough there Tulpa.

                  You need to butcher grammar while laughing maniacally in all-caps. Preferably for 50 consecutive comments. Then and only then will your point be made.

                  1. Oh horseshit. LOL at spontaneous protests.

                    You and sarc will doubt the US government telling you the sun rises in the east, but will swallow any conceivable cover story a foreign entity puts together, provided it also makes the US look bad.

                    Go cry over at kos or DU: they’re stupid enough to believe that tripe too.

                    1. There’s a whole world of news that never makes it to Fox or Breitbart

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_protests_(2019–present)

                      Course you only prove your willful stupidity when you deny it even exists.

              2. Yep, all chances of a moderate Iran are now blown to bits due to the Orange Bad Man, because Soleimani was the Ghandi, Churchill, and George ffing Washington of Iran.

                1. Like everyone of your ilk, you are as clueless as a dog reciting poetry.

                  Looks like Reuters is now confirming the timing, location, context, and motivation for the decision to goad US forces in Iraq.

                  The strategy session, which has not been previously reported, came as mass protests against Iran’s growing influence in Iraq were gaining momentum, putting the Islamic Republic in an unwelcome spotlight. Soleimani’s plans to attack U.S. forces aimed to provoke a military response that would redirect that rising anger toward the United States, according to the sources briefed on the gathering, Iraqi Shi’ite politicians and government officials close to Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi.

                  Now we just have to wait and see whether those agreements among Iraqis hold, whether their other moves satisfy the protestors, and whether the US does indeed act in a way that redirects the anger towards us instead, and what effect the now-certainty that Iraq is back to being a pawn in other people’s games has on those protestors.

                  This has nothing to do with a ‘moderate Iran’. It has to do with IRAQ.

                  1. Typical cowardly diversion. (yawn)

    2. All of that aside, exactly what do people think we are going to do when our embassy is attacked and ransacked by an armed group of terror sympathizers? That is an act of war. Iran knew perfectly well what they were doing. Guess they found out that there are red lines that exist.

      Soleimani has American blood on his hands. Now the son of a bitch is dead.

      1. they probably thought they could get away with it after seeing what happened at Benghazi.

        1. The Iranians thought wrong. I really don’t want a war with Iran, but there is no fucking way we let an attack on our embassy go unpunished. POTUS Obama had his way of handling things. Ok fine, he is gone now. POTUS Trump has a different way of handling things. It is up to the Iranians to make the appropriate adjustments to their thinking and their behavior.

          I have no love for the Iranians, but I would say this to them: Choose wisely.

          1. I mean, if I was a dictator, the first thing I’d want to do is make sure I was on the Americans good side, and if I was on their bad side because I, say, overthrew their puppet government, I’d try to make amends to the point that they weren’t a constant existential threat to me. Because that has gone well for very few people in the past 50 years.

  11. Does Trump’s Strike Against Iran Mean We Are Going to War?

    Let me answer that question by posing another: Does Trump’s Strike Against Iran Mean Congress Is Going to Declare War?

    Less snarkily, Ima say “Yes”. 8-(

    1. What Congress should do is impeach Trump over this gross violation of Presidential powers. Oh, wait.

    2. Why would the U.S. go to war with Iran? The fucker’s already dead.

        1. Two Weeks in January: America’s secret engagement with Khomeini

          Fun Fact: Carter helped the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini get back to Iran from exile. Of course, on November 4, 1979 Iranians stormed the US Embassy in Tehran and kidnapped more than 50 Americans.

          1. Well meaning president, but holy hell were his domestic and foreign policies a mess. Because the Shah was SOOO much worse than what ended up running the place.

            OTOH, Carter did deregulate homebrewing.

            If Khamenei wants to continue hostile actions against the US, that’s on him. As will the aftereffects from such action. It’s not like Iran was going to behave if Soleimani and others weren’t blown up.

          2. Fun Fact: In 1953, the US and UK overthrew the elected government of Iran and installed a king (Shah) who ruled for 25 years until Iranians got the guts to finally overthrow the Shah. If foreign powers put Americans under a king for 25 years, when we finally stormed their embassies, we would be out for blood.

            1. There was also popular support for the Shah. Not that he was a great guy. And they don’t exactly love the current regime of totalitarian fundamentalists all that much.

              But hey, it’s all America’s fault.

  12. but it’s possible to be against the actions of Soleimani and the forces he led and still believe that the Trump administration is handling this the wrong way.

    It’s always amusing when people who insist this action must be just like Iraq then whine that others criticize them without allowance for nuanced positions. But we just can’t expect any better from you lot can we?

    the same psychopathic warmongers who lied us into the Iraq War have been gleefully spewing their old nonsense,

    1. It is even more ironic that they are against every action taken against forces such as the Quds forces while equivocating to be against them. Basically the only action reason gas ever endorsed is non action, basically getting your teeth kicked in. Strongly worded letters dont actually work.

      1. I thought one of the main principles for Libertarians was the NAP. Well, the NAP was broken, and we responded. Funny how the fake libertarians running this site forget all about that.

        1. The naive libertarians interpret the NAP to mean take no action by the US ever but allow others to be aggressive towards the US. It is weird.

          1. I don’t get the mindset. To me, it’s more the picture of the Gadsen flag with the snake holding a hand-grenade: “Fuck around and find out”.

  13. ENB went full pants-shitting #HateAmericaFirst hysterical on Twitter:
    https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/1212928009688244224

    So the president acted like the self-serving sociopathic chickenshit that he is and opted to usher in countless Americans deaths rather than risk the first 2020 news cycle go a way he doesn’t want

    I’m not even mad at @realDonaldTrump, because of course he did. Lord knows there are no morals there. Utterly devastating how many assholes are falling in line to fellate him as the world burns though

    We deserve everything coming to us. Only wish there was a way to direct the worst of it toward all you preening psychopaths who clearly never opened a Bible in your goddamn lives, let alone had an independent moral thought

    Her performative moral outrage is mental illness or smirking cynicism.

    It’s not two tweets until her hysterical pearl clutching concern for American lives turns into a blanket condemnation that all Americans “deserve everything coming to us”, and a devout desire to see your political opponents get the worst of it.

    “preening psychopaths”

    Leftists Always Project.

    Someone actually concerned about liberty and justice might think it’s the murderous lead executioner of a totalitarian theocracy who deserved to get what was coming to him, good and hard.

    But that would get it the way of #HateAmericaFirst moral preening, and that’s Job One.

    1. Well, she’s a whore who is too gutless to actually sell her pussy, so you shouldn’t expect much of her opinions.

      1. That is just such an intelligent and convincing comment. We should just create a pareto of frequently used words from SPB

        Fuck off: 633
        Pussy: 238
        Whore: 156
        Cuck: 74

        1. Awww I’m sorry I said something mean to you 10 years ago and you’re still crying

          “Cuck: 74”

          Lololol I don’t use that one ahahahahha but your sensitivity towards being called that is noted cuck! Ahahahahaahahahha

          1. 75

            1. 753

              And if you didn’t want me to know it bothered you cuck, you shouldn’t have cucked at me about it!!!

              AHHAHAAAHAA

              CRY MORE!!! 75 TIMES MORE HAHAH SHAH A HA HAHAAHAHA

              1. Jesus, you’re tiresome.

                It would be one thing if there were any wit or originality to your schtick, but it’s just the same 6 stupid insults over and over. Sometimes interspersed with ALLCAPS to emphasize that this time when you repeat yourself you really mean it. Don’t you get bored?

                Even your screen name is unoriginal.

    2. you preening psychopaths who clearly never opened a Bible in your goddamn lives,

      Libertarians are certainly at their most persuasive when citing the Bible as justification. For maximum effect refer to the “sky-god” directly.

      1. It’s nothing more than a repeat of the “smug atheist” meme–the one where someone who doesn’t believe in the Bible tries using it as a cudgel to force actual believers to do or think what they want.

    3. Is there a specific MSNBC job she is going for right now or has she just spent enough time at Reason to make staying longer just career stagnation?

      1. Americans “deserve everything coming to us” because of this?

        Huh. I never thought I’d read a Reason editor state that the impending deaths of Americans would be deserved. Inevitable, maybe, but deserved?

        It’s telling that writers like her still have employment there.

        1. The best part was her bringing the Bible into it.

          Lady, you’ve clearly never opened one yourself, because there’s authorized violence all throughout the text.

          –God repeatedly commands the Israelites to destroy their enemies, to the point of committing total genocide–not just men, but women, children and even the fucking livestock. When Saul backed out on one of these commands, his high priest launched a coup against his rule.
          –Jesus is quoted saying “I did not come to bring peace, but a sword,” declares that anyone who “loves the world hates me,” says that he’s come to turn family members against each other, and literally whips merchants right out of the temple.
          –The end of the book has all of God’s enemies being utterly annihilated and thrown into eternal torment in a lake of fire.

          Seems Trump’s response was rather tame by comparison.

          1. Remember when she called for violence against Ben Shapiro?

            I don’t know how she has time to be so violent AND hypocritical when she’s cranking out Reubens and French Dips. Her pimp can’t be getting his money’s worth.

            1. I remember the sammiches.

              1. People protesting Shapiro had the wrong idea. This dude needs his smug mug punched, repeatedly https://t.co/iVxWpoCQtl

                — Elizabeth Nolan Brown (@ENBrown) November 20, 2017

                Over some fucking trannies. She called for violence because Ben Shapiro wasn’t gung ho about trannies.

                True story.

                1. Nice.

                  This one has a screenshot of her original.
                  https://twitter.com/serbianhero14/status/932709970398924800

                  Sammiches and a mug of smug.

            2. I don’t use Twitter, so I’m not familiar with her posting career. That little rant is right up there with Eric Garland’s “game theory” Twitter-vomit for sofa-chewing lunacy, though.

      2. ENB said reason articles were about the clicks.

        reason has been circling the drain with fewer web traffic and lower donations.

        reason staff are running on borrowed time.

        1. And ENB s socking in the comment as Lester224 lol how fucking sad, but she clearly learned her lesson the last time she came in and screeched at me when I owned her.

    4. “So the president acted like the self-serving sociopathic chickenshit that he is and opted to usher in countless Americans deaths rather than risk the first 2020 news cycle go a way he doesn’t want”

      That right there is the real projection in ENB’s tweet. She and other leftists are desperate to get the narrative changed in 2020, and they just cannot handle that every time they puff up a bunch of bad news (like the embassy), Trump lets all the air out.

      I don’t think this assassination will change anything in the middle east- for good or bad. It is yet one more pearl on a string of pearls that can be clutched by anyone who needs another billion dollars poured into the ME. However, it is hard to see just how unhinged ENB seems in this tweet, and imagine her using the same vitriol towards Obama and his supporters when he killed an american citizen.

      Oh, I’m sure she cleared her throat and voiced her disapproval, but the moral outrage and insulting of their religions? Never.

      1. It’s a shame Twitter doesn’t have the ability to look back at that tiem and see what she said…

        1. “It’s a shame Twitter doesn’t have the ability to look back at that tiem and see what she said…”

          Well, I went through Twitter and reviewed her feed for the weeks after Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was droned to death, and could only find one comment- she linked to a single article by someone else at Reason, titled “Drones kill more american citizens than Ebola”. But, TBF, it is a lot of inane prattle about gamer gate, so my eyes glazed over after a bit.

          I definitely don’t see any “Americans get what they deserve” nonsense.

      2. This is what happens when you’re constantly hanging out with Beltway/West Coast leftists–you eventually adopt their shibboleths.

      3. “I don’t think this assassination will change anything in the middle east- for good or bad.”

        In the broadest of senses, sure – the middle east will still be the middle east.
        In a practical sense, it’s a game changer.
        Tehran has severely reduced capabilities abroad now. They face a fork in the road.
        The regime’s best hope for self preservation is now coming to the table

        1. Tehran has severely reduced capabilities abroad now.

          Only if you think that the perpetual decapitation strategy has ever worked. In fact, it is always more like whack-a-mole. Another head always pops up – and eventually you kill enough ‘top men’ – who you spent all your time collecting intel about – that the organization morphs into something you no longer understand.

          The regime’s best hope for self preservation is now coming to the table

          Aah – the delusion of thinking that your enemy is just you in the mirror. Poll of actual Iranians

          81% believe the ‘Quds’ activities abroad make Iran more secure – up from 75% in May 2019. 59% believe Iran should withdraw from JCPOA – and 75% believe that nuclear enrichment should now continue even with ‘sanctions relief’. 81% believe in Trumpista protectionism as a way to interpret ‘sanctions’ – while it’s unfortunate that some outside powers are still blocking Iran’s participation in the world economy, we can use current circumstances to build up our domestic industries to meet our own needs. This will reduce unemployment and make our society more resilient. 72% now believe there is no point in ever making any deal that involves the US.

          So unless you are saying that the US will impose a regime change – opposed by the vast majority of Iranians, all your prattling about ‘regime self-preservation’ is just ‘they’ll throw flowers at us’ nonsense.

