Without Evidence of 'Imminent' Attack on Americans, the White House's Justification for Killing Iranian General Seems Hollow

Reports now suggest that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye toward domestic politics.


The White House claims that this week's assassination of a top Iranian general, Qassem Soleimani, was necessary to prevent an imminent attack against Americans in Iraq and around the wider Middle East.

Soleimani "was actively plotting in the region to take actions, the big action as he described it, that would have put dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk," Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Friday. "We know it was imminent."

But 48 hours after the drone attack that claimed Soleimani's life, that narrative is starting to unravel amid reports that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye toward domestic politics. Indeed, the administration has so far provided little evidence that killing Soleimani has made Americans objectively safer—while the strike has clearly worsened the status quo by raising the likelihood of Iranian reprisals and the prospect for open war.

Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times' top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that "evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is 'razor thin'" and that the Trump administration made an "illogical leap" in deciding to kill Soleimani.

Why would Trump opt for a "far out" plan like assassinating a foreign official—an act of war, make no mistake about it—when other presidents have passed on the opportunity to do so?

It could be simply Trump being Trump. The president wrote on Twitter that Soleimani "should have been taken out many years ago." And Vice President Mike Pence expanded on that idea in a thread posted to Twitter on Friday in which he laid out a long history of Soleimani's involvement in everything from the 9/11 plot to various attacks conducted by Iranian-backed militia since America invaded Iraq.

There's no doubt that Soleimani has blood on his hands and that he worked to make America's ill-conceived occupation of Iraq even more of a disaster than it already was. It's highly likely that he was still doing that when he was killed on Thursday. But there's a big gap between saying that Soleimani was killed for his track record going back years or decades versus saying—as the White House and State Department have officially stated—that he was killed to prevent some impending, immediate threat.

And this distinction matters. It matters as a philosophical or moral concern regarding how America will continue exercising its global police powers. Is the standard for assassinating foreign officials now as murky and minimal as proclaiming them to be "bad guys?"

More importantly, it should matter in a very practical way to anyone who wants to soberly assess whether the White House did the right thing in droning Soleimani this week. The attack has ratcheted up tensions, caused the State Department to warn Americans to leave Iraq immediately (even if that means fleeing across the desert into another unfriendly country), and resulted in the Pentagon ordering thousands more Americans into harm's way. The onus is on the White House to prove that the alternative—not killing Soleimani—would have been worse.

But it doesn't seem like that was the calculus that actually drove the decision to kill Soleimani at all. The Washington Post reports that Trump was "motivated to act by what he felt was negative coverage after his 2019 decision to call off the airstrike after Iran downed the U.S. surveillance drone." (For what it's worth, I praised Trump when he called off that 2019 airstrike, a decision that likely saved dozens of lives and may have averted war.)

Taken together, the reporting from the Post and the Times paint a picture of Trump making a crucial decision that could put lives at stake and further destabilize the Middle East because he wanted the media to portray him as a tough guy. Rather than facing down an immediate threat, it seems like the White House has created a much more dangerous situation because it retaliated against Soleimani for any number of prior offenses, including the attacks at the U.S. embassy in Baghdad last week.

That's not the official story, of course, because as terrifying as "we assassinated a foreign official just because we wanted to, risk of war be damned" might be, "we assassinated a foreign official on a whim so the president would look like the tough guy portrayed in MAGA memes" sounds even worse.

NEXT: 'No War but Class War' at D.C.'s Iran Protest

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Outraged comments from wielders of giant chicken-hawk war boners commencing in 5-4-3-2…

    1. Will you please go away?

      1. If you make me!

        Option B: Don’t read my comments!

        Option C: Don’t clutter the thread with shit that is no more than clutter! Is what you posted FUNNY? Is it INFORMATIVE? Is it HELPFUL to anyone? Or is it just a random blowhard opinion?!

        I like vanilla! I don’t like chocolate! I think my Aunt Mable’s new haircut sucks! The weather is too hot right now!

        And EVERYONE should know about my random blow-hard opinions!

        Tulpa coming on to join the Tulpa clones in 5-4-3-2…

        You don’t like my shit? You are hereby authorized to ignore it!

        1. SQRLSY One
          January.4.2020 at 8:37 pm
          “If you make me!…”

          4th grade? Perhaps. 3rd grade more likely.

          1. You have zero self awareness.

          2. Sevo and Siv latch on to those who are more articulate in their violence like Ken.

            1. ohlookMendaciousdipshit weighs in

      2. Fuck off Hihn, Tulpa, or whomever else you may be. You spam your nonsense constantly, and shit all over the boards. Also, I said “please”.

    2. Funny, the only ones who seem to be fantasizing about World War 3 starting are on the left side of spectrum.

      But then, you’re too stupid to not eat shit, so we really can’t expect much from you.

      1. “We can’t sanction Russia because that’ll start WW3”

        Do you remember that? It’s all we heard from from you idiots during the Mueller investigation.

        1. No. I literally remember noone making that point

          1. It was repeated over and over and over and over and over again. I’m not surprised you don’t recall it. Your mental abilities are suspect considering your political allegiances.

            1. You’re broken, pod

            2. Of it was repeated over and over you could produce a single citation. Please keep siding with terrorists

            3. Stop lying.

            4. I’m sure if I keep scrolling through these comments your cite will be in them somewhere…

            5. You’re hallucinating. Get help.

            6. Citation please.

        2. That’s bullshit as we actually did sanction Russia multiple times under Trump. In fact far more seriously then Obama. Try again.

      2. Says the person advocating violence

        1. Literally no one is calling for war with Iran. You, on the other hand, clearly thirst for it.

          1. But if it happens under Trump’s watch, I’m sure you’ll find a way to justify it.

            1. And if it happened under Obama, I’m sure you’d find a way to say it’s not that big of a deal.. just like leftists did with Libya.

              1. Was that a rebuttal? Or are you agreeing that Jesse et al are a bunch of partisan hacks?

                1. The sock has spoken. Lol. God the sqrsly acolytes are boring. It is amazing how the inky facts in this thread are the ones you seem partisan hacks. Weird isnt it. Al.ost like you dumb liberals choose ignorance.

                  1. It would be best if they all committed ritual suicide. The world would be so much better off without them. They come here to contribute nothing and accuse all of us of trolling.

                2. No, I just think you’re a fucking idiot and a terrorist apologist.

                  Nations are allowed to respond with violence to violent attacks against them and against immediate threats. You seem to think that every country *but* America is entitled to do that, with impunity.

                  I’d call you a hack, but honestly I don’t think it’s ideological as much as you’re just a common coward.

              2. Don’t forget Obummy fomenting a civil war in Syria because Assad was aligned with Russia & Iran…..He helped to create a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions there by ILLEGALLY running weapons from Libya thru Turkey to supposed “moderates” in Syria who turned out to be ISIS….Heck, it made Iran-Contra look like kindergarten stuff:


                Obummy also got involved in Saudi Arabia’s proxy war against Iran in Yemen, another humanitarian crisis!….Obummy makes Bush #2 look like Mr. Rogers!

            2. Anyone hysterical whinging about a draft isn’t really in a position to scold anyone for partisanship.

              1. So what are all of these eighteen year olds registering for dimwit? And I have family who were drafted for an unnecessary “war” just one generation ago.
                But I’ll take your word for it, cuz “OrangeMan goooood. Trust the government when Dear Leader is in charge.“

                1. When was the draft last active, dumbshit? We didn’t even reinstate it for 9/11, and after that, there were fucking Democrats calling for its reinstatement.