          1. “farsnews.com”

            AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

            AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

            AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

            1. No wonder you’re always wrong

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

              FARSNEWS

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

              AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

              HES CORRECTING PEOPLE… WITH FARSNEWS AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

          2. Let me get this straight. You’re citing a public poll, conducted by a branch of the University of Maryland, in a totalitarian country, as evidence of anything beyond the regime’s willingness to cheat. And you call us ignorant.

            It may be that the people of Iran are pissed about Soleimani getting killed, or that “increasing majorities believe that the judiciary is trying to fight economic corruption (73%) and has increased its efforts since last year (60%).” But a poll like this isn’t the way to prove it.

            Jesus, was I the only one who read that section of P.J. O’Rourke’s, “Holidays in Hell,” about the Nicaraguan elections and how Western observers were completely blindsided by them?:

            Basically, it went like this, as how the pre-election opinion polling likely went: ‘You have no idea who I am, nor from what faceless government agency I come from. Shall we put you down as loving Dear Leader, or should we just tear up your ration card in front of you right now?’

            Opinion polling I do trust are violent protests. And the Iranians have had a bunch of those recently. (And the Bahrainians not so recently, before they were murdered by Saudi’s shooting at them from tanks.)

            1. That ‘branch’ of the Univ of Maryland is College Park. Which would be their flagship location and the largest university in the DC area. And since they’ve been running those Iranian public opinion studies (and Americans opinions of Iran) for quite a few years, it also means they have a pretty good idea how to interpret the results over time. The actual questionnaire puts opinion polls in the US to shame and is quite obviously designed to eliminate ‘stock answers’ – but of course you didn’t even take a glance at that cuz you’ve already made up your mind that you don’t like the outcomes.

              The only reality here is that YOU are the one who is worshiping Dear Leaders great success. Pretending that his pressure is bringing them to a breaking point. Rather than having the exact OPPOSITE effect – of hardening their own attitudes and now looking for reasons why they should never submit to pressure. That’s actually not at all surprising to anyone who has half a brain. You WANT them to be submissive simply because we are waving our dick around. If simply waving our dick around was the key to international success, then North Korea would be the most effective country on the planet. If you admit that just waving our dick around ain’t gonna accomplish much – then hmmm what’s step 2?

              Oh – and apparently you didn’t even know that violent protests are occurring in Iraq too. Guess you only ‘trust’ the protest that fit your narrative.

    5. So ENB is effectively supporting the foreign policy of the Iranian theocrats. At the very least she does not think they should be actively opposed.

      1. ENB is extreme RIGHT WING!!!!

        Haha. No wonder she does not value Libertarianism.

    6. Wow. That is hyperventilating value signaling if I’ve ever seen it from her. When did logic get replaced with emotional diatribes at reason?

      1. Roughly the time that danger haired idiot got promoted to EIC.

      2. It’s fairly common with ENB.

        She kept digging for a week when she tried to #CancelCulture someone who made a sammich joke.

        https://twitter.com/ENBrown/status/891256227619123201

    7. all Americans “deserve everything coming to us”

      Collectivized punishment is totes libertarian, doncha know.

  14. I’m not sure why anyone would expect the killing of a general–for any army–to make all that much difference. One thing most armies have is a surplus of generals.

    1. Some generals are better than others.

      Armies dont have surpluses of good generals.

    2. He wasn’t exactly your run of the mill line general, in case you were actually ignorant of his position and status within Iranian leadership. Multiple reports had him as in line to be their next President.

      His death has created a major power vacuum, it is unclear who, if anyone, will fill his current role.

      1. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis was also sort of a big deal in the domestic pro-Iranian militias. This was perhaps a klutzy move diplomatically, but it was a pretty serious blow to Iranian efforts in Iraq.

  15. How dare Reason criticize Trump! Dear Leader is to be praised for everything He does! If you disapprove of Trump then you support Obama and Hillary! Reason voted for Hillary! They’re Democrat shills! Love it or leave it you America haters! You hate America! Aaaauuughh!

    1. Yep. Sarc got into the cough syrup again.

    2. At least there won’t be any blowback.

      1. Lol and now you’re crying too ahahahahahaj

      2. There’s no such thing as blowback! Only Hillary voters believe in blowback! Blowback is not intended so it can’t possibly exist! America kills whomever we want and nobody retaliates! If you say there’s gonna be blowback then you voted for Hillary! Love it or leave it! Hillary voter! Aaaauuugghh!

        1. Oh God he’s still drunk and making a fool of himself.

          Someone get your bitch please.

    3. What would have had Trump do? The Iranians attacked the US embassy. That is an act of war. Should Trump have done nothing? Do you think it is a good idea to let the world know that they can attack US embassies and we will do nothing in response?

      If not nothing, then what? Attack Iran itself? Either explain what you think should happen or shut up. And don’t say “pull out of Iraq” because even if we did that, we still would have an embassy there and the embassy would still have to be defended.

      1. “Hey Hey, settle down over there guys” – how sarc would handle Iran

        1. “Come on guys, it’s late and I have to ride my bike to work in the morning” – words sarc has actually said, just before Iran left him and started fucking a cop, who took over his place in their family and mooted sarcs entire existence

      2. How would you react if foreigners killed an American official while driving down the road?

        I’m not saying that the attack was right or wrong. I’m saying that it’s foolish to not expect this to escalate.

        1. “I’m not saying that the attack was right or wrong”

          “I’m just acting like a sarcastic bitch and strongly implying it was wrong, then pretending I didn’t”

          You sackless nothing, stop lying lololol

        2. If the US sent a general to run militias in some country and those militias attacked say the Chinese embassy and the Chinese then whacked the general, my response would be such are the fortunes of war. You seem to be under the impression the guy was in Baghdad on vacation or something. He was there running militias waging a proxy war for control of Iraq and was in charge of the forces that attacked the US embassy.

          Again, what would you have had Trump do? Nothing? You think the President should just let anyone who wants to attack US embassies without any fear of reprisal?

          1. The embassy was not attacked by soldiers. It was attacked by protesters after a funeral for people killed by Americans.

            And pardon the fuck out of me if I don’t put much salt into the intelligence community. They are wrong as much as they are right.

            1. “It was attacked by protesters”

              Oh God…

              He actually…

              He can’t…

              Wow.

            2. The embassy was not attacked by soldiers. It was attacked by protesters after a funeral for people killed by Americans.

              That is complete bullshit and you know it. It was attacked by militias. It was orchestrated entirely by Iran and was an act of war. Just stop it. You didn’t believe that bullshit story when Obama claimed that Bengahzi was the result of a protest over 9-11. Don’t believe it now. It is what it is.

              1. Time will tell. But like I said I don’t have much faith in the Intelligence community. Seems to me like their task is more coming up with justifications than finding the truth.

                1. “Time will tell”

                  Oh oh, he’s sobering up! He realized he bought something Iran sold him!

                2. We have fucking pictures of the armed “protestors” spray painting soleimanis name all over the fucking embassy.

                  The level of ignorance required here is fucking unbelievable.

                  1. Do the taggers represent everyone involved? Could they be trying to take credit or get attention?

                    1. So your argument now is even if there was one honest protestor, that means the attack wasnt planned and executed by Iran proxies?

                      Again, that is a new level of naivete for you.

                    2. That is some top shelf ass covering there drunk.

                  2. sarcasmic probably thinks that the Iranian seizure of the US Embassy in 1979 in Tehran was really students like wikipedia and the Iranian government claim to this day.

                    1. Sqrsly told us yesterday nothing on wilipedia is wrong.

                    2. Don’t get me started on that my sides are aching

                    3. JesseAzPedia web site (as commanded, edited, and vetted by JesseAz) coming on-line ANY DAY now! And I am sure that EVERYONE will visit it regularly, and believe EVERYTHING it says!

                      Such as… Words alone cannot be crimes!

                      And… Trump needn’t follow the USA Constitution in ANY way!

                    4. AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      YOU SAID

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      WIKIPEDIA

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      UNBIASED

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                      AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                    5. Yeap. He is broken.

                3. sarcasmic
                  January.3.2020 at 10:47 am
                  Time will tell. But like I said I don’t have much faith in the Intelligence community. Seems to me like their task is more coming up with justifications than finding the truth

                  And you apparently have no ability to judge for yourself whether things are more or less likely based on all available evidence.
                  Just “intel agencies lie”. Ok, agreed. Are they always lying? Are you able to determine when they’re likely lying and when they’re not?
                  Or do you just respond… reflexively… with whatever fits your prejudice

                  1. that’s the thing he did judge for himself and he found the incredibly laughable claim that they are just protesters to be highly credible

                4. You don’t have to have faith in our intelligence community. All you need to do is see burned buildings, the dead contractor, injured civilians, spray painted messages supporting Iran’s leaders, and see the Iranian general and his minions milling around. Those are not actions of “protesters”. They are local militia or foreign soldiers who also happen to be committing war crimes by not wearing uniforms and attacking civilians.

              2. Outlets are reporting it’s protestors. But color and tickle me skeptical after that bull shit those clowns Obama, Hilary and rice claimed Benghazi was an attack from protestors upset over a stupid video.

                1. Rice.

                  Not ‘rice’.

                  Canaroli, jasmin or basmati?

                    1. I will have to go with jasmine.

                    2. You know the answer is “sake” you sad fucking drunk.

                2. The MSM still says Iranian students stormed the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979.

                  The Iranian government is known for allowing its citizens to carry Ak-47s around all day.

                  1. “Students.” Just a spontaneous outpouring of rage. No thought about the logistics of getting a crowd together, arming them, feeding them, providing them water/shelter/sanitation, and then pointing them in the right direction to, e.g., capture the embassy’s secure room before they’d managed to burn their shredded files.

                    But then, if libertarians could organize a crowd, and handle logistics, they’d have more influence than a few thinktanks and candidates who advocating dueling and colloidal silver.

                    All you can do is laugh.

            3. “”The embassy was not attacked by soldiers. It was attacked by protesters after a funeral for people killed by Americans. “”

              We’ve seen this before. Terrorist group gets people to protest at an embassy to provide cover for their attack. It’s basically using human shields. We really can’t fire into a crowd of protestors and win against anti-US propaganda that would result. It is also used to get sympathy for the terrorist because they are lumped in with the protestors. So the terrorist want the world to think it was just a bunch of protestors.

              1. I read comments like that to mean “There’s no possible way the actions of our military could piss people off! It was terrorists who attacked us because that’s what terrorists do!”
                You really don’t think that people get pissed off when their friends and family are killed by Americans? You think they just shrug it off and act like nothing happened? Maybe they’re fed up.
                That isn’t a justification for what happened. Just saying that there are other points of view. And since nobody views themselves as the bad guy (except Billie Eilish), the people waging these attacks must think of themselves as the good guys. Why would they think that way?

                1. “I read comments like that to mean”

                  Well yeah, you’re stupid. It’s why you’re being mocked.

                2. Yep, that certainly explains why thousands of military age adult males turned out to ‘protest’ at the same time.

                  1. At least they didn’t have mortars this time, Thomas, unlike that other spontaneous protest in Libya.

                    I don’t get it. Libertarians usually understand the concept of the professional protester and “rent-a-riot” when it’s in domestic politics. Why is the foreign version of that idea harder to grasp?

                3. I read comments like that to mean “There’s no possible way the actions of our military could piss people off! It was terrorists who attacked us because that’s what terrorists do!”

                  Why? Why do you decide that people mean something other than what they’re saying?

                  Are you such a liar that you simply cannot accept that people mean what they say?

            4. Holy shit, you actually believe the NYT narrative.

              1. In his defense, he’s drunk a lot.

                1. We have pictures of the “protestors” tagging the embassy with Soleimanis name as well as various militia groups. It is unbelievable that someone could fall for the narrative.

                  1. When the BLM protesters tag stuff do you take it seriously and assume everyone involved agrees?

                    1. When I see a torched crip members house with tagging of Bloods, I tend to think it was the bloods and not some random neighborhood protestor. Sometimes you have to go with the evidence on hand. Armed protestors, planned tagging, promotion on social media, multiple proxy militias openly taking credit…

                      What would it take for you to believe this wasnt just a protest? We are reaching Dave Chappelle r kelly trial stuff here.

                    2. Man, you see how fast he moved those goalposts to “everyone involved” lololokolooko

                    3. Are you just responding by applying your abstract belief system with the events just filling in blanks while largely ignorant of the facts on the ground?
                      Because it seems like you’re talking about general truisms, not this specific event

                    4. “What would it take for you to believe this wasnt just a protest?”

                      Could you be convinced otherwise?

                    5. You’ll notice the drunk dodged he question.

                    6. Yes, I could be convinced otherwise if you show me evidence of an organically built protest without links to known shiite militia groups. Problem is we know the links exist already.

                      So can you prove a negative?

              2. “”Holy shit, you actually believe the NYT narrative.””

                You referring to me?

                I don’t read the times and don’t know what their narrative is.

                The idea of terrorist getting a protest for cover is a great tactic for them. They know we will not fire into a crowd, and if we do it looks bad. It provides cover and concealment for the attackers. The cover is the human bodies, the concealment is the chaos when the attack starts which becomes problem for the people defending the embassy.

        3. ” I’m saying that it’s foolish to not expect this to escalate.”

          I certainly hope this doesn’t cause Iran to start funding terrorists and proxy wars.

        4. They killed thousands of americans in the last few decades. The Quds force is a recognized terrorist organization. They’ve taken credit for thousands of regional acts of terror from rocket attacks and bombings. They’ve directly targeted and killed US soldiers as well as contracted civilians.

          Are you just ignorant or something? Your question makes no fucking sense unless you have no clue about the Iranian proxy wars going on in the middle east.

          1. proxy wars going on in the middle east.

            Ah, so that’s where all that American killin’ is going on. Right where we’re involved in killin’ lots of locals.

            I thought I might not have noticed a Quds attack in Cleveland or something.

            1. And you take the ignorance to the next level. Murder doesnt count at all of in another country, right?

              1. Murder? Armed forces in a war zone?

                1. Man, the goalposts shfiting here is amazing. You people are top notch.

                2. Yes. The bombing of unarmed civilian contractors is murder you ignorant fuck.

            2. I thought I might not have noticed a Quds attack in Cleveland or something.

              No one ever expects an attack on Cleveland. But my sources say they were the ones who lit the fire on the Qudsahoga River.

          2. They’ve taken credit for thousands of regional acts of terror from rocket attacks and bombings. They’ve directly targeted and killed US soldiers as well as contracted civilians.

            Are you just ignorant or something? Your question makes no fucking sense unless you have no clue about the Iranian proxy wars going on in the middle east.

            This is a bit of a red herring. You talk about Iran’s proxy wars, but you don’t mention who those proxy wars are being fought with.

            If having openly funded terrorism that has resulted in American deaths is such a clear casus belli, why are we over there defending Saudi Arabia and Qatar?

            Because it’s not about terrorism. And it’s not about Democracy (the Gulf Council is clearly and passionately monarchist and theocratic). It’s about maintaining what control the US has over the flow of Gulf oil so that China and Russia don’t control it and so that Iran doesn’t emerge as a new super-power controlling all the oil.

            Any debate over US actions in the ME needs to take this understanding as its basis, and stop getting distracted thinking that any of this is about “fighting Terrorism.”

            1. Exactly.

              This has nothing to do with terrorism at all. It’s about “maintaining influence,” the very thing people were having a fit about because removing our SOF guys from northern Syria supposedly handed over the country to the Russians.

              I might take their protestations seriously if they weren’t so hypocritical about it. At least Ihlan Omar and Rashida Tlaib want the US out of the Middle East regardless of the circumstances or long-term strategic consequences, so I can’t fault them for being inconsistent about that.

      3. Trump should let them take the embassy like Carter did and then lose reelection like Carter did when his weakness is exposed every night by Ted Koppel.

        1. I wonder if that was exactly the plan? (Or that the embassy guards would massacre the crowd, which would be almost as good.)

          Which leads to the question, did Soleimani have any help from Trump’s political enemies?

          1. Or that the embassy guards would massacre the crowd, which would be almost as good.

            My bet is that this was the hope.

      4. I’d start by stop carrying water for Saudi Arabia. We have entangled ourselves in their war for regional supremacy and now you want to cry foul that Iran attacked an embassy. We are engaged in a proxy war with them for Saudi Arabia’s sake in Yemen, and I can’t think of what we get out of that. Obviously global stability isn’t one of them. And I am not certain that Trump shouldn’t have killed this asshole but for god sakes do what you promised and get us the fuck out of the area already, Donald.

        1. Unfortunately there are too many billions of dollars, and political careers on the line for that to happen. Military contractors and diplomatic services companies. Hell, there are desks at State Department, CIA, FBI staffed with people whose entire job- the reason they draw a paycheck and a pension- is to analyze everything going on in that region. Do you think any of those people are going to advise complete disengagement when it will mean closing down their office? Of course not.

          1. A guy can dream. And I still hold out a small sliver of hope that Trump is just the crazy SOB we need to change that dynamic.

              1. Agreed he is definitely changing the dynamic.

        2. Me, I’m not interested in “crying foul” over Iran attacking our embassy.

          I’m simply for acknowledging that given the attack on our embassy, this was a pure tit-for-tat level response. High government official, diplomatic mission, in Iraq. No escalation at all. The fact that he was the military commanding officer ultimately responsible for the embassy attack just made it all the more just that he be the one struck.

          If Iran wants to escalate further, that’s Iran’s choice, and we should match them again. If they’d rather de-escalate, we should go along with that, too.

          1. Agreed. The proper future action is the diplomatic equivalent of a mic drop.

      5. Weve turned our cheeks thousands of times, sarc prefers the policy of cowering.

        1. Well yeah, look at his family situation.

      6. It needs to be emphasized that they sent their agents to attack a US embassy in a 3rd country. It’s not like a reasonable response would be to pull out of the embassy of the country that sent their agents; rather, they’d have to close all US embassies and consulates around the world! So what could State do if they wanted to have diplomats installed anywhere? Seems to me you couldn’t possibly get any better result than the present one.

    4. This just makes you look dumb.

  16. “This strike was aimed at deterring future attack plans.” By the Pentagon’s own logic, if Iran retaliates, the strike mission failed its key goal. Remember that.

    Since Iran has been attacking us for decades the true test is whether future attacks are greater or lesser than they would otherwise be, not that they are greater than zero. But apparently we can’t expect Reasoners to apply their intelligence rather than grab whatever idiotic left wing commentary is available.

    1. Straw man, ENB. A policy of making their leadership pay for attacking the US is better in the long term than rolling over. Nobody has claimed taking out the last Bad Guy On Earth will usher in an age of peace.

      1. You can tell when she’s been sitting around with a bunch of other prog idiots, she comes here selling their wares like we’re all as incurious as she is, expecting that shit to go over.

  17. More bad economic news.

    Charles Koch current net worth: $62.1 billion

    Reason.com’s benefactor had an absolutely dreadful 2019, increasing his wealth by a mere $2,650,000,000. I predict 2020 will be equally unproductive. Drumpf’s high-tariff / low-immigration policies have resulted in the worst economy in living memory.

    #DrumpfRecession

    1. dude should drop a couple mil on you for the love you spread.

      1. OBL is craving a pimp’s love. He has no use for the money.

  18. Republicans turn Iraq over to people more closely aligned with Iran, then get pissed at Iran. You can’t even call this blowback. It’s just just unending stupidity.

    1. And since stupidity is ever abundant, we never need to get smarter! But it keeps the war machine cranking.

  19. “Does Trump’s Strike Against Iran Mean We Are Going to War?”

    Unlikely, despite the hysterics.

    What US purpose would be served by trying to invade Iran? How would Iran invade us?

    Iran may attempt terrorist attacks, but they were doing that anyway. If they do, we’ll hit high value targets. Maybe their enrichment program. If we get really pissed off, we’ll take out Kharg Island, through which 90% of Iranian oil flows.

    Will Iran mine the Persian Gulf? Who cares? Not our problem. We’re energy independent in oil in 2020, and will increasingly be an energy exporter as far as the eye can see. Winning.

    ISIS was a special case of back to the cave loons occupying sections of Syria and Iraq over the will of the indigineous population. As a global citizen, we took them out, but we didn’t occupy.

    I think the Trump Doctrine is that the military is for destroying and degrading the enemy, not for occupation and nation building.

    Hit the US. Get hit back 10 times as hard. Deterrence.

    1. Trump seems to use the military to kill people and break things rather than bring democracy to the world. The nerve of that guy. What kind of a nut does that?

      1. All reasonable people know the only purpose of war is to bring democracy and progress at gunpoint.

    2. What US purpose would be served by trying to invade Iran? How would Iran invade us?

      There are other forms of “war”.

  20. “Taking out Soleimani in the way we did is not like drone striking terrorists at their secret hideout or killing the leader of some rogue militia.”

    It was exactly like that.

  21. “if Iran retaliates, ”

    Prediction: In the next 48 hours, Trump tweets a gif of “Go ahead, make my day”.

  22. If Soleimani thought high-ranking people engaging in diplomatic missions in Iraq shouldn’t be attacked, he shouldn’t have attacked our ambassador’s diplomatic mission in Iraq.

    There was absolutely zero escalation here; it was a direct, justified, and proportionate response which had the added justice of directly striking the individual who chose to escalate in the first place. There’s probably never been a more correct, appropriate, and just exercise of US military power in all of history.

    As to what the Iranians do next, that’s entirely up to them.

    1. Good observation.

      As to what the Iranians do next, that’s entirely up to them.

      Yep.

  23. I don’t know. But people fearing blowback…have they paid any attention to the region for the last 50 years or so?

    It’s a game of proxy wars, clandestine operations, some overt armed conflicts and a shit load of dizzying political machinations it makes this claim look facile and naive.

    It’s the ultimate expression of ‘war by other means’.

    There’s a blow back for every blow back that’s ever been blown backed.

    As I posted elsewhere:

    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. By the way, the whacking of this degenerate is bigger than OBL.

      1. OBL was mostly a funder and figurehead. The general was more like Khalid Mohammed.

      2. Let’s not bring Open Borers Libertarian into this kerfuffle.

        1. Perhaps he isn’t the harmless crank he portrays himself to be?

      3. That’s a curious assertion; not saying it’s wrong, but ain’t sure it’s right.

        Bin Laden symbolized-and catalyzed- a Jihad. You know, the whole caliphate resurrection. In fact, it’s not a stretch to say he embodied an idea: a horrific and delusional idea, to be sure, but in the vein of a Lenin or Mao, his idea had a transcendent effect (one of those powerful ideas whose time had come.)

        Alternately, you’ve got a General of regional renown whose esteem amongst his citizens, troops and even enemies was grounded on, mostly, limited battlefield bravado. He had an extraordinary amount of geopolitical muscle as well.

        But his death ( the latter’s) like his life animated or will animate, at best, the obedient horde within a localized theocracy. In a month, no one will give a shit that he’s toast.

        On the other hand, Bin laden shook the globe, episodic as that may have been. And his echoes remain, years later. Make no mistake.

  24. This feminazi pig thinks we deserve to have our embassies attacked, that we have it coming. She said so on Twitter. A sentiment which no doubt is widely shared around here.

    This once great but now hateful and toxic outfit is where the employees obfuscate, dissemble, and outright lie. Twitter is always where they say what they really think.

  25. The question is this – as reports suggest, did America just assassinate, without any congressional authorization, the second most powerful person in Iran, knowingly setting off a potential massive regional war?

    The answer is no, as he wasn’t the 2nd most powerful person in Iran. He was in Iraq.

  26. “Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump’s cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function.”

    If instead of broader warfare, where lots of regular people get killed, maybe targeted assassination of politicians and generals would be an improvement. Hell, we could even migrate to champion combat between Supreme Leaders.

    1. I had no idea she considers Pence a military tactician who is actively engaged in planning and conduction combat operations.
      How many people died as a result of Pence’s planning and direction?

      The comparison is juvenile.

      1. Juvenile is ENB’s metier.

        1. No that would be whoring, but if she needed a fallback…

    2. “Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump’s cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function.”

      Covertly traveling to another country to coordinate terrorist attacks is not a legitimate state function. Mike Pence doesn’t plan terrorist attacks, he doesn’t traffic in drugs (which Quds does), and what Soleimani was doing in Iraq isn’t remotely comparable to that analogy or defensible as statecraft.

      We killed a terrorist as he was engaging in terrorist activities. It was justified. End of story.

      1. Bingo.

      2. Here’s the thing, the fact that he was Not part of the regular Iranian Military is of some great importance, because countries do not assassinate other countries military leadership. They don’t assassinate other countries government officials, they don’t mess with ambassadors or other countries embassies. That is all sacrosanct to preserve international order, even among sworn enemies. At the heights of the Cold War, it would have been unthinkable for either side to violate the others civilian or military leadership, or violate diplomatic immunity or the sanctity of embassies on foreign soil.

        Being a part of a regular military means the soldiers wear uniforms, and don’t hide amongst civillian populations, and don’t target civilians. They don’t command militias in other countries that exist to kill civilians, and create civillian casualties by hiding behind friendly populations. It’s the basic rules of War that predate the Geneva Convention.

        You know who does regularly try to assassinate other countries leaders, military officers, and diplomats? And carry out military terror attacks on civilian populations? The Quds Force…..it’s kinda why they exist. It’s why they are illegal,and Iran is labeled by everyone as a State Sponsor of a Terror. No one anywhere cares that we killed this ‘military leader’, other than the regime that flaunted every international law already.