                  But keep on being a hysterical drama queen because Orange Man Baaaahhd.

                2. Cower in fear over your chosen ignorance. Good plan.

                3. And I have family who were drafted for an unnecessary “war” just one generation ago.

                  So what? It doesn’t make you any less of a piece of shit.

                  Incidentally, had North Vietnam conducted terrorist attacks on our embassies and set IEDs to kill our troops, we wouldn’t have needed a draft for the Vietnam War. But then there were fewer cowards like yourself in that generation.

                  1. “Cowards”. That’s cute internet Tuff-Gai. Go peddle your chickenhawk bullshit somewhere else.

                    1. Faggot, stop. You’re not wanted here, and serve no purpose.

                4. I call massive BS. The last American draftee was in 1972, much more than a generation ago.

                  But feel free to keep lying. It solidifies you liberal credentials.

      3. exactly. You know at this point I am thinking we should teach the airheaded inmates of public schools to substitute the phrase “That’s so libertarian!” for “That’s gay!” when they mean something is retarded.

    3. Fucking idiotic comments from idiotic TDS victims already here.
      Grow up. And fuck off.

      1. Boehm has certainly gone off the rails again.

        1. Hey, that’s unkind. Boehm just experienced serious loss. Let him grieve for his commandante.

      2. “Idiotic comments” Jesus dude. That’s you you’ve described. All you ever say is “fuck you and die” and barely anything else.

        1. Pod, you offer nothing other than progtarded snark to any discussion. What is the point in engaging you in substantive discussion, when the only substance will come from me? Why would I deem you worthy of any such respect, or consideration? Surely, deep down, you must understand that.

          Also, you’re not interested in being reasonable. You’re a dirty progtard, who wishes to establish a totalitarian regime to put it’s boot on humanity’s neck for all time. Foolishly believing you will be one of the masters, when you are merely a useful idiot with Soviet dreams and Maoist aspirations.

          So no, I’m not interested in engaging subhuman, soulless garbage like you. There is no value in that.

      3. The Libertarians For Torture, Endless Detention Without Trial, And Military Belligerence gang is getting back together.

        This means the clingers will have less time to devote to meetings of Libertarians For Tariffs, Libertarians For Statist Womb Management, and Libertarians For Authoritarian Immigration Policies.

        Disaffected, bigoted, big-talk clingers are among my favorite culture war casualties.

        1. I almost read this comment, but then saw it said “Kirkland” not “Kuckland” and realized it wasn’t worth it

        2. This is ALSO the gathering place for Libertarians for encouraging others to commit suicide, to “fuck off and die”, and to drink poisoned liquids, burn up in fires… Libertarians for the worship of the Evil One, basically… Libertarians for spreading hatred and self-hatred. Next? Advocating collective nuclear suicide for the human race? “We had to kill them all to save them all”? I hope that these “libertarians” will “merely settle” for bringing methanol-spiked punch (and poisoned casseroles?) to their next gathering, if that’s the VERY best that we can expect out of them! I should hope for better, but I am probably just dreaming, as I dream of a REAL libertarian POTUS some day!

          What I will most likely REALLY get from the low-brows, now, is that they will accuse me of advocating for methanol-spiked punch and poisoned casseroles… Projection knows no end…

          1. Look at sqrsly trying to pretend to be the voice of reason after thread shitting non stop. Fucking hilarious.

            1. Add to that, libertarians for blatant, obvious and unapologetic lies, like JesseAZ. And libertarians for identity theft, like Mary-Tulpa-Satan, of the more-handles-than-you-can-shake-a-stick-at!

              1. Nobody gives a shit what you think. Hihn. Go back to screaming at squirrels in the park.

              2. And his idiocy continues. He doesn’t actually argue he just repeats what he thinks are 3 killer talking points over and over as everyone else laughs at him. It is fucking hilarious.

                1. OK then, self-styled brainiac…

                  Here’s a Fox opinion on matters at hand…

                  Joe Kent: To prevent US-Iran war, we must withdraw from Iraq

                  Please refute… Note a relevant quote from here above:

                  “The prime minister of Iraq has already condemned the U.S. killing of Soleimani, despite the fact that the Iranian terrorist general had the blood of more than 600 dead Americans and thousands of dead Iraqis on his hands.

                  And the Iraqi Parliament may vote soon on whether U.S. forces should be allowed to remain in the nation. Let’s be clear: this vote will determine if Americans stay to remain in striking distance of the Iranians, pay for operations of the Iraqi military and prop up the Iraqi economy.”

                  Or… Fox News not-equal Breitbart, therefor not credible?

                  Iraqi government is ALREADY pissed that the USA is in violation of USA agreement to stipulations that USA get Iraqi authorization before undertaking military operations on Iraqi soil. If the Iraqi government calls for all USA troops to leave… You want the USA to occupy Iraq, against the wishes of the Iraqi government? How will that make the USA look, worldwide? Are you prepared to have the USA become the worldwide Evil Empire? Are you signing up to go get bullets shot at your body yet?

                  1. Nothing to refute here. Just a bunch of hypotheticals.

                  2. It’s funny the only people that ever talk about Fox News on this site are the lefty’s.

                    1. Fox News (a usual darling of the right, and an inspiring source of “R” cheerleading to Trump) runs an anti-war-boners editorial from a 20-year special-ops veteran, who lost his wife to stupid wars… Pretty much the exact same stupid war as war-boners now want to expand…

                      All war-boners conservatives think up inane distractions really-really quickly now! Let’s maybe talk about poop-eating or something!

                    2. And you’re to stupid to not prove my point.

                    3. Wow, you actually did NOT bring up poop-eating! Has your IQ been advancing? Have you been taking some sort of IQ-advancing dietary supplements? Like, maybe, oh, I don’t know… The rounded, soft, dietary-fiber-containing round pills, often greenish-colored “smart pills”, that one can find underneath one’s pet rabbit hutches?

                    4. “Wow, you actually did NOT bring up poop-eating!”

                      “The rounded, soft, dietary-fiber-containing round pills, often greenish-colored “smart pills”, that one can find underneath one’s pet rabbit hutches?“

                      I didn’t need to cuz I knew you couldn’t help yourself.

                    5. It’s almost like you’re obsessed with eating shit.

                    6. OK, then, genius, refute the editorial from editorial from a 20-year special-ops veteran, who lost his wife to stupid wars… Or are you still stuck on poop-eating?

                    7. You can’t stop talking about poop eating, all while accusing me of being obsessed about poop eating.

                    8. R Mac continues to decline the opportunity to discuss anything serious. R Mac continues to NOT benefit from the under-the-rabbit-hutch “smart pills” that he or she or xe or they eats! R Mac continues, instead, to dwell on poop-eating! What a surprise!

                      If you bring up Fox News, you must be a leftist… If you bring up Wikipedia, you must be a leftist… If you bring up ANYTHING other than poop-eating in the PROPER manner, according to R Mac, you MUST be a leftist!

                    9. “NOT benefit from the under-the-rabbit-hutch “smart pills” that he or she or xe or they eats!”

                      You really can’t stop yourself.

                    10. The ironic thing is I’d fully support all our troops leaving the Middle East. But you’re to much of a raving lunatic to attempt to have a conversation with so you won’t believe me anyway, and even if you did, the next time we engage you will have forgotten that.

                    11. R Mac
                      January.5.2020 at 4:44 pm
                      It’s funny the only people that ever talk about Fox News on this site are the lefty’s.

                      So then WHY did you accuse me of being a lefty, for posting a FOX NEWS editorial OPPOSING the war, if you were NOT itching for a stupid “battle of wits”?

                      Or were you itching for a “battle of shits”? A self-styled “libertarian” (per a previous comment of yours) picking a fight with a skeptic about war boners? WTF, R Mac? You have NOTHING better to do, than to pick fights with people who you claim to AGREE with, on the issue being discussed? WTF is WRONG with you?!?!? Get a LIFE!

                    12. Surprise surprise the shit eater can’t stop talking of shit.

                      Then attacks me of how I address him?

                      Needs more shit squirrel! You’ll win more arguments with more shit! All while criticizing others for focusing on your shit. Say shit more often, and I’ll think of your words with less shit!

                      Now, I’ll give you what you’re really asking for, shit weasel.

                    13. R Mac doesn’t know how to discuss the issues. R Mac prefers to talk shit, so I talk shit to R Mac. Given a wide-open forum for talking issues, R Mac focuses on shit! I’m not a fan of Freud, and Freud’s stupid theories about kids getting stuck in the poop-obsessed stage, but in SOME cases, it may be true!

                      When R Mac breaks on through past the poop-obsessed 3-year-old stage, sometimes he breaks through to the stage of the 3d and 4th-grade-school schoolyard bully, picking fights with people he supposedly agrees with! On the exact issue being discussed! Will R Mac make it past 3d and 4th grades, even momentarily? I’m rooting for your growth! It does take effort!

                    14. R Mac SQRLSY One is kicking your butt. You deflect with him like you did with me. If he’s Hihn, then I’ve had my run in with him. On this issue, he’s 100% right, though. “Libertarians for war” and “Libertarians for tariffs” are a joke. What kind of idiot wants to escalate the situation with Iran? Trump, that’s who. (The assassination was illegal, btw, under national and international law unless Trump can prove there was an imminent threat.)

                    15. Explain why you have a war boner instead of deflecting to poop.

                    16. Here’s Vince to join the lunatic brigade.

                    17. Fuck off and die, “Vince”.

          2. Squirrelly, scroll up and read what I wrote in response to Pod. Most of that applies to you to.

            You’re reaping the whirlwind. Get that into your dim little mind.

    4. The best thing that could happen is that Iraq will demand we leave the country.
      Then we can bring our soldiers back to the continental United States.
      Let Iran have Iraq. We have no national interest there.

      1. Oh, but the war boners will then have to find something else to beat off to! I’m not sure that “rises to” the “national interest”, butt there IS that… If that crawls up YOUR butt, then it must be YOUR fault, for being some sort of war-pussy!

        War-pussy like Fox-News-writing editorialist 20-year-veteran, Joe Kent, maybe? Who lost his wife to stupid ME wars?
        Joe Kent: To prevent US-Iran war, we must withdraw from Iraq

        1. The only one with a “war boner” is you, fucko. Pieces of shit like you think your life will have meaning just because you have a war to protest.

    5. Weird… Iranians and Iraqis are openly praising and posting publicly their happiness over soleimanis death. Weird your reliance on the atlantic doesnt mention this, instead Hopes for war.

      1. Some days I swear that all the leftists in the world are wearing their own version of Peril-Sensitive Sunglasses that blot out anything that puts their precious Narrative in danger. Makes me want to slap the shit out of them.

    6. I’m as anti-war as they come but am NOT an idealogical pacifist – if someone breaks into my house I will respond. An orchestrated attack on an embassy (which is sovereign territory) and trying to burn it down is analogous to breaking into someone’s house. It MUST be responded to. I believe a surgical strike on the head of the snake is a far superior response than the mass killing of innocents in response. This was a much more sophisticated response than we have seen in the past and we can all hope its deterrent effect sustains over time. That would = much less bloodshed than the “textbook” responses we have seen in the past from the Neo-cons and warmonger “leftists” like Hillary. And of course the overall idiocy of our military presence there is revealed in the fact the USA is now the world’s biggest oil producer – so indoctrinated CHINESE farm boys should be feeling all patriotic while risking death for oil rather than the previously indoctrinated US farm boys, who are no longer needed as cannon fodder so we can keep the lights on here (which of course is a strategic imperative even if it costs thousands of US military casualties (that to the warmongers and MI complex are just expendible suckers and pawns anyway).

    7. Does this count?
      “And this distinction matters. It matters as a philosophical or moral concern regarding how America will continue exercising its global police powers. Is the standard for assassinating foreign officials now as murky and minimal as proclaiming them to be “bad guys?””
      This wasn’t exercising global police powers. This was executing a murderer of our people.
      Scepticism is appropriate, but not without giving value to the plausibility that a guy who has orchestrated the murder and maiming of hundreds of Americans is even now planning to do more of that, and that that’s why he went to Iraq from Iran, leaving home and family.
      The overweening skeptics have no information to the contrary, and they seem to be impatient.
      And they ignore the fact that his prior acts, some of them recent, make him an appropriate target.
      There is no defense, only deterrence.

  2. I don’t buy the “distract from impeachment” angle.
    The impeachment farce is a political winner for him.
    This act is potentially a political loser.

    1. Soleimani just got promoted to a ‘foreign leader.’ Not a military commander, not a future foreign leader, but an actual foreign leader. Apparently Boehm wants us to continue to do it Obama style – thousands of drone strikes directed at peons.

      Of couse, Boehm is also the sort who euphemises his killing of US soldiers as “worked to make America’s ill-conceived occupation of Iraq even more of a disaster than it already was.” Someone needs to explain to him that at some point you cease to be anti-war and really do join the other side.

      1. This line of argument from Boehm is a new level of desperation. Since when is a general, conducting military operations in a country that isn’t his own, and who was empirically responsible for killing American soldiers in the past, and a takeover attempt of an embassy that isn’t even in his country, a “foreign leader”? And since when is killing that guy an “assassination”?

        1. Yeah, he doesn’t seem to realize that by his own standard Obama was guilty of worse for offing Bin Laden – who was both foreign, and a leader – but was clearly not any sort of ‘imminent’ threat to anyone.

          1. Boehm conveniently left out that the embassy attackers were bold enough to literally write Soleimani’s name on the embassy wall and credit him with the attack.

            Soleimani ordered the attack and then proceeded on without a care in the world because he didn’t think anything was going to happen to him. But it was his killing that was an act of war, not the blatant attack on the US embassy in a country that wasn’t even his own.

            Regardless, Boehm and the rest of his intellectually inbred colleagues have clearly forgotten how saber-rattling works.

            1. And he has absolutely no idea how saber wielding works – – – – – – –

          2. Did Reason happen to offer any tut-tutting for carrying out an assassination mission on Pakistani soil without asking the Pakistan government first?

        2. Yep, the guy was an enemy combatant, and was killed as an enemy combatant.

        3. I agree Red Rocks. He was just another soldier (or terrorist according to the US government) killed in action.

          Further, given this guy is responsible for many US deaths, multiple attacks (apparently including Benghazi), and recently was responsible for killing over 100 Iranians protesting the government, it’s obvious he was planning more attacks. The argument that there isn’t or wasn’t evidence of “imminent attack” is bogus IMHO.