    3. if Iran hit any US VP wouldn’t they be throwing (forced) parties in the streets?

      1. At least until they were vaporized in the nuclear blast.

        I think we’d pretty much glass Tehran if they ever assassinated our VP. At the very least, that would lead to full invasion and we’d kill every one of their leaders. Killing a superpower’s top leaders is an offense that never goes unanswered.

      2. They who, Dillinger? Reason staff? Probably not, but the “To Be Fairrrrr”-ing being done during their reporting could probably be heard from space.

        Iran? Sure, but when don’t they throw an impromptu, totally uncoerced party against the Great Satan?

  27. >>Because if there’s one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it’s killing their leaders…

    oooooh burn. certainly doesn’t help them move forward.

    1. Lol

    2. No it doesn’t help them.

      But don’t pretend that killing a 62-year old is about cutting off the head of the FUTURE of the Quds Force. Most of his generation of Quds commanders have retired from the field and are now in politics. He didn’t want to do that – but have no doubt that Iran had a succession plan in place – and once they promote the various 40-something operational commanders, that Quds force will look/operate much differently going forward.

      Our MO of decapitating the top has never worked before – and it is fundamentally deluded about asymmetric warfare, networks/cells/etc.

      1. >>have no doubt that Iran had a succession plan in place

        be stupid not to. also stupid not to blow this guy up given the opportunity. they like optics.

      2. Our MO of decapitating the top has never worked before

        How about when you take out most of their relevant command structure on one strike? They didn’t just “decapitate the top” of some decentralized terrorist organization…they took out the key planner and decision-maker for everything Quds did over the last 20 years and several regional heads for their operations in one shot. This isn’t about eliminating the “number 3 al-Qaeda” who holds no irreplaceable value in the organization at large…it’s the equivalent of eliminating Marshall, Eisenhower, and Patton in one fell swoop. That’s how critical those individuals were to Iran.

        Soleimani was also one of their top commanders for internal security. He was a key figure in putting down their popular revolts. So they have that capability degraded as well, which makes the regime at home less stable.

        https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7847069/Rocket-attack-Baghdad-airport-kills-seven.html

      3. but have no doubt that Iran had a succession plan in place

        Leaders in authoritarian countries who maintain control over their fiefdom for 20+ years don’t generally keep subordinates who are as capable as they are. They want someone who is capable enough to do what the leader wants, but not capable enough to eventually push the leader out of a job. So more likely than not, Soleimani’s replacement will be a step down in ability and leadership.

        1. “So more likely than not, Soleimani’s replacement will be a step down in ability and leadership.”

          If the opposite turns out to be the case, and the successor is even more able, another assassination is all we need to correct the situation.

          1. It’s not an assassination when you kill someone actively engaged in or planning hostile operations against your country. It’s called counterterrorism (and self-defense).

            And if the next guy does the same thing, yes…we should kill him too. Iran is a bureaucracy and eventually they’ll elevate an ineffective nimrod to the position if we take out enough of their more capable officers.

            1. Call it what you want. I don’t think it will bring Iran to her knees any time soon. Israelis have been doing this for years. Iran brought us suicide bombing. They play for keeps.

              1. Lol you were irrefutably wrong, so you respond with

                “Call it what you want”

                AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA AHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA

                1. You should be thankful that I respond at all to your inane hahas. It’s more than you deserve.

                  1. “You should be thankful that I respond at all to your inane hahas…”

                    Most of us here would be thankful if you’d fuck off.

                    1. I’d be thankful if you paid me a dollar for every comment of mine you respond to.

      4. “Our MO of decapitating the top has never worked before ”

        Americans are suckers for this sort of headline. It plays extremely well domestically, and makes a president look Presidential. Its lack of strategic value is not important.

        1. I’m not sure what your response is meant to impart. You responded to my comment, but appear to be responding to the quote from JFree in my comment, not what I wrote.

          1. Pardon me. I just clicked on the wrong ‘reply’ button. Targeted assassinations are extremely popular in America, especially as elections loom. A military defeat of Iran or China or Russia will require more sacrifice and won’t be as popular.

            1. You know what’s more popular? Killing terrorists before they’re able to kill your countrymen.

              Targeted assassinations…

              Killing a terrorist in the middle of conducting terrorist activities is not assassination, you fucking apologist. It’s counterterrorism and self-defense. Go sell your pro-mullah bullshit elsewhere…maybe in a different country, where you can stay.

              1. Call it what you like. I’m not running for office and I don’t care about the optics.

            2. “Pardon me. I just clicked on the wrong ‘reply’ button…”

              No, your bullshit is equally worthless no matter where you post it.

        2. “Americans are suckers for this sort of headline.”

          tureman is a fucking idiot who posts bullshit like this.

  28. Now imagine the heads that would explode if Trump called Qud forces junior varsity.

  29. We can conjecture its all Neo-cons run wild and Orange Man Bad again. But possibly be we got wind of some more serious acts Soleimani was about to perpetrate, and decided to get preemptive, instead of reactive. Wouldn’t surprise me if the tip came from the Iraqi’s. Not ALL of them are enamored with Iran running their country for them. (Any more than they were with us)

    I suppose the old fella was merely day-tripping thru the Baghdad airport “unofficially” by the way, and meeting with who he was meeting with just for some fly-fishing on the Euphrates.

    Still it is a pucker-up moment, especially for the unfortunates in the region.

    1. They are saying now he was collateral damage. The real target was a missile cash. They were SCUD missiles capable of reaching all the way to Israel.

      1. They evidently identified this general by a ring he wore. Sounds like his face was obliterated.

        A single American bomb would likely obliterated everything but a massive munitions explosions might have only burned his body to be unrecognizable.

        I still think the MSM is the enemy because instead of investigating facts to report accurately, they are activating Lefty Narrative 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

        1. “A single American bomb would likely obliterated everything but a massive munitions explosions might have only burned his body to be unrecognizable.”

          Nah. There are pictures floating around of what he looks like now. The vehicle and him look like what you’d expect when a Hellfire ATGM smacks it. 20 pound-ish warhead. I guess they didn’t have the Ginsu version, or felt it might not work given his vehicle.
          Probably fired from a Reaper at high altitude, if only for the persistence capability. (Helicopters can’t stay on station too long.)

          The Reaper can carry 250 and 500 lb guided bombs too, which would have left a bigger mess, and much higher chance of collateral damage.

      2. I hadn’t heard that. I did hear an early report of three missiles landing somewhere relatively nearby earlier, not ours, but nothing after that. Either way, not bad collateral.

      3. “The real target was a missile cache. They were SCUD missiles capable of reaching all the way to Israel.”

        Really? Scuds fit in the back of LandCruisers now? You know as well as I do that a TEL is about the size of a semi. Baghdad Airport security is probably garbage, but they should notice someone backing a semi with a rocket on the back of it out of one of the hangers. Even if it were a Scud, so what? Iron Dome/Arrow/THAAD is able to hit and kill those.

        I think it was just as simple as the arrogant ass paraded around in front of the partially-occupied embassy during the protest, analysts couldn’t believe their luck or the balls on this guy, and this was thought of as a way to discourage anymore embassy occupations.

  30. Part of the political genius of Trump is to maneuver his opponents into saying absolutely stupid shit that makes them look like fucking idiots to the average voter.

    And for our latest example, I give you ENB:

    “Because if there’s one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it’s killing their leaders….”

    I dunno, killing Bin Laden seemed to put a damper on Al-Qaeda’s antics. But I’m eagerly awaiting to hear Lizzie’s explanation as to how NOT killing terrorist leaders will somehow make them like us more.

    1. ENB: great ambassador for libertarianism…

      1. She pretends to be libertarian because literally everyone else thinks sex work is gross and degrading.

        1. It doesn’t really matter that we all know she’s a Leftist she’s out on Twitter representing Reason magazine, which claims libertarianism, to the masses.
          It’s not likely to win over any potential converts

    2. But I’m eagerly awaiting to hear Lizzie’s explanation as to how NOT killing terrorist leaders will somehow make them like us more.

      I’m sure it will parallel her argument about how not erecting a border wall will somehow encourage people not to cross the border illegally…something-something-inherent-goodness-of-humanity.

    3. HE WAS ON A DIPLOMATIC MISSION Y’ALL

      That’s why he was killed with Hezbollah leaders

  31. The comparison of this to Iran assassinating Mike Pence seems silly to me.

    I’m pretty sure that Democrats would celebrate in the streets if Trump or Pence were assassinated. Shit, they’d probably welcome an invasion from Iran if it meant that Trump would lose power.

  32. This is going to cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, even though it is against a terrorist who deserves assassination. Creating a war is a great re-election strategy for Trump.

    1. ” Creating a war is a great re-election strategy for Trump.”

      I can’t think of a better one. If only wars could be won by assassinating generals, we’d really be onto something.

    2. This is going to cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives

      Based on your assumption that a full invasion is inevitable after this…when we have a President whose military responses have been both measured and restrained and who’s consistently on record as being loathe to invade anyone or to occupy any new territory.

      Try looking at the actual record of the President, rather than the hysterical fear-mongering the press is jamming down your throat to fit their narrative.

      1. Remember when he bombed the Syrian airbase. Not only did Hillary agree with it, she said it didn’t go far enough.

    3. Hi ENB!!! SORRY YOU HATE BEING CALLED A CUCK LOLOL IS WHORE BETTER?

    4. “This is going to cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, even though it is against a terrorist who deserves assassination.”

      I’m sure you think the market will never recover from Trump’s election, right?

  33. On foreign policy, Reason writers are exactly like progressives and economics. They seem to have zero knowledge about world/military history and all they do is emote. If pressed, they would probably say we should have appeased Hitler more to prevent WW2.

    It is fucking embarrassing

    1. ” they would probably say we should have appeased Hitler more to prevent WW2. ”

      I don’t know any Reason writers, progressives, or economics who say we should have appeased Hitler more.

      1. Publicly.

      2. You are correct that they don’t say that about appeasing Hitler.

        They just think that what didn’t work with Hitler will totally work with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China so long as politicians they like are the ones doing the appeasing.

        It’s in the same vein as where many lefties will admit that the Soviet Union was horrible, but then will immediately claim that socialism will work next time because the Soviet Union wasn’t “real” socialism.

        1. “They just think that what didn’t work with Hitler will totally work with Iran, North Korea, Russia, and China”

          It’s not a bad assumption. Hitler was so desperate in his desire for war that it flummoxed almost everyone. Only Churchill and Stalin seemed to have a good idea what drove Hitler. Others assumed he was a normal kind of guy who could be dissuaded from war by appeasement. It should have worked had Hitler been your run of the mill politician. The appeasement terms were more than generous and made Hitler something like a god in stature among the Germans. Still, they were not enough for Hitler who was determined to go to war in any event.

          it’s a terrible mistake, I think, to assume that the leaders of Iran, Russia and China are Hitlerian war mongers whom it’s impossible to appease.

          1. it’s a terrible mistake, I think, to assume that the leaders of Iran, Russia and China are Hitlerian war mongers whom it’s impossible to appease.

            It is…because they’re actually smarter than Hitler was and their warfare against the United States is far more subtle. Well, except for Putin, who does not seem particularly opposed to the U.S. when Democrats aren’t demonizing him as a way of taking potshots at Trump over make-believe election conspiracies.

            1. ” their warfare against the United States is far more subtle”

              I don’t think Russia, China and Iran consider themselves to be at war with US. Not yet anyway. You’ll know its underway when unsubtle things start happening. Sinking aircraft carriers, for example.

              1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

              2. I don’t think Russia, China and Iran consider themselves to be at war with US.

                Then you don’t know anything about China or Iran and you should probably stop displaying that by commenting on subjects about which you know nothing.

                1. You do realize the guy we just killed has been conducting attacks on Americans for years? He imported EFPs into Iraq and gave them to insurgents specifically to kill U.S. servicemen. He just finished an attack on our embassy and was planning more attacks when we killed him.

                  And Iran’s been attacking our ships in the Persian Gulf (in international waters) for years. If you don’t think they see themselves as at war with us, then you’re the dumbest person on this board.

                  1. “And Iran’s been attacking our ships in the Persian Gulf (in international waters) for years. ”

                    If that’s your idea of war with Iran, you ain’t seen nothing yet. How many US ships has Iran sunk in the past 50 years? I’d be surprised if there were any. As I wrote, you ain’t seen nothing yet.

    2. They’re a bunch of cosmotarians surrounded by leftist journalists who work for publications where the Reason staff eventually hope to score more lucrative jobs, so of course they’re going to follow the flock and scream that the sky is falling when the Orange Man Bad does anything that might someday remotely resemble the preconception of him they formed in their pea brains.

      The only reason consistently found at Reason is generally in the discussion on the comment threads…otherwise it’s just another prog outlet written by a bunch of left-libertarians who occasionally stumble into a good point on some pet issue but otherwise parrot the official line of the Party and whatever Charles Koch cares about.