          If this happened under Obama, he’d be explaining to the Iranians how it was just the result of protest that escalated like he said for Benghazi, and the MSM would be cheering him. It also shows Bush’s folly for allowing Iraq to become a Shia “democracy” that respects individual rights like two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner.

    2. This act is potentially a political loser.

      I don’t think so. Taking out Bin Laden didn’t cost Obama anything, and Trump gets to be the first president to knock the goatfuckers back on their heels since Carter fucked up the whole Tehran vaudeville show.

      While Trump’s cleaning up Carter’s decades-old fuckups, I hope he might get around to restoring full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.


      1. While Trump’s cleaning up Carter’s decades-old fuckups, I hope he might get around to restoring full diplomatic relations with Taiwan.

        That would be ballsy, but I agree (Taiwan). Then perhaps the Canal. 🙂

      2. Remember what Trump said he could do and still get elected? Well, he could bring about the cure for all cancers, and HyR bloggers like Boehm would be all about how he should’ve left it to the doctors and that it’ll lead to more Americans geting heart disease and how awful the impact on the deficit will be….

    3. Trump’s probably hoping the House adds this as another impeachment count.

      1. Kazinski…Funny you say that, I asked the same question myself Friday evening.

      2. Stealing this from someone who said it elsewhere– Trump should have responded to Pelosi with “Don’t like it? Impeach me.”

    4. Nobody but dull liberal idiots buy the impeachment distraction farce. Trump has had many of his own tweets on impeachment since the killing. He doesnt give a shit about the impeachment, he isnt hiding it, he is mocking Pelosi and democrats.

      This is more ignorance from sqrsly and Boehm. Standard fare.

    5. oscar Most Americans believe Trump committed impeachable offenses.

      1. “Most Americans”

  3. Orange Hitler literally started World War 3 to distract from impeachment.

    Before I go back to the pool let me just say the obvious: No one’s trying to downplay Suleimani’s crimes. The question is why now? His whereabouts have been known before. His resume of killing-by-proxy is not a secret. Hard to decouple his killing from the impeachment saga. (Emphasis added)

    I’m glad Reason is covering this. In fact I think this is so important it should be Reason’s second most discussed topic, behind only Charles Koch’s immigration agenda.

    1. As bad as it is, it still boils down to a good guy killed a bad guy.

      1. There are no good guys in this.

        1. “There are no good guys in this.”

        2. No. Trump and Co. are decidedly the goodies here.

        3. Schofield kid sniffing: “Yeah, well I guess he had it coming”

          William Munney: “We’ve all got it coming kid.”

      2. Lol. “Good Guy”. What are you, ten?

    2. Given how much impeachment has helped Trump’s poll numbers and how popular his non-interventionist talk is, it’s clear that Trump is tired of being President and is doing this simply as a way to sabotage his re-election chances. This is the big story nobody is reporting on.

      1. “…This is the big story nobody is reporting on.”

        Nope. The big story is the TDS drooling contest. You’re in second place.

    3. World War 3? Don’t be ridiculous. When has a simple assassination of a leader ever led to a major war?

      1. “simple assassination”

        I’d say World War I, but that assassination was kind of a debacle, and they were lucky to pull it off.

      2. So what you’re saying is that Iran is an old, tired, insecure nation full of barely-manageable ethnic groups and led by an inbred family, who will now be hell-bent on starting a war because their generals feel they have something to prove?

        I mean, the assertion that this guy was a “foreign leader” is dumb enough, we certainly don’t need you jerking off to the possibility of a globalized industrial genocide taking place just so you can screech “OraNgE Man BaD!!!”

      3. Fortunately, this was the killing of an enemy combatant on foreign soil who was in the process of preparing an attack on American troops. So totally justified, and not an ‘assassination’.

      4. Ummm… beg pardon but Soleimani was no Franz Ferdinand. Iran has no alliances with any world powers that are obligated to defend an attack on one of its generals.

        Furthermore, Soleimani was the head of an internationally recognized terrorist organization conducting operations outside his homeland. As such, he was fair game. Additionally, since he had just conducted a raid on a US a Embassy (US soil) his death was well within Trumps power to order, unlike, say, Obama’s murder of Anwar al-Alawki, and al-Alawki’s 16-year-old son Abdulrahman.

    4. Reason lost it’s reason! By quoting Washington Post and New York Times as reliable sources it showed how much to the left it moved lately!

      1. You should see unreason cite Twitter as a quality source.

      2. Harumph! They should be quoting Breitbart and zerhedge! The only trusted sources of alternative facts!

        1. Say both sites you mentioned have gotten less wrong the last few years and didnt award themselves prizes for getting shit wrong. But when you are proven wrong si many times, maybe you should start questioning your sources dummy.

      3. Wapo/NYT and their “anonymous sources”. How much one of them was Ciaramella.

        1. The other was probably brennan.


    Killing Soleimani Was Worse Than a Crime
    It was a blunder.

    “What credible allies will we have, after Trump’s trashing of the nuclear deal thoroughly alienated Europe? Who will believe any intelligence about Iran’s actions and intentions from an administration that can’t function without telling lies? How will American officials deliberate when Trump has gotten rid of his experts and turned his government into a tool of personal power? What is the point of having a Congress if it has no say about a new American war? What is our war aim, and how can it be aligned with Trump’s obvious desire to be rid of any entanglement in the region? What will happen if Jerusalem becomes a target and Israel enters the conflict? What will the American people accept by way of sacrifice, when nothing has prepared them for this?

    There’s no sign that anyone in power, least of all the president, has even asked these questions, let alone knows how to answer them. No one seems to have thought past the action itself. The initial statements from the administration have been alarmingly ludicrous. “This strike was aimed at deterring future Iranian attack plans,” the Defense Department announced afterward. “The world is a much safer place today,” Secretary of State Mike Pompeo intoned, sounding like the Minister of Truth. “I can assure you that Americans in the region are much safer.”

    Only ignoramuses and ideologues claim to know what’s going to happen next…”

    Sqrlsy comments now… I do NOT claim to be a Middle East expert! I do NOT know what will happen next; I have NO crystal ball! But many-many wielders of war boners WILL claim to be experts! HOW will they answer all the above questions?!?!

    Probably with “My country, right or wrong!” And the lessons of Afghanistan and all other past and present stupid endless wars will escape them totally!

    1. Allies? What allies? We don’t need no stinking allies!

    2. Your reliance on Atlantic is more laughable than your own ignorance. Fucking hilarious. Go read actual legal analysis from the likes of Dershowitz. Not DNC talking points.

      1. Goober reads ONLY GOP talking points. While attacking someone for … what he just did!

        Go read actual legal analysis from the likes of Dershowitz. Not DNC talking points.

        Attacking the source means never having to actually … think … or reason … merely conform to the ruling elites.
        Left – Right = Zero. Puppets dancing on competing strings.

        P.S. What kind of retard thinks this is a “legal” issue anyhow? 🙂

        1. Fuck off Hihn. Did they make you pick a new AKA since you went bankrupt?

      2. Don’t forget Wikipedia


          According to empirical evidence, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States.[1][2][3][4][5]

          Cato study in Texas has similar results and conclusions.

          If Breitbart and 4Chan say it can’t be true, then it can’t be true!

          Confirmation bias all down the line. Haters gonna hate.

          1. Top-summary…
            According to empirical evidence, immigrants (including illegal immigrants) are less likely to commit crimes than native-born citizens in the United States.[1][2][3][4][5]

            100% of illegal aliens are criminals. Every. Single. One. Of. Them.

            It is the thing that distinguishes them from legal immigrants.

            It is functionally impossible, therefore, for ANY study that does not acknowledge this to be correct.

        2. Getting back to matters at hand, is Fox News to be trusted under the tin-foil-hats-wing of the “R” party?

          Here’s a Fox opinion on matters at hand…

          Joe Kent: To prevent US-Iran war, we must withdraw from Iraq

          “This is a war we don’t need. The best way to keep it from happening is to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq – a nation where the government no longer wants us, and which has allied itself the virulently anti-American regime next door in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

          The truth is that we have no vital U.S. interest in Iraq and there is nothing there worth fighting for.”

          Trump? Withdraw troops? Really? When he needs news distractions away from impeachment?

          Well, we can always hope… We can hope to NOT be drawn into ANOTHER 20-year occupation of ANOTHER shithole Middle Eastern nation! Maybe under a libertarian POTUS? OK, I am dreaming…

        3. From the above-cited Fox editorial, a statement by the author, Joe Kent:

          “As a retired Army Special Forces soldier with 11 combat deployments and as a Gold Star husband whose wife was killed in Syria last year while serving in Navy special operations, I know firsthand the terrible cost of war.”

          I am waiting for Shitsy, JesseAZ, Nardless the Nadless, etc., to pile on Joe Kent, call him a weak, wussy chicken-shit, a Mullah, and Government Almighty knows WHAT all else!

          Or maybe than 4Chan said that Joe Kent never served in the military at all, is a USA domestic islamic terrorist, and THAT is more credible than Fox News, when Fox News goes wrong!

          “Her husband, Joe Kent, served 20 years in the U.S. Special Forces.[1] ”

          Wikipedia says Joe Kent is a REAL veteran! So THAT can not POSSIBLY be true!

          I have now proven the case for ALL of the members of the tin-foil-hats-wearing-wing of the “R” party! Done yer homework for y’all already! You can take the rest of the day… Better yet, the rest of the decade or century… OFF, for FREE, now! You’re welcome!

          1. Why are you so thirsty for a war with Iran?

            1. WHY are the red rocks in your head scrambling your brain waves? WHY do you hear, see, and read things that aren’t there?

              Haldol can control hallucinations. If you don’t like prescription drugs, broccoli sprout extracts can help as well.


              1. Again, stop thirsting for war with Iran.

                1. I don’t hold it against you that you hallucinate. Really and truly, I don’t. Some folks are BORN to tend that way.

                  Your refusal to take medications (or even supplements), though, makes your symptoms hard to swallow. This makes you a hazard to yourself, and possibly to others. You bring needless suffering!

                  1. Again, stop thirsting for war with Iran. No one but the left is claiming this is going to escalate to World War 3.

                    1. Do you drives automobiles in your current, unmedicated condition? It is people like you (among others) that make it extra necessary to be extremely vigilante, defensive-driving-wise! AND, you make my car insurance go up! Please stop!

                    2. Why are you so thirsty for war with Iran? Do you hate Trump that much?

                    3. Seriously sqrsly, stop with the warmongering. You’re scaring the children more than usual.

                    4. JesseAZ joins the hallucinating party! Why am I not surprised? Maybe his hallucinations contribute to his lies?

      3. Time for Hihnsanity!!!!

      4. Dershowitz the confirmed Epstein buddy? No thanks. I prefer my sources to be less obviously compromised. You obviously have different preferences.

        1. If we are playing to disqualify Epstein buddies you’ll have to renounce the entire DNC and half of the media you rely on dummy.

          1. Pedo Jeffy just wishes he was an Epstein buddy too. Since child rapists are his heroes. So much so he wants to bring every one of them from around the world to America. He believes it’s their right.

            Which is weird, as he is just a Canadian college kid.

            Oh yeah, he pretended to be a SF vet not that long ago too. So he steals valor. I truly hope he gets murdered by cartel thugs.

      5. It’s written by George Packer. Who also wrote The Assassin’s Gate, one of the better books on how the Iraqi occupation post 2003 turned into such a clusterfuck.

        Disappointing article, coming from him. But ordinarily, I agree with you on the usual fare coming in under The Atlantic byline.

    3. “…….. has even asked these questions……..”

      Who cares? A bad guy got capped. Our “allies” are pretty useless. And even they know a bad guy got capped, half hearted protestations aside.

      Whatever. Haha.

  5. When Trump decided not to reply with force for the downing of a US drone he clearly said that the line he drew was that no lives were lost.
    This time, a life was lost.
    One of the QUD officers was seen outside the embassy during the protest. Not that Iranians would ever attack a US embassy.

    1. But. But. But. His attack on our Iraqi embassy was just over. And his next strike against the US was at least a week away. So, since we didn’t catch him with bloody red hands, just with dried blood on his hands, it was apparently illegal or some such thing. Ignoring two still active AUMFs for Iraq and a recent Declaration by our government that his Quds force was a terrorist organization.

      Contrast this for a minute to when Obama had OBL taken out. There was no active AUMF for operating in Pakistan, purportedly an ally of ours. And OBL hadn’t actively planned al Quaeda operations for years.

      1. OBL was a Obo trophy; no more, no less. And shot in his bed. Ever go duck hunting with someone who shoots sitting ducks?
        That’s Obo’s trophy.

        1. This is the most naked hypocrisy you’ve displayed yet. Killing an Iranian general is glorious and good, but killing America’s #1 most wanted murderer was just for personal glory.

          Sorry the black man made you feel so insecure.

          1. Another shit for brains who doesnt know who the Qud Forces are. Please keep praising this foreign “leader.”

          2. I’m glad both of them are dead. It’s a good start to making the ,world a better place.

  6. …reports that “evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin'” and that the Trump administration made an “illogical leap” in deciding to kill Soleimani.

    For the Times‘ sake, these two anonymous deep staters’ story better pan out.

    1. lol at thinking the Times or Post has any journalistic integrity at this point.
      Orange Man Bad, so we manufacture anonymous sources and quotes. It’s the new SOP.

      1. Even those holding out hope for the 4th Estate have been burned enough during the Trump presidency that they should be cautious.

        1. You weenies know that Trump’s action was attacked by Tucker Carlson and Chris Wallace, right? (lol)

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks that people should think in lockstep with political pundits.

            1. For any other right-wing retards …

              Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks that people should think in lockstep with political pundits.

              I never said I agreed with any pundits … which makes YOU the dumbfuck, AGAIN!!. 🙂

              I RIDICULED you whining weenies for attacking pundits … based on their source …. but defending pundits from YOUR preferred source. Mindless tribalism,

              Thanks for proving, yet again, that Left – Right = Zero.

              1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano tries to deflect from the fact that he thinks people behave in lockstep with political pundits.

              2. The Further Adventures of Fuck Hihn.

              3. Go turn your pulse and respiration to zero.

          2. “You weenies”

            Cyber bullying at its worse! This is aggression!

            1. It was a supported argument.
              Learn the difference.

              1. More aggression from the psychopath!


              2. Hihn is bullying again. He put me on an enemies list five times! This is why Reason banned him in the past. But he is breaking the law and coming back anyway. Hihn doesn’t respect property rights.