      1. Nothing left to say after that.

      2. “The only reason consistently found at Reason is generally in the discussion on the comment threads”

        Is there another publication you prefer? National Review? FOX news? Neither are ‘libertarian,’ so is there a better libertarian publication?

        1. What led you to the assumption that I adhere to your interpretation of libertarianism?

          1. I was simply asking if there was a publication you prefer to Reason. If you want to argue that National Review and FOX are libertarian, then go for it. I’m sorry if my assumptions offended you. That wasn’t my intention.

            1. Actually, you were crying. A lot.

              1. I think FOX and National Review are not as Libertarian as Reason is.

                1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
                  “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

                  Fuck off.

                  1. You’re back to spam flag worthy comments. I know you can do better. Anger is not your friend.

                    1. “You’re back to spam flag worthy comments.”

                      You remain full of shit; fuck off, bullshitter.

        2. There are no libertarian publications. There are no libertarians, according to libertarians.

  34. “Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump’s cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function. ”

    As long as Pence or the cabinet member is also a serving special forces planner and involved in current attacks, then yeah; exactly the same thing.

    1. HE WAS ON A DIPLOMATIC MISSION Y’ALL

      That’s why he was killed with Hezbollah leaders

  35. When Welch next asks for money because Reason is the place to go to avoid the hysterical nonsense the rest of the media offers I will remember this:

    We deserve everything coming to us. Only wish there was a way to direct the worst of it toward all you preening psychopaths who clearly never opened a Bible in your goddamn lives, let alone had an independent moral thought

  36. Brown, you make a fair point here, but . . .

    What would you do if you were in Trump’s place?

    Ignore it?

    ‘Negotiate’ more? Which is basically ignoring it.

    What?

    1. He let it go twice already…when the Iranians hit one of our drones and when they attacked an oil field. That just invited escalation. The TDSers conveniently ignore that.

      He set a red line that if the Iranians attack Americans he’d bring the pain, they crossed that line, and he did exactly what he said he’d do. Apparently to the Reason staff, that means he must be some kind of tyrant or mad man. To me, what President Trump did should be the no-brainer call for any world leader in his situation.

  37. Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump’s cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function.

    Actually no, Ms. Brown. The closest analogue is Iran assassinating a US general while he is in a war zone. Soleimani had American blood on his hands. He is not the kind of guy you want to be defending to Reason Readership.

    1. Not to mention that… and?

      Setting aside that Pence hasn’t actually commanded any terrorist organizations in foreign countries first hand as even ENB blatantly accepts Soleimani has done, is ENB’s stance that she prefers Soleimani and Pence in place and as is to all other alternatives? Seems like an exceedingly odd position for a libertarian, even one who isn’t rabidly anti-Trump or insanely pro-terrorism to take. Almost whimsically pro-government, anti-violence, and even anti-personal responsibility, but totally not TDS-motivated abject pacifism. Taking down governments both foreign and domestic on their terms seems like an obviously loser libertarian position.

      1. It is a sad fucking day when an American journalist empathizes with a terror leader over her own country. Seriously KMW, you’re doing Reason no favors with this one.

  38. Because if there’s one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it’s killing their leaders

    Giving in to them won’t pacify them either. Some times you have to beat the hell out of someone to get the message across.

    1. And sometimes a decisive shot to the windpipe is more effective, less destructive, and less exhausting than taking the time to beat the hell out of someone properly. Not always the way to go but, when properly employed as a defensive maneuver, respectable.

  39. “What would you do if you were in Trump’s place? ”

    Trump should stick to his guns and live up to years of promises to bring troops home and end America’s endless wars. He should resist pressure from those who would send in more troops and bring on more war.

    1. You realize that President Trump never at any point promised to let terrorist attacks against U.S. civilians go unanswered?

      He should resist pressure from those who would send in more troops and bring on more war.

      How about when they try to kill U.S. civilians at one of our embassies? Should we just let the terrorists do what they want because, in your apparent opinion, embassies are an illegitimate exercise of American power?

      Or are you of the opinion that any Americans working in Iraq in an official government capacity deserve whatever the terrorists do to them?

      1. “How about when they try to kill U.S. civilians at one of our embassies? ”

        Why not close it down? The American Embassy in Teheran was closed down decades ago and nobody has been hurt or killed. If Americans insist on operating in places where they are not welcome, attacks on embassies and personal will become more common.

        “Or are you of the opinion that any Americans working in Iraq in an official government capacity deserve whatever the terrorists do to them?”

        The official government capacity is an evil one. Death is not undeserved. But I agree with Trump’s old line on the issue. They should be brought home where they can live their lives in peace and safety.

        1. Why not close it down? The American Embassy in Teheran was closed down decades ago and nobody has been hurt or killed.

          Give the terrorists what they want. Got it.

          Thanks, but appeasement doesn’t work, nor does isolationism.

          1. “Thanks, but appeasement doesn’t work, nor does isolationism.”

            This is exactly what I fear. Even though Trump is determined to bring the troops home, he is not capable of delivering because of domestic pressure to swing the big stick abroad, and his urge to respond to foreign provocations.

            1. He killed Soleimani because the guy just attacked us in Iraq and killed Americans, after being warned what would happen if he did.

              That wasn’t “domestic pressure”…that was a direct response to an attack. Trump set a red line, Soleimani crossed it and attacked Americans, he got splattered along with his buddies.

              You’re really pathetic.

              1. Will Iran respond to this direct response? If they do, it appears that yet more Americans may die, at the hand of someone other than Soleimani, Trump red line notwithstanding.

                “You’re really pathetic.”

                What’s pitiful about my pointing out these actions may put a kink in Trump’s plan to end America’s endless wars? Not following you here.

        2. The official government capacity is an evil one. Death is not undeserved.

          And you’re a typical clueless an-cap to boot.

          Why don’t you jog off to your hidey-hole in the woods and make your self-defense pacts with the other clueless Rothbard sycophants that the world doesn’t care about? We’re busy talking about reality here.

          1. So reality means that Trump can’t deliver on his promise to end the endless wars. I was hoping for better.

        3. Why not close it down?

          Against the will of the Iraqi people? Baghdad can revoke embassy status and kick out the personnel there any time it pleases. The same way any other country can notify any other that it’s embassy status has been revoked. This has been done repeatedly with Venezuela and across regimes in the ME.

          It’s kinda surprising (not really) that you think that angry mobs setting embassies on fire is good groundwork for policy and relations but executing foreign military leaders operating domestically in their own nation’s interest isn’t.

          1. “Against the will of the Iraqi people?”

            Surely it’s the will of the American people that counts here. Americans don’t want an American embassy in Teheran, and there isn’t one. If Americans want an embassy in Baghdad and want to launch attacks on Iraqi targets, then some mild embassy storming is to be expected if not welcomed.

            1. “”then some mild embassy storming is to be expected if not welcomed.””

              Welcomed by whom?

            2. Surely it’s the will of the American people that counts here. Americans don’t want an American embassy in Teheran, and there isn’t one. If Americans want an embassy in Baghdad and want to launch attacks on Iraqi targets, then some mild embassy storming is to be expected if not welcomed.

              So, no valid points to make. Just a lame rehashing of the status quo and an idiotic support for violence and destruction as policy.

              Good to know that you don’t want to address any issues or solve any problems as much as just bitch, ignore brown people, and bad mouth Americans.

              1. “Good to know that you don’t want to address any issues or solve any problems”

                It’s all out of our hands now. The bad guys have the puck and home-ice advantage.

              2. It’s mtruman, whatd you expect?
                He’s a troll. Has a unique style, but doesn’t believe his own bullshit.
                Though he has been breaking over the last couple months, and might be starting to believe in some of that bullshit

            3. Americans don’t want an American embassy in Teheran

              According to whom?

              If Americans want an embassy in Baghdad and want to launch attacks on Iraqi targets

              Do you have any clue what role an embassy fills in foreign policy? And you realize that the people we just killed weren’t Iraqis? Nor were the people who stormed the embassy. They were working for Iran. That’s a different country than Iraq.

              then some mild embassy storming is to be expected if not welcomed.

              If you ever travel to a foreign country and get nabbed by a terrorist group, the only non-hypocritical response on your part would be to demand that the U.S. government leave you there to die and make no attempt to retrieve you. I look forward to applauding your pure libertarian demise if that happens.

              1. “Do you have any clue what role an embassy fills in foreign policy?”

                Do you? Did the possibility that those demonstrators know more about its role than you do? You know nothing more than you hear on the news.

                1. You.
                  Are.
                  Full.
                  Of
                  Shit.

                  1. You.
                    Are.
                    Spam.
                    Flagged.
                    Yet.
                    Again,.
                    Sucker!.

                    1. mtrueman
                      January.3.2020 at 11:57 pm
                      “You.
                      Are.
                      Spam.
                      Flagged.
                      Yet.
                      Again,.
                      Sucker!”

                      Goody for you. You are more than welcome to ignore anyone who calls you on your bullshit; I’m sure you’ve spent your entire life trying to avoid responsibility for your assholery!
                      Hint: It won’t work. Sooner or later, reality catches up to pathetic pieces of shit like you.
                      So enjoy being laughed at where you can’t read the laughter. Your mommy is happy for you, asshole.

                    2. Oh, and I returned the favor.

  40. The European Union won’t grant patents to robots.

    Remember this moment when the robot SJWs rise up and protest these Jacques Crow laws.

  41. Like most Democrats with foreign policy expertise are saying, the question here isn’t so much, “Did Soleimani deserve to be assassinated,” but, “What’s the strategy?”

    If a cool-headed analysis of the facts here suggested that Iran is going to respond to the death with a lot of heated rhetoric and some limited “countermeasures” not amounting to much, while perhaps re-calculating its various proxy efforts in Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq – then yeah, maybe this was the right call. It’s possible that Iran is pinned in by its need for support from Japan, Russia, China, and Europe, and it can’t afford to lose their support by responding with a blatant use of force. Or maybe the US knows that Israel isn’t going to tolerate an aggressive military response from Iran and will fight a lot harder, at less instigation, than we will – and so, Iran, anticipating that, will calibrate their response.

    But nothing I’ve seen from Esper so far suggests to me that he’s making decisions based on second- or third-order calculations. It seems to me that this assassination’s most immediate consequences will include pushing Iraq further into the Iran orbit, bolstering the hardliners in Iran, and further isolating the US from its allies. Iran may choose to double down on its nuclear program. And Iran will have a stronger case than ever that the US is not a reliable partner and cannot be trusted – a case that they’ve been making ever since Trump withdrew from the JCPA, despite Iran’s substantial compliance with that agreement.

    I simply don’t trust that Trump is advised by competent advisers, any longer, or making wise judgments based on their advice. I think that this “punch on the nose” served a shallowly-considered interest in appearing strong, and it may play well for his base (if the comments here are any indication), but I don’t think that they have any real strategy for the various ways in which Iran might respond.

    1. It seems to me that this assassination’s most immediate consequences will include pushing Iraq further into the Iran orbit

      Based on what information?

      You realize that most Iraqis (to include Shi’a Iraqis) are actually opposed to Iranian intervention in and control over their affairs and that they’re probably not as unhappy about Soleimani’s death as you presume they are? Quds isn’t an Iraqi military force, after all.

      1. I appreciate that many Iraqis are tired of Iranian involvement in Iraq. But that doesn’t mean that they welcome the United States bombing Iraqis or assassinating Iranian targets within Iraq. Our blatant, unilateral action in contravention of Iraqi sovereignty is going to push Iraqi politicians away from us, not pull them closer.

        1. But that doesn’t mean that they welcome the United States bombing Iraqis

          They were quite happy for us to bomb Iraqi targets when ISIS was occupying them. They invited us back to do so, after all.

          or assassinating Iranian targets within Iraq

          Maybe you should watch the news. Also, it’s not assassination to kill a terrorist engaging in terrorist activities.

          https://www.yahoo.com/news/soleimani-attack-cleared-iraqis-celebrate-131427709.html

    2. You know what you missed when you were watching the US based news last night? Spontaneous celebrations in Baghdad at 4 in the morning. Hundreds of people running through the streets screaming and waving Iraqi flags. Thousands in Tahir square chanting and celebrating and dancing to Arab techno music.

      Apparently there have been protests against the government ongoing for 3-4 months, with protesters camping out in Tahir square. They are not only protesting a feckless government, but interference from Iran and Iranian militias. So it was natural that they would take to the streets to celebrate what they view as a victory.

      All of this, notably absent from US media. Extensively covered by overseas media, particularly Al Jazeera and BBC news.

      But I certainly saw loads of footage of the mourning protests in Iran. CNN has been using it on all cut ins and cut outs at breaks.

      1. You know what you missed when you were watching the US based news last night? Spontaneous celebrations in Baghdad at 4 in the morning.