                Which is typical of progressives like him.

                1. Let’s report that list to the f.b.i. If teenagers in highschool get 10 years of counseling for making “ugly girl” lists. And they get jailyime for “hit lists” I think hihns comeuppance falls somewhere in between

                  1. Come on man, some of us are trying to make that list!

                    1. I’ve made it twice. Badge of honor.

                    2. I’m going for six.

          3. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

      2. The times doesn’t need to manufacture any quotes, I have it on good authority that Eric Ciaramella has solid hearsay information and is about to file another whistleblower complaint.

  7. “… that narrative is starting to unravel amid reports that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye towards domestic politics.”

    So yet more evidence that Trump is really just like every other US President.

    1. But no quid pro quo?

      1. No, but tic tac toe.

    2. The evidence that trump did this for political reasons is completely non existent. Which means Reason will now push it as fact.

      1. None are so blind as those who refuse to see!

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano has been blind for years. That’s why he declared bankruptcy and his family hates his guts.

        2. You‘re a retard. (Said in defense of the cyber bully who called everyone weenies)

        3. “None are so blind as those who refuse to see!”

          None are so fucking stooooopid as Hihn. Fuck off and die.

        4. Hihn sees five lights.

        5. Exactly. They refuse to see that Quds has been escalating steadily, various acts of war, until they crossed a line killing a citizen, and then attacking our embassy

      2. “The evidence that trump did this for political reasons is completely non existent.”

        You fancy yourself as the arbiter of dumb comments. So please train that highly attuned talent on that weapons grade stupid comment please.

        1. Feel free to show the evidence.

          1. Seriously, I’d like to see evidence.
            This was an extremely bold move and comes with the same risk.
            Everything’s going Trump’s way at the moment. Great economy, North American trade deal about to be passed and a deal with China on the horizon, D candidates continue looking like idiots, IG report called out the Russia hoax, and the joke of an impeachment is, if anything, bolstering his support and demoralizing his opposition.
            Politically, Trump has every reason to not strike Suleimani. There were plenty of less risky options that he could sell as an appropriate response (even if they would’ve been, in reality, insufficient).
            Those saying he did it for political convenience, aside from ignoring that Iran’s actions dictated the timing, have a mountain of contrary evidence to overcome.

            1. He’s a businessman, not a politician. Business folks are used to worrying about results, while politicians are worried about maintaining the status quo, which is why UK/France/Germany are asking both sides not to provoke the other further. The usual politician thought processes don’t necessarily apply to Trump.

    3. Usually, the timing and methods of military strikes like this are based on classified intelligence. Judging whether the strike is appropriate without having seen that same intelligence is not credible.
      It is possible that Suleimani, his bff Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, and the others in the motorcade were heading to a child’s birthday party or to volunteer at a food bank. It is much more likely that they were in Iraq for more nefarious purposes.

      1. What is interesting to consider is that we also just helped the Russians stop a terrorist attack that would have hit St. Petersburg last week. Our intel agencies apparently got their head out of their ass long enough to do some actual work

    4. For 3dample, how about the assassination of Iranian Prime Minister Muhammad Mossadegh in 1953?

  8. LOL. My god this cant get any worse.

    Yes. Let’s defend Solaiman. Because if he didnt have anything imminent that can be released to the public we get to ignore the thousands of other murders on his hands.

    Seriously go fuck yourself Boehm. You’re broken.

    This attack happened in a war zone. One in which our bases had just been attacked. There is fat more legal justification for the attack than the OBL attack.

    So in case I wasnt clear, go fuck yourself Boehm.

    1. Typed the low IQ mass man on his little phone ….

      1. Sqrsly has another child in his cabal I see. Lol.

      Has Fox News joined the resistance ( in your “mind”)?

      Tucker Carlson Slams Trump For ‘Lumbering Toward’ Iran War

      This is why the entire universe laughs at you people!

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks being a general gives you diplomatic immunity.



          This is why the entire universe laughs at you people!

          1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks we should parrot whatever a news pundit says.

            1. He’s also a psychopath

          2. Oh, and you pathetic piece of shit, I have NEVER posted here under another handle.
            Unlike you, you pathetic piece of shit, I have never intended to deceive anyone about who is posting, you pathetic piece of shit.
            Fuck off and die; make the world a better and smarter place.

      2. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

      Has Fox News joined the resistance ( in your “mind”)?

      Chris Wallace Hits ‘Wag the Dog’ Reaction to Trump Ordering Airstrike: Wrong Now, Wrong When Trump Suggested Same of Obama

      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 everyone, it’s time to act like a psychopath!


      2. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is mourning the loss of an Iranian general.

        1. Hihn is with the terrorists.

      3. Fuck off and die, Hihn.

      4. Three whining pussies … attack ME … for PROVING Tucker Carlson and Chris Wallace also say their full of shit. (snort)

        Keep screeching, magpies!

        1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano is assmad that people don’t treat political pundits like religious prophets.

          1. You just treat Trump like a religious prophet.

            1. If you don’t agree with me you must love Trump, right? How fucking sophomoric.

            2. No, there’s no money in it.

        2. It’s hilarious that you need to project a love for fox news hosts on us just to make the rationalizations and generalizations in your head make any sense.

          And you wonder why you failed as a politician, writer, and husband.

      5. No one cares about Tucker Carlson except psychopaths

    4. It doesn’t matter if Suleimani was planning anything else.
      He or he started numerous attacks in the last few weeks, one of which targeted the US embassy and another which killed an American.
      Taking him out was entirely appropriate retaliation and will make Tehran realize there are consequences to attack US assets and personnel.
      People who have such a complete ignorance of human psychology really shouldn’t have jobs.
      This is what decadence gets us.
      Strong men built our world and genetic fuck ups like Boehm come along to pollute it

      1. Damn it
        He *orchestrated* numerous attacks

      2. And there will be NO blowback! Nardless The Nadless guarantees it!

        1. “NO blowback”

          Says the cockless wonder who’s enraged that the US retaliated against Iran’s aggression.

        2. Haha. Yeah. Never, ever do anything that might incur “blowback” from religious lunatics. They might have to come up with some other reason to “blow”!

          Haha. Seriously dude, WTF?

      3. Great. America looks tough now.
        You silly fucking internet tuff guys can jerk off to that while your country wastes more young lives and capital over the coming years.

        1. Yeah, killing an Iranian general running an sectarian paramilitary organization outside his own country was a huge change from the last 18 years of US policy.

          1. Where were all of these war boners during the Obama years? I guess a Republican in office is like viagra to you guys.

            1. Your a shallow minded simp, eric.
              Plenty of people have laid out their reasoning here.
              Not all situations are equal.
              But if you’d like to dispute the differences between interventions in Syria and Libya from the retaliatory strike taking out Quds commander Suleimani, feel free.
              I don’t think you can make the case

              1. You have no principles nardz. Just another simple-minded bootlick who has fully succumbed to groupthink. Prove me wrong and say something thoughtful that doesn’t sound like every other jackass Trump fan.

                1. Read my posts, you illiterate moron.

                  1. To be fair, that statement is a contradiction in terms. Also, even if he could, his cognitive functions are too limited to grasp the meaning.

                2. prove us wrong and say something thoughtful that doesn’t sound like ever other jackass TDS degenerate.