        You’re right, I don’t search out propaganda designed to make me excited to jump into another war in the Middle East. Kinda the whole point of the OP here.

        1. “You’re right, I don’t search out propaganda designed to make me excited to jump into another war in the Middle East.”

          No, you show up here to post lies.

        2. I don’t search out propaganda designed to make me excited to jump into another war in the Middle East.

          You just search out propaganda that reinforces your belief that America is the cause of all the world’s problems and that Islamic terrorists are the real victims.

        3. I don’t search out propaganda

          Parroting the American media’s take on it word-for-word doesn’t reinforce that claim.

    3. It’s ok Simon.
      Nobody here expects anything but the party line from you.
      Which makes sense, as you’re parroting what I heard on CNN last night almost word for word

      1. It is a good question though that Simon and JFree allude to: how to distinguish a paid-for protest/riot like the embassy occupation, from (presumably) actual spontaneous demonstrations like the Tahir Square celebration this morning, or the multiple violent protests against the Iranian regime in Iran? Or the Wall getting knocked down in Berlin.

        Probably answered in a similar manner to Kinsey’s theories on sexual preference. That there’s isn’t a pure protest one way or the other, but probably all of them are enhanced or supported by an outside agency in some way.

        1. True.
          I don’t know that there’s any way to really tell.
          Look at South America – spontaneous demonstrations or CIA manipulation?
          There will always be believers both ways.
          All you can do is look at the circumstances, the complaints, the composition, etc – basically the details – and figure out what makes the most sense

          1. I always look for motives, specifically strategic.
            It’s why I’ve never bought most of the gas attack narratives about Assad, especially the most recent.
            Early in the war, it’s plausible. Assad is in literally a fight for his life and it’s not going great.
            But that hasn’t been the situation for the last 2 years.
            So when they come out and say Assad is using gas at a point where the war is going in his favor and only mopping up left to do, I don’t buy it.
            There’s only risk, no reward.

            The embassy “protest” was pretty transparent.
            The prior ones, which led to the deaths of hundreds, are more likely to be more or less genuine. It doesn’t eliminate the possibility of outside manipulation, but it seems more likely that they were sincerely spontaneous.

  42. Because if there’s one thing that pacifies terrorist cells and prevents acts of aggression against Americans, it’s killing their leaders…

    So an Iranian military leader is leading terrorist organizations and Reason is defending it/him? I can’t reasonably surmise that any action would convert him from violent activist to uninvolved pacifist the way separating all his organs from each other did. It seems exceedingly unlikely that even if his compatriots are enraged or emboldened by his death, that they’re capable of rising to his level of capability.

    Of course, this is ENB, she’d defend an outright murderer and rapist with blood on his hands because the DA prosecuting the case was seen jaywalking at 2 a.m. with a woman who wasn’t his wife.

  43. Awww, another war. How many does that make now?

    Here’s a novel idea for peace. Get the US military the fuck out of sovereign nations.

    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. Here’s a novel idea for peace. Get the US military the fuck out of sovereign nations.

      You are aware that the US isn’t in Iran, right? That the escalation on Iran’s part is due to the US’s non-military intervention, right?

      Setting that issue aside and agreeing with your underlying premise, which sovereign nations, in which order, and as chosen by whom? Trump tried to get out of Syria and was stopped because he was doing it too quickly.

      I don’t disagree that the US should get out. I don’t believe that departure to be unconditional (especially in the cases where it would seem we were driven out) and it appears that even people who agree with that premise have their own unspoken conditions by which they think the US should (not) leave.

      1. That’s Misek; according to him, it’s the jooze!!!

        1. There is no point in talking with an antisemite Nazi.

  44. I am astonished at how lame and partisan all of the analysis of this has been. Everyone in the US simply trying to spin it as pro Trump or anti Trump.

    Here’s the real analysis. If you want the Trump angle, it is simple. His actions have told him exactly what he is doing and thinking. In every case, Trump plays tit for tat. In every case, Trump looks for leverage before brokering a deal. In every case, Trump looks for the minimal military action..

    Remember what happened when the military wanted to retaliate for drone strikes? Trump called it off when he found out there might be as many as 500 casualties. Too much loss of life. Not worth it.

    So what do we have here? Trump is trying to renegotiate a bad treaty with Iran. He put sanctions in place to gain leverage. Iran has been escalating attacks around the region – on shipping, on oil production, on our citizens, on our embassy. Trump has resisted military responses thusfar.

    Then, a unique opportunity presented itself. The Iranian military commander and the commander of the Iranian backed militia in Iraq that attacked the US embassy are together. A strike on their vehicle would be a very strong response with a very minimal loss of life. Just a handful of people in danger.

    This is Trump. Tit for Tat. Limit casualties when you can. Look for leverage. Strike a deal.

    Expect Trump to offer an olive branch fairly soon. There may be a couple of more rounds of “retaliation” before there is an opportunity, but expect Trump to make overtures and offer them a way out with a deal. A deal that they could have gotten 2 years ago.

    Another prediction…. Expect the opposition to call Trump weak when he offers an olive branch. And a warmonger when he walks away from the table. And then weak again when he goes back to the table. Expect them to call any deal with Iran terrible, not matter what it contains.

    1. Another prediction…. Expect the opposition to call Trump weak when he offers an olive branch. And a warmonger when he walks away from the table. And then weak again when he goes back to the table. Expect them to call any deal with Iran terrible, not matter what it contains.

      Judiciously season with comparisons to Obama’s obviously superior treaty which he foolishly walked away from.

      1. I saw 3 different democrat politicians this morning unironically call Trump’s actions without consulting congress “historic” and “Unprecedented” and “dangerous”. All 3 were present for Libya and the attacks there that were never authorized, not even notified under the war powers act… let alone an actual declaration of war.

        So, toppling a government doesn’t require notification. But killing one dude that was labeled a terrorist by 3 different administrations? That is criminal.

        Besides which, you could argue that the true target was the guy who actually lead the attack on the US embassy, as he was in the car. But the fact that he happened to be in the car with the top Iranian military commander kinda lets everyone know who is calling the shots.

        1. Psst, Slick, Trump and Obama are BOTH assholes.

          1. Psst, shitbag, you are too.
            Fuck off and die.

            1. (yawn)

              “A man with no enemies is a man with no character.” Paul Newman

              “Viel feind, viel ehr” (Translation: many enemies, much honour)
              Georg von Frundsberg

              “I usually judge how cool I’m being by how many angry people are following me around with signs.” Seanbaby

              If you encounter enemies, you’re going the right way.
              Videogame saying

              1. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

                1. (Was he sticking his tongue out?)

      2. Rewarding Iran’s provocations by lifting sanctions and allowing Iran to enrich their own uranium would all but guarantee the United States goes to war with Iran at some point in the future.

        Reagan did not win the Cold War in spite of deploying Pershing missiles in Europe and walking away from the negotiating table at Reykjavik. Reagan won the Cold War in part because he deployed Pershing missiles in Europe and walked away from the negotiating table at Reykjavik.

        If Reagan had capitulated to Gorbachev the way the press wanted him to do, we probably wouldn’t have won the Cold War the way we did, and if the U.S. had capitulated to Iran’s nuclear program the way the press wants Trump to do, we would almost certainly end up in the never ending series of proxy wars in the Middle East that the press claims to fear.

        1. Bizactly

    2. “So what do we have here? Trump is trying to renegotiate a bad treaty with Iran.”

      So these actions are Trump’s idea of dissuading Iran from developing nuclear weapons? I’m less than confident, especially with his appeasement on the North Korean nuclear issue.

      1. “…especially with his appeasement on the North Korean nuclear issue.”

        mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

        Thanks for proving it one more time, bullshitter.

    3. Cyto.

      Trump does this every time. He bluffs when he should not. He walks away when he has the winning hand.

      There is no way to get up from the table now. He is so easy to read.

      1. What are you basing this on?

        I’d love to play poker with you at the table

  45. I see no evidence of a “war”. A “war” would mean US troops and airstrikes. I suppose they might happen if Iran stages an attack in the US, but other than that, it looks like Trump is just going to limit his responses to small, targeted strikes.

    1. Everything will be fine if the Iranians limit themselves to small, targeted strikes in response.

      1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

        Thanks for proving it again.

    2. Small, targeted strikes that hit targets where maximum damage will be achieved.

      They wiped out a ton of leadership with that one strike. Trump’s pattern is economy of force, applied to his opponent’s weak spot with maximum effectiveness. And it’s what great leaders do very well.

  46. In Trump’s defense, I don’t believe he’s anywhere near as interested in war with Iran or Hezbollah as either the TDS victims or the hawks would like us to believe.

    Reagan retaliated against the elements that attacked our Marine barracks in Lebanon (which eventually coalesced into Hezbollah) in 1983, but that didn’t mean the U.S. was going to war in Lebanon.

    Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for the Lockerbie bombing, but that didn’t mean we were going to war with Libya.

    The U.S. shot down an Iranian commercial airliner, purposely or otherwise, in 1988, but that didn’t mean Iran was going to war with the U.S.

    Bill Clinton launched strikes against targets in Sudan in 1998, but that didn’t mean we were going to war with Sudan. Bill Clinton also bombed Serbia, but we didn’t go to war with Serbia.

    Just because Trump ordered these attacks doesn’t mean we’re going to war with Iran–or that Trump thinks we should go to war with Iran.

    The TDS anti-Trump press shouldn’t be believed when they’re talking about Trump’s hawkish intentions any more than they should be believed when they talk about anything else Trump related.

    We shouldn’t pay much attention to the neo-con war boner idiots, either, who are even better at lying to the American people about what’s happening and why than the progressive media.

    The fact is that Trump has been consistently pragmatic since before he took office and throughout his tenure as president, and Iran has been threatening to drown America and our allies in our own blood every day for 40 years. No doubt, going to war on the ground with Iran or Hezbollah with no clear goal and no hope of success would be expensive and stupid for the United States, but just because President Trump retaliated against Iran is no reason to assume that Trump’s intentions were any more bellicose than other pragmatic presidents have been when they retaliated to deter further provocations in the past.

    1. “In Trump’s defense, I don’t believe he’s anywhere near as interested in war with Iran or Hezbollah as either the TDS victims or the hawks would like us to believe. ”

      Maybe Trump is underestimating Iranian interest in going to war. Assuming Iran is just as interested in keeping this a low intensity affair, as Trump evidently is, is probably a mistake.

      “No doubt, going to war on the ground with Iran or Hezbollah with no clear goal and no hope of success would be expensive and stupid for the United States”

      But smart for Iran given America’s feckless efforts against Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan.

      1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

        Thanks for proving it again.

        1. “No doubt, going to war on the ground with Iran or Hezbollah with no clear goal and no hope of success would be expensive and stupid for the United States”

          Americans, even Ken, seem very keen on escalating the conflict beyond tit for tat exchanges. America’s enemies might willingly exploit American squeamishness. I know you don’t want an expensive and stupid war. You might get one anyway.

          1. mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
            “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”

            Thanks for proving it again.

          2. keen on NOT escalating the conflict. Sorry for the error.

    2. Yup “ in Trumps defense” “fact is that Trump”

      Eight times in nine paragraphs. Every one who disagrees has a psychiatric diagnoses you made up.

      Who is obsessed here Ken?

      1. Everyone who disagrees about what–Trump’s intentions?!

        Yeah, the TDS people assume the warmonger worst on Trump’s intentions, but that aspect of TDS isn’t a psychiatric condition. It’s more like a cognitive bias.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_attribution_bias

        The neo-con war-boner people seem to be be making the same assumptions about Trump’s motives–it’s just that the neocons like warmongering and want more of it.

        In regards to the claim that neocons are even better at lying to the American people than the progressives about what is happening and why, let’s not forget 1) the neocons’ track record in the run-up the Iraq War and 2) all that shit Leo Strauss had to say about noble lies.

        Despite those two groups, TDS people and neocons, there’s this thing called reality, and the reality is that Trump has shown remarkable restraint in the face of escalating Iranian provocations over the past year. In fact, he’s been highly pragmatic in the technical sense on responding to Iran up to this point. While it’s possible that Trump is a neocon now–it seems more likely that what he’s done by killing this awful scumbag isn’t necessarily warmongering or a turn to a neocon foreign policy. Trump’s actions seem to be more like the exception that proves the rule. If this act was an exception to what Trump has done for the last three years, then for the last three years, there must have been a general rule.

        And that general rule is pragmatism rather than neconservatism. Indeed, this is what made every neocon from John McCain to the intelligence agencies hostile to Trump. The foreign policy he campaigned on was a total rejection of the neoconservatism of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, and his actions have been pragmatic rather than neoconservative ever since he’s been elected.

        Because he retaliated against Iranian aggression doesn’t necessarily mean that he’s a neocon warmonger now, and I don’t know if everyone who thinks he is a neocon warmonger now is crazy, but I do think they’re wrong. That explanation may be consistent with their worst fears or greatest fantasies, but it ignores his foreign policy for the past three years. Retaliating against Iranian aggression doesn’t necessarily mean he’s a neocon any more than Reagan was a neocon for bombing Qaddafi in response to terrorism.