            2. No one’s fantasizing about a war with Iran taking place except you and the left side of the spectrum.

            3. You mean all those illegal wars Obama started to help out Iran’s proxy terrorist groups that you and every other Regressive had a perpetual warboner over?

              To the point where you and your party are bitching and sobbing because he wants to end Obama’s pointless war in Syria?

              1. My party? It’s so simple to you right? If your not a Republican you must be a Democrat. If you don’t support dear leader you must have TDS. Anyone who questions the government is a traitor. Go over to Red-State they love that shit.

                1. Yes, ‘your party’

                  Stated vs revealed preferences.

          2. Eric you have no point to make. You just hate Trump. You are a mindless porgtard drone. Best you commit suicide.

        2. Goddamn, eric, your son has no chance whether he’s drafted or not.
          Not with you as his father figure

          1. Only people with YUUUGE war boners can make good fathers!

            Does that apply to mothers as well?

            1. “YUUUUGE war boners”

              Obama seems like a pretty shit father.

          2. He’ll be fine regardless of your well wishes.

            1. Only if he’s got another man’s DNA instead of yours


      I don’t know how much more stupid you can be

    6. Amen, and fuck all the shitheads whinging at you.

  9. Good essay. Few posters here seem to understand the basic tenets of Libertarianism. They are mostly Trump cheerleaders of Leftists.

    1. Awful essay as it is based on assertions of facts not in evidence. Which is enough for the brain dead anti trumpers that pretend to be naive libertarians here.

      1. Says the liar and the luster after a Trumptatorship!

        Sentient readers, beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ doesn’t believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See
        “Words are words dumbfuck. Actions are where morals and ethics lie.”, says JesseAZ. When confronted with offers of hush money, illegal commands (from a commanding military officer), offers of murder for hire, libel, slander, lies in court, yelling “fire” in a crowded theater, inciting riots, fighting words, forged signatures, false representations concerning products or services for sale… Death threats against elected officials, I am waiting for JesseAZ to just TRY this as a demonstration for us all!… these are all “merely” cases of “using words”. Just like the Evil One (AKA “Father of Lies”), Jesse says lies are all A-OK and utterly harmless! So do NOT believe ANYTHING that you hear or read from JesseAZ!

        Also according to the same source, JesseAZ is TOTALLY on board with dictatorship (presumably so long as it is an “R” dictator that we’re talking of).
        With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
        “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

        I say again, this is VERY important…
        “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”
        We need a BRILLIANTLY persuasive new movie from JesseAZ to “Wake Up, America!”, to flesh out the concept that “The Triumph of The Will of The Trump, Trumps All”! Including the USA Constitution. In fact, USA military personnel should start swearing allegiance to Trump, NOT to some stupid, moldering old piece of paper!
        Previous Powerful People have blazed a path for us to follow here, slackers!!! Wake UP, America! Erwacht!

        1. Lol. God you make your side look terrible. Keep shit eating dummy.

        2. By the way. Nothing I stated there was wrong as I lived to you in the thread. It us amazing how fucking dumb you are.

          1. Can you live to us some more in the thread? How amazing us you?

            ALSO, I’d sure like to see what happens to you, when you demonstrate to us that “words can’t be crimes”, by publicly threatening the lives of elected officials! Please get back to us with your results!

            1. You’re a psychopath, but also stupid. Bonus points!

            2. I really have a hard time believing you ever served in the military. You’re too big a piece of shit.

              1. I was an officer… Not gonna tell ya my former rank; I treasure my privacy utterly.

                Did YOU serve, Shitsy?

                1. No you weren’t.

                  1. Jesse’s lies now spread to being able to read people’s minds over the internet! What am I thinking about now, Jesse? What state and city do I live in? HOW do you know my past? What are the intergalactic Smegmoouoogoinds doing NOW? Especially inside your head?

                    1. Jesse doesn’t lie. You do, and it’s embarassimgly obvious.

                2. Yep. Desert Storm. Army. Except in my case it isn’t a stretch to believe that. And I’ve seen some bad officers, but I just can’t imagine you not being screened out at some point in ROTC.

                  Also, you’re not nearly patriotic enough to have served. Just another subversive who should be put down like a subversive.

                  1. You believe what you want to believe, Shitsy! It’s what you’re gonna do, anyway, with or without my advice…

                    So you’re gonna continue Satan-worshipping by continuing to encourage your fellow humans to commit suicide… It is NOT going to help you! Satan-worshipping does NOT end well for the Satan-worshippers! I hope you listen to sweet reason before it is too late for you…

                    1. I’m agnostic. And you’re still a shit eating moron, who never served.

                      Stolen honor will come back to bite you.

                    2. Satan worship and suicide-worship will bite your sorry ass harder than you can imagine… It is TOTALLY self-torturing stupidity! So senseless and needless.

                      What can I say?

                      Libertarians for suicide… Is this appeal working for you? How many suicides have you brought about yet? Have ANY of them brought you ANY long-lasting happiness?

                      On Shitsy’s tombstone… Proud servant of Satan! Now in the loving arms of Satan! You aspire to THAT?!?

        3. Fuck off and die. You make Hihn look intelligent.

    2. From a libertarian point of view, there should be no US troops in the Middle East at all.

      But this article isn’t about libertarianism. It makes no sense to carry out a libertarian analysis of military strategy and foreign policy for a nation with 100000 troops in the Middle East.

      1. Yes! = But this article isn’t about libertarianism. It makes no sense to carry out a libertarian analysis of military strategy and foreign policy for a nation with 100000 troops in the Middle East.

        The article is nothing more than an anti-POTUS Trump screed. This is all Eric Boehm writes anymore. Oh, how the marginally competent (Boehm) have fallen.

        1. They don’t let you into any of the even half-way decent Beltway parties if you don’t write some whiny half-assed ORANGE MAN BAD screed every now and then. He’s still hoping to get invited to one of the good parties.

    3. Libertarianism = pacifism in the face of direct attack?

      1. The opinions of dickless cowards are irrelevant, no matter what ideology they claim

      2. Really. I mean, what is the point of the 2A if you never strike back against an attacker.

  10. It’s a pity U.S. utilities lacked the courage to publish safety comparisons between nuclear reactors and other energy alternatives–like being dependent on oil from medieval fanatic dictatorships that export suicide-hijackers. The Bush Dynasty invasions and 9/11 attacks could have been avoided.

    1. I don’t know if the oil we import from Canada is a pass through from the Middle East, but it appears we pull more from there than anywhere else.

      1. Canadian oil mostly comes from the Athabasca Oil Sands, in Alberta.

    2. The US isn’t dependent on Middle Eastern oil; we’re there because of power-mad American politicians and the desperate European “allies” who award them Nobel Peace Prizes and other baubles to curry favor with them.

      1. What NOYB2 said, and, the US may not be dependent on MidEast O&G, but the US is dependent on functioning economies in China, Japan, and Western Europe: all of whom depend on MidEast oil to keep the lights on.

        Increase fracking, infrastructure for O&G exports, and maybe they could be reliant on the US instead, and the MidEast can go back to being greedy, barbarous, and cruel.

        1. but the US is dependent on functioning economies in China, Japan, and Western Europe: all of whom depend on MidEast oil to keep the lights on.

          It’s certainly better for us if those economies function well, but that doesn’t mean that we should let ourselves be blackmailed by those economies threatening to commit suicide.