        1. “Realpolitik is distinct from ideological politics in that it is not dictated by a fixed set of rules, but instead tends to be goal-oriented, limited only by practical exigencies. Since Realpolitik is ordered toward the most practical means of securing national interests, it can often entail compromising on ideological principles. For example, during the Cold War the United States often supported authoritarian regimes that were human rights violators”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

          If it’s in the best interests of the United States to ally with Stalin to defeat the Nazis in Europe and kick Imperial Japan out of China, then we’ll do that. If it’s in the best interests of the United States to ally with the Contras, the Mujaheddin, and Pinochet to frustrate Soviet expansion, then we’ll do that. If it’s in the best interests of the United States to work with Vladimir Putin to destroy ISIS in Syria, then we’ll do that. If it’s in the best interests of the United States to cozy up to the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to frustrate Iranian expansion in the Middle East, we’ll do that. If it isn’t in the best interests of the United States to retaliate against Iranian aggression, then we won’t do that, but if it is in the best interests of the United States to retaliate as Trump just did, he can do that and still be a pragmatist.

          One of the primary features of neoconservatism is their absolute refusal to cozy up to nasty dictators for ideological reasons. The neocons were livid at Trump coordinating with Putin to defeat ISIS in Syria for that reason–and because it meant the U.S. wouldn’t be invading Syria to liberate its people like we did the people of Iraq. They see toppling the Iranian regime as being of utmost importance, much like they saw overthrowing Saddam Hussein as being so important. It does not appear to me that Trump has jumped on the neocon bandwagon. Pragmatists can also oppose Iranian hegemony and authoritarianism and hope to see the Iranian regime fall. It’s just that pragmatists aren’t about to actually invade a country unless doing so is in the best interests of the United States.

          If we ever seen Trump arguing that invading and occupying Lebanon, Syria, or Iran is in the best interests of the United States, I might buy that Trump is becoming a warmongering neocon. For these reasons, it seems to me that every neocon and TDS victims who imagines that neocon transformation in Trump’s foreign policy is what’s happening now is only seeing what they want to see.

          There’s this thing called reality, and the reality is that Trump’s policy has been decidedly pragmatic.

          1. Aha. It is a cognitive bias. A psychological bias not a psychiatric condition as would be suggested by the term “derangement syndrome”

            Derangement is a term which strongly implies dysfunction. A syndrome is a set of conditions defined as a set of symptoms within a particular medical disorder often not defined.

            So Trump Derangement Syndrome.

            You cannot define the last two terms.

            Yet you keep referring to Trump nearly every paragraph. I think it is more of an obsession than anything else.

            There is no such thing as TDS. Find it for me.

            1. “There is no such thing as TDS. Find it for me.”

              It’s the ‘elite,’ the wealthy and educated who disagree with Ken, and not surprisingly, another of Ken’s frequent targets. The elite are hiding it in their deep state.

            2. “There is no such thing as TDS. Find it for me.”

              You’re here; we’ve found it!

            3. TDS is the inability to see an issue objectively when Trump is related to it, somehow, and the tendency to make every issue about Trump.

              Demonstrating opposition to Trump’s policies even while voicing support for him would be an indication that one doesn’t have TDS.

              Demonstrating support for Trump’s policies even when you oppose his reelection would be another indication that one doesn’t have TDS.

              If you criticize Trump for ending the trade war with China under the auspices of supporting trade with China, then you may have TDS.

              If you opposed the U.S. getting involved in the Syrian civil war–but Criticized Trump for pulling American troops out of harm’s way in Syria–then you may have TDS.

              If you find yourself opposing Trump for doing something you like, at least something you liked right up until the moment Trump started doing it–and you find yourself in that situation on a host of issues–then you probably have TDS.

              These people favor impeaching Trump without reference to the facts or their context, and they’ll interpret the facts and the context so as to justify their belief that Trump should be impeached. Indeed, they’ll believe most anything if it paints Donald Trump in a negative light. If and when you interpret whatever facts come along as support for opposing Donald Trump, then you what you have isn’t mere confirmation bias. What you have is TDS.

              TDS is the inability to see the world as it is because Trump is in it, and the tendency to only see the facts as being pro-Trump or anti-Trump. If you can’t see that anywhere around you, then you may have Trump Derangement Syndrome.

              1. Thanks. Do I owe you anything for the diagnosis. Bill my insurance.

                Feel much better now.

                cura te ipsum
                Luke 4:23.

          2. HEY, KEN … WOULD YOU BE A LYING SACK OF SHIT … TO DEFEND YOUR FELLOW NAZIS AND RACISTS??

            Charlottesville!. When YOUR President LIED to defend YOUR favorite people: neo- nazis and white nationalists. ABSOLUTE PROOF …. vs Wikipedia!!!

            LIE: In press conference, Trump says alt-left initiate he assaults, charging his alt-right base, swinging clubs.

            The actual video …Trump’s own voice … stating a PROVEN lie at press conference… as the snotty punk he is.

            “What about the alt left that came charging at, as you say, at the alt right? Do they have any assemblage of guilt? What about the fact that they came charging with clubs in their hands swinging clubs? Do they have any problem? I think they do.”

            Trump lied … shamelessly — to defend Nazi and racist assaults. SHOUTS DOWN news media – as he always does when guilty. Calls them LIARS. “I watched it all on television … SO DID YOU.”

            BULLSHIT. Nobody watched it. NO news cameras at the assault. News reports broadcast what they called “personal videos” (cell phone videos). None recorded the actual assault.

            Next, UNDENIABLE PROOF he’s a lying sack of shit

            1. Part Two

              VIDEO PROOF: The initial assault</b.. (Private video found on an alternate news twitter feed)

              “Alt-Left” standing peacefully, no visible clubs or bats.
              Alt-Right Fascists/Racists charge en masse, swinging clubs.
              Fascists carrying police-style riot shields. The assholes CAME for violence.

              SHAME ON ANYONE who LIES about the truth, to defend a morally debased President, over country and honor.

              TRUMPSHIT: Alt-left initiated violence. PROOF: Alt-right
              TRUMPSHIT: Wearing black helmets. PROOF: Alt-right.
              TRUMPSHIT: Charged with clubs PROOF: Alt-right
              Trump saw it personally on TV! PROOF: Obama born in Kenya. (snort)

              *** So … Ken … will YOU accept such ABSOLUTE AND UNDENIABLE PROOF … or refuse to?

              *** To what are you most loyal?
              a) America
              b) Cheap partisan tribalism of an obedient serf?

              NEXT: THE SMOKING GUN.

                1. Watch this thread. I shall be for punished proving facts. Trump’s not the only psycho on the alt-right.

                  Ken Shultz
                  January.3.2020 at 10:46 pm
                  Blah, blah, blah. Woof, woof!

                  They are SO predictable!!

                  1. Did you cry when the judge completed your bankruptcy hearing?

                    1. Cowardly diversion.

                    2. Actual fact.

                    3. FUCKING PSYCHO.

                      SEVENTEEN WHINY ATTACKS …. NO PROOF.

                      ALSO … STUPID ENOUGH TO “THINK” A FACT CANNOT ALSO BE A COWARDLY DIVERSION …
                      ****FROM
                      ****THE
                      ****TOPIC.

                    4. The topic is Dumbfuck Hihnsano’s lunacy and wasted life.

            2. Blah, blah, blah. Woof, woof!

              1. Now KEN proves he’s as crazy as Trump … BOTH shameless liars ,.. BOTH denying undeniable facts.!!!

                *** So … Ken … will YOU accept such ABSOLUTE AND UNDENIABLE PROOF … or refuse to?

                *** To what are you most loyal?
                a) America
                b) Cheap partisan tribalism of an obedient serf?

                Blah, blah, blah. Woof, woof!

                TO TRUMP’S OBEDIENT GOOBERS … TWO VIDEOS AND FOUR CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS = “Blah, blah, blah!”

                Nobody could INVENT a bigger public fool than EITHER!!
                AND YOU SAW IT ALL PROVEN HERE

              2. Chris Wallace Hits ‘Wag the Dog’ Reaction to Trump Ordering Airstrike: Wrong Now, Wrong When Trump Suggested Same of Obama

                But NOTHING can stop Trumptards from french-kissing his ass, and whiny alibis … the same people Trump warned us about …. said they are SO lacking in moral values, they would even lie to defend him shooting somebody to death, in public, with witnesses

                DEEP in a tribal cave … where even light does not exist.

                1. Hey Dumbfuck Hihnsano, January 20th is a big date for you, isn’t it?

                2. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

                3. Blah, blah, blah.

                  Woof, woof!

                  1. See how many SUP[PORT trump’s PROVEN lie … to defend their neo-nazis and white supremacists.

                    They cannot bury ABSOLUTE proof, fully documented, starting here:

                    https://reason.com/2020/01/03/does-trumps-strike-against-iran-mean-we-are-going-to-war/#comment-8071593

                    KEEP SCREECHING GOOBERS. 🙂

                    1. Blah, blah, blah

                      WOOF! WOOF!

  47. “We’re going to war with Iran” happened as much as “demographic destiny will keep he democrats a majority” since the start of the 2010s.

    Let’s suppose for a moment that there is some concern for escalation here. Why does Reason believe people rejoicing over a death of general who led a terrorist organization is some dog whistle for call of war? Do they honestly believe prominent conservatives will use this incident as a rallying cry for war against Iraq?

    The only people breathlessly talking, fantasizing and hyperventilating about “Trump’s war” are democrats, their allies in the media and other assorted critics of the administration. They’re the same people who concocted narratives about “Trump’s Benghazi” miliseconds after the planned attack on the embassy. Are you noticing a pattern here?

    You’re giving Iranians exactly what they want – properly staging a narrative that will be damaging to the US and or Trump. Now the trained seals in the US media will clap every time a proxy war cost American lives and claim proof of “escalation”. ISIS was quick to claim the Sri Lanka Easter bombing as retaliation for the white supremacist shooting in NZ, and that turned out to be false.

    Iran is never going to officially touch us. If one of their state warplanes even grazed our ships, it’s game over for them. That’s why they do things via proxy wars in the first place. That will continue in the future. How do you stop a terrorist general from conducting proxy wars? “Do nothing because there might be war”

  48. The Quds Force Soleimani commanded may have been engaged in unconventional warfare, but they’re also an official part of the Iranian Armed Forces, not some stateless terrorist cell. And Soleimani wasn’t just some Osama bin Laden–like death prophet; he was a high-ranking figure in Iran’s government.

    I must’ve turned the corner into Bizarro world, because I thought those were reasons killing someone was justified, not condemned by libertarians!

    So lemme get this right now: We’re supposed to be cop-fellating fanatics, because the guys in uniform and carrying guns are automatically on our side?

    1. We should have just assassinated him in the dead of night in his bed, perhaps using one of our own proxies. Then we fold our arms and say “well we had nothing to do with that, we didn’t tell any our guys who we funded to kill him”

      At that point we say “whew, that was a close one, we don’t have to go to war now” and move on.

      It’s either or that just let uniformed officer of a terrorist organization live as if we were in some 17th century combat where shooting an officer on horse in the battlefield was considered conduct unbecoming of a gentleman.

      1. Well, if the bleating by the left is any indication, Trump did just that with Khashoggi, who was basically nothing more than a shill for the Muslim Brotherhood, and look how much they bitched about that.

      2. Peace through superior firepower works most of the time.

        Trump wants Iran to know it was the USA. Trump also wants to make sure Iran gets the message that killing Americans will not be tolerated under his watch.

        #MAGA

    2. We always know you were a fraudulent libertarian … with a perverted distortion of NAP. If MORE Americans are killed, in response, you may just go totally off the rails.

      It’s not just libertarians, ADULTS accept personal responsibility for the consequences of their actions … NOT moral mooches.

    3. “So lemme get this right now: We’re supposed to be cop-fellating fanatics, because the guys in uniform and carrying guns are automatically on our side?”

      In all seriousness, I think the argument was that attacking a foreign state might require authorization from Congress.

      There are always two separate arguments within these things:

      1) Whether Congressional authorization is necessary.

      2) Whether Congress should support a military strike.

      They’re easily conflated, but we should try to keep them separate.

      There are four possibilities.

      1) Congressional authorization unnecessary + military strike smart.
      2) Congressional authorization unnecessary + military strike stupid.
      3) Congressional authorization necessary + military strike smart.
      4) Congressional authorization necessary + military strike stupid

      You can be either for or against a military strike and still think that a congressional authorization is necessary either way.

      Within the context of an argument about whether Obama’s actions in Libya required congressional authorization, I argued that Congress should have supported it. However, I opposed Obama’s actions solely on the basis that he did not have congressional authorization–even though I supported what he was trying to do.

      I think what’s being argued here is that regardless of whether you think Trump’s actions were smart, if this guy was part of the Iranian government, then it required congressional authorization for him to attack. I think that’s what is being argued here regardless of whether I agree with it.

      1. Incidentally, I don’t know if intellectual honesty will allow someone to argue that congressional authorization is unnecessary just because they support the attack in question.

        Because Jane Fonda opposes the Vietnam War is no reason for her to make false claims about whether American POWs were tortured by the North Vietnamese. American POWs were tortured or not regardless of what Jane Fonda thinks of the Vietnam War.

        Likewise, Trump’s actions required a congressional authorization or not regardless of whether I supported his actions. I think a lot of people have sold their credibility short by way of their TDS, and this is when it really matters that their credibility well has run dry.

  49. To know why the Arabs want to clean up Israel
    http://msd-norge-as.com/

  50. The Declaration Clause of the Constitution requires the POTUS to gain the permission of Congress too start a war. However, Article II’s grant of Commander in Chief power to the POTUS includes the authority to defend the people of the United States against enemies at war against us. Iran has waged war against the United States since 1979 and its militias have killed several hundred of our countrymen in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to a lesser extent in other nations. Thus, the POTUS may exercise his CiC power to defend our people against those militias.

    You can make a case for the POTUS to gain the support of Congress to unify the nation. However, I see little chance of political unification during our current cold civil war. On the best of days, the Democrats would oppose Trump support for their Medicare for All proposal out of pure spite. In this case, Trump’s actions to defend the nation from Iran stand in stark contrast Obama appeasement of that fascist regime and humiliated the Democrats.

    1. Statutory authority already prevails via the AUMF from the 911-era legislation. No need to quibble about article two powers.

  51. The Washington Examiner has Trump’s 2011 tweet, and an actual video of Trump’s crazed psychopathic episode!

    But why does Trump has such deep and raging hatred for Barack Obama?

    1) Like all authoritarian thugs, Trump is a vengeful prick. Obama totally humiliated Trump, in public, to the roaring laughter of a large audience!

    2) Obama ridiculed Trump’s crazy Birtherism …. at a Washington Correspondent’s Dinner … as Trump sat in the audience, totally helpless.
    <a href="Here’s the proof that Trumptards are so afraid you’ll see! … one of the greatest putdowns ever!
    THAT is why Trump is so consumed by raging hatred …. the uppity nigger DARED to defend himself. (gasp) /sarc

    But, to be honest, I created the video, and planted all the proof in dozens of top news outlets … all lies … because I want to overturn the 2016 election … and I’m paid by the same Ukraine billionaire who REALLY hacked the DNC. (smirk)

    I EVEN created phony videos at Fox News … faking both Chris Wallace and Tucker Carlson, next!!!

  52. Tucker Carlson Slams Trump For ‘Lumbering Toward’ Iran War

    Chris Wallace Hits ‘Wag the Dog’ Reaction to Trump Ordering Airstrike: Wrong Now, Wrong When Trump Suggested Same of Obama

    But NOTHING can stop Trump’s whiny pussies from french-kissing his ass … the same folks Trump warned us about, saying they are so totally lacking in moral values, that they’d even lie to defend him shooting somebody to death, in public, with witnesses.

    Yes, they were already TOTALLY SUBMISSIVE to the Orange Jesus. And Trump openly bragged about their fealty

  53. Tucker Carlson Slams Trump For ‘Lumbering Toward’ Iran War

    But NOTHING can stop Trump’s whiny pussies from french-kissing his ass … the same folks Trump warned us about …. saying they are SO lacking in moral values, they would even lie to defend him shooting somebody to death, in public with witnesses. 

    Yes, even then, they were already TOTALLY SUBMISSIVE to the Orange
    Jesus … as Trump openly bragged about their obedience and fealty.

  54. The Washington Examiner has Trump’s 2011 tweet, and the actual video of Trump’s crazed psychopathic episode!

    But why does Trump has such deep and raging hatred for Obama?

    1) Like all authoritarian thugs, Trump is a vengeful prick. Obama had totally humiliated Trump, in public, to the roaring laughter of a large audience!

    2) Obama ridiculed Trump’s crazy Birtherism …. at a Washington Correspondent’s Dinner … to roars of laughter … as Trump sat in the audience, totally helpless.
    <a href="Here’s the proof, that Trumptards don’t want you to see! … one of the greatest putdowns ever!

    THAT is why Trump is so consumed by raging hatred …. the uppity nigger (sarc) DARED to defend himself! (gasp)

    But, of course, I invented the video, and planted all the proof in dozens of top news outlets, all lies … because I want to overturn the 2016 election!
    (smirk)

    I EVEN created phony videos at Fox News … for Chris Wallace and Tucker Carlson!!!

    1. Fuck off and die, Hihn

      1. The Tally of mine Virtue shall be the List of my Foes. ? Godric Griffindor, Significant Digits

        “Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.”
        Matthew 5:11-12, King James Version

        1. But it’s not false that you declared bankruptcy.

        2. Proverbs 22:7–The rich rule over the poor, and the borrower is slave to the lender.

          How did it feel being a slave when you walked into that bankruptcy court?

          1. (yawn)

            1. Time for Dumbfuck Hihnsano to have his nappy-nap.

        3. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

  55. “Killing Soleimani in this way is akin to another country taking out Vice President Mike Pence or a member of Trump’s cabinet while he attended a public event or was traveling to some state function. ”

    Umm, no, it would be akin to another country taking out a high ranking general in a warzone in which they were attacking that other country’s people.

  56. Iran declared war on the US 40 years ago when the ayatollah took over the reigns….the idea now is to financially destroy the economy, make retaliation so decimating that another strike would invite disaster..the unrest brewing could suddenly find covert assistance, cyber war may become common, ships at sea may suffer damage, a swarm of drones could light up the air to ground defense often…much can happen and it will…..I believe the intel coming to the US about iran from sources around the world is going to prove fatal this wayward regime…..

  57. so easily distracted..that’s the way to forget the impeachment thing and Trump’s way of keeping his presidency. You can’t afford to not focus on Iran now . Trump; a very selfish man who doesn’t care about country.Only for himself

  58. How will Iran respond to that?
    What about the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and the UAE? Is Iran targeting these fields?

    1. One of the results of Iran targeting oil tankers moving through the Strait of Hormuz and Iran’s minions targeting Saudi oil production facilities in September was that China started pulling its support for investment in Iran’s energy production sector.

      A lot of the oil flowing from Saudi Arabia and the UAE goes to China, indirectly or otherwise, and while the Iranians do lots of awful things that China doesn’t really care about, hurting the flow of oil to China is one of the things that really does make them angry–especially when China is worried about its economy growing more slowly.

      Meanwhile, the damage done by attacks on Saudi oil production facilities was quickly rebuilt. Meanwhile, fracking companies all over the U.S. are cutting back because current prices won’t justify current production levels amid the glut.

      https://observer-reporter.com/business/once-a-booming-industry-natural-gas-is-in-midst-of/article_a8b20942-1db4-11ea-8e6e-6363bb7d3371.html

      Iran is saber rattling because they have few other options. If they stay on their present course, they will lose. Getting rid of the sanctions is so important to them that they’re willing to do almost anything to get rid of them. If and when their saber-rattling doesn’t work, they may actually come back to the negotiating table to get rid of the sanctions like they did with Obama. It’s just that this time, they’ll have Trump to negotiate with instead of Obama, so negotiation probably means capitulation on nuclear enrichment.

      1. “A lot of the oil flowing from Saudi Arabia and the UAE goes to China”

        This oil goes all over the world. China is by no means the only recipient of gulf oil. There are many countries with a much higher stake in free flowing gulf oil than the US has, and none of these countries want to see it stopped, as oil is vital to a functioning economy. This gives Iran leverage over these other countries, and the US indirectly.

        “so negotiation probably means capitulation on nuclear enrichment.”

        That’s not what happened in North Korea. In his negotiations with Chairman Kim, Trump caved on the issue of their nuclear arsenal. The North Koreans have no intention to disarm. Iranians, I’m told, are just as wily and stubborn as the Koreans, so you should put this foolish notion to the side, pronto.

        1. “…In his negotiations with Chairman Kim, Trump caved on the issue of their nuclear arsenal. The North Koreans have no intention to disarm…”

          You.
          Are.
          Full.
          Of.
          Shit.

          1. North Koreans have nuclear weapons and Trump hasn’t managed to negotiate their disarming. Neither did Obama or Bush. You may not be pleased with Kim or Trump’s handling of the issue, but our leaders seem content with a nuclear powered North Korea. I wouldn’t be surprised if certain powerfully placed Iranians are pushing for such an arsenal, as it seems to be a sure-fire deterrent to US meddling.

            Also, Iran is situated in a perfect geographical position to interfere with the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. The ability to hold hostage much of the world’s economic activity gives them an advantage that outweighs their convention influence. China has no interest at all in sacrificing their economic situation for the sake of Trump’s re-election posturing in the ME. Above all they want peace and stability.

            1. You seem oblivious to the fact that the US keeps interrupting the flow of oil.

              1. Americans have to travel half way around the world in order to meddle in the Persian Gulf. Iranians can do it without moving from their living room sofa.

                Also, from the time North Korea announced her withdrawal from the NPT until today, Trump and his predecessors haven’t lifted a finger to prevent North Korea’s development. I’m not happy with this, but a similar path for Iran may now be inevitable.

            2. mtrueman
              January.4.2020 at 2:10 pm
              “North Koreans have nuclear weapons and Trump hasn’t managed to negotiate their disarming…”

              Correct. You FINALLY post something which isn’t bullshit, bullshitter.
              Compare to:
              “…In his negotiations with Chairman Kim, Trump caved on the issue of their nuclear arsenal…”
              So,
              You.
              Are.
              Full.
              Of.
              Shit.

              1. Trump has learned to live with and love North Korea’s nuclear arsenal.

  59. I’m ashamed. Can’t wait for new drone footage.

    1. A spring weekend two decades ago in China took a violent and angry turn as protesters in cities across the country—and around the world—erupted into anti-American rage.

      The cause of their fury: the American bombing of the Chinese embassy in former Yugoslav capital Belgrade just before midnight on May 7, 1999, killing three Chinese journalists and injuring about 20 others. The strike was carried out by US warplanes as part of a NATO operation, though the US has maintained that it was an accident, having mistaken the embassy for a weapons depot.

      In Beijing, tens of thousands of furious demonstrators pelted the American embassy with anything they could lay their hands on: eggs, stones, bricks, chunks of concrete, firecrackers, even paint balloons. They laid siege to the building, trapping the US ambassador Jim Sasser inside for several days as he holed up with security personnel and subsisted on ready-to-eat Marine meals. Protesters also threw bricks and rocks at the British embassy. The Irish Republic’s embassy, located next to the US compound, was targeted as well, even though Ireland is not a NATO member.

      Throughout the weekend, busloads of students descended on the embassy district, marching with signs like “Blood for blood” and chanting slogans like “American killers.” Some burned American flags as a roaring crowd cheered them on. Others waved American flags marked with tiny swastikas instead of stars.

      1. Irrelevant bullshit.
        mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
        “Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
        Fuck off, you pathetic piece of shit.

        1. Another spam flag for you.

  60. It takes something really big to get Reason interested in American imperialism.

  61. The situation of the middle east is really worst. hope everything will be ok. best wishes from https://triviaquestions4u.com/

  62. Trump has no strategy because he can’t think more than 2 minutes in the future. His military advisors discouraged this move as too inflammatory. He did it to be more macho in the face of his supporters. I’ll reserve judgement on the results.

    1. Trump has no strategy because he can’t think more than 2 minutes in the future.

      Which is about 1 minute and 50 seconds longer than you appear capable.

  63. Amazing how many critics of Trump can’t seem to remember more than what CNN talk about….which is no surprise since CNN doesn’t see any more than what is necessary to blame Trump for something. Climate Change? Trump’s fault. Global warming caused by cow’s farting? Trump’s fault. Lakes, rivers, oceans polluted since the industrial revolution? Trump’s fault. But are we at war for something Trump did? Actually, Iran declared war when they allowed Iranian militants to attack a US Embassy. Technically, we went to war with Iran when Iran did that. But to CNN, Trump probably caused it…so no need to look further than that.

  64. Given the rather tepid response to the killing of Soleimani I wonder if many in the Iranian Government weren’t glad to see him gone. He likely was seen by many as a rival and possibly too troublesome.

    The attack on the US bases seems rather incompetent or maybe designed to fail. They then took no immediate follow up action.

    The rhetoric seems pretty much by the book Iranian propaganda.

    Finally after first denying it they ‘fessed up about shooting down an airliner which quieted much of the criticism of the US’s surgical strike.

  65. This is quite ridiculous. I hope it gets sorted out soon.

    In the meantime I’ll play some Trivia at https://triviaobsession.com/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.