          The people primarily dependent on the economies of China, Japan, and Western Europe are the tax payers who live there, and they should pay for their own defense and the security of their own oil supply. Fully. 100%.

      2. Yep, and that oil for the most part is fungible.

    3. 9/11 was about oil now?

      How about the Bali attack? How was it about oil?

  11. Seriously is the author “connecting the dots” from the NYT? You know the paper that has time and again lied about the russian collusion crap. “Unnamed”..right there journalism 101 you don’t print anything when the source refuses to be named. And who the hell is this reporter anyway…does he have an agenda?

    But it is the narrative the media and the “Mainstream” foreign policy idiots want. Oh if only Ms. Clinton and the “pros” were in power.

    Let’s wait and see what the facts are first please.

    1. They based on article yesterday off of Frum and Iglesias. So yes.

    2. Russian collusion is probably true, as Mueller said Trump is NOT exonerated.

  12. This attack happened in a war zone.

    In which the USA is the aggressor.

    1. No they arent. They are there on the agreement of Iraq dummy.

      1. Yes, the Iraq dummy that sits on the lap of the USA invites us to stay there.

        1. You do realize we had left Iraq entirely in 2011, and only came back in 2014 due to the fact that ISIS had infiltrated all the way to Baghdad, right? Iraq is a dysfunctional state where three groups–Shia, Sunni, and Kurd–have a barely maintained balance of power that, thankfully, hasn’t devolved into an all-out civil war despite the presence of a major regional power and a world superpower on their own soil.

          I mean seriously, how stupid are you?

          1. “I mean seriously, how stupid are you?”
            Not quite Hihn-level, but trying.

          2. And where in the US is Iraq located?

            1. In your colon next to your head.

              1. Lmao. Best unintentional setup and response the internet has ever produced.

              2. No, seriously, neocon butthole, where in the United States is Iran located? I mean, I know they have oil and all and are thus subject to a carpet bombing by B-52 if they get out of line, but how should Teheran be treated— as a territory or state?

                1. Why are you so thirsty for war with Iran, proglydyte? Are you really that desperate to relive the mid-2000s? Nothing about it was that great.

        2. Well, I see Vernon is a counter tribalist. He’s with the mullahs.

          1. Vernon believes that everyone but the U.S. is good and anything bad that happens to the U.S. is deserved because the U.S. is evil for having the audacity to exist. He believes America’s only role is to hide their heads in the sand and hope the rest of the world settles itself on favorable terms for us without our input.

            Basically, Vernon is a fucktard.

            1. UCrawford wants the USA to become the Evil Empire, occupying every other nation in the Galaxy!

              1. Stop thirsting for war with Iran.

              2. Go back to screaming at squirrels in the park, Hihn.

              3. Why would this be bad exactly?

                The United States of Everything.

                Everyone gets Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

                Everyone is in one US state or another (no illegals!)

                Everyone living under the Constitution. It’s possible. We already know that the diverse mix of people who’ve managed to get to live under the Constitution have thrived–thrived so much that our closest allies (who do not use the Constitution) can have a pretty good simulacrum of civilization in their European and Southern hemisphere shitholes. Even Canadians kinda get a little.

                Even our enemies have benefitted from us existing. The people they oppress have somewhere to flee to–like all the South and Central Americans fleeing rule by brown people to come live here–where racism is a dirty word and not how things work.

                If the US spread* to all the world, I can’t see how that could be bad.

                ”spread’, not ‘was imposed upon’

                1. WHERE will all the illegal sub-beings live, after the USA takes over the whole galaxy? Will they all be forcibly expatriated to the Andromeda galaxy? How much will THAT cost? Or shall we just gas them all, as humanely as is conveniently affordable?

                  1. Yep, kill yourself you dumb cunt. And you never served, so stop lying about that. No one believes you here.

                    1. Hey Shitsy,
                      I see you’re pimping for the Evil One yet AGAIN! So… HOW MANY people, so far, have you persuaded to commit suicide? Have ANY of these suicides brought you ANY long-lasting happiness, yet? If not, then WHY don’t you give UP your evil ways?

                      Libertarians for suicide… How’s your recruiting pitch working out?

                      Shitsy… Satan worshipper!!!

                    2. I’m a great force for good. You’re the one who is evil. You’re a liar. And you’re with the terrorists.

                      I imagine you will cheer on the Iranians should they respond with force, and then blame America. It’s your way.

                    3. Sure, Shitsy, sure. All people skeptical about endless war-mongering are traitors and mullahs. Like…

                      War-pussy like Fox-News-writing editorialist 20-year-veteran, Joe Kent, maybe? Who lost his wife to stupid ME wars?

                      Joe Kent: To prevent US-Iran war, we must withdraw from Iraq

                      But Shitsy is FAR more patriotic than Joe Kent!

                2. Why not? We can always put more stars on the flag.

          2. “Well, I see Vernon is a counter tribalist. He’s with the mullahs.”

            My country, right or wrong! No matter WHAT my nation-tribe does, I MUST agree with it, in Shitsy Totalitarian land!

            1. You know nobody here respects you right?

              1. Why should I believe YOU, about ANYTHING, liar?

                Have you tested your “words can’t be crimes” theory yet by publicly threatening elected officials?

                1. You dont even know what the word lies mean. Just like you know any actual facts. You’re a worthless senile old man who thought he had friends here and is breaking down at the destruction of that facade.

                  1. Jesse made his bed,
                    Jesse made his bed,
                    Lie in it, Jesse!
                    Lie in it!

                    (I know, I know, Jesse… You’ll keep right on doing it, whether anyone cheers you on, or not… And your vastly over-fed ego makes you UTTERLY incapable of EVER admitting error!)

                    1. I believe you were in the military…and you confused agent orange for tang

              2. I just scroll right past the idiot

                1. I’ve been amusing myself with a string for the dumb cat. Wish I had some shit to feed him.

                  1. I found Squirrely on YouTube!! Check it out!


                    He appears twice in the clip.

    2. The 2nd Iraq War was a mistake, and the decision to stay and attempt to bring democracy was utterly insane. The US was not, however, the aggressor, as Sadam had repeatedly violated the terms of the cease fire from Iraq War One.

      1. As a practical matter, though, have there been more suicide bombings (and other absurd sufferings) in Iraq, under Saddam, or under USA interference? I don’t have a link, or proof, but it seems that “when the cat’s away, the mouse will play”. We took out the cat… Saddam. Now… It seems that some people NEED a dictator… The “mice will play”. All sorts of ethnic and religious stupid fights come out, that Saddam was previously suppressing.

        There’s a strong case to be made that we do NOT have this wisdom (or other required resources) to “fix” other nations!

        Saddam was the aggressor in Gulf War #2? Did he force USA troops over there at gunpoint?

        1. No, he just repeatedly violated the terms of the ceasefire, most importantly with regards to no-fly zones and UN inspectors. It was a stupid war for the US to engage in, but it was Saddam’s refusal to abide by the terms of his surrender that allowed the neocons to convince the American people to invade Iraq. Now, go blow a plastic flute.

          1. “Now, go blow a plastic flute.”

            Good one! Thanks!

            (That stupid flute set me back $55, plus a Dr.’s prescription, and the stupid thing didn’t even do me any good, by the way).

            1. You’re meds have worn off psychopath!

              1. YOUR

            2. Squirrelly, it’s time for you to go to hospice.

          2. DenverJ Did Hussein attack America by violating the ceasefire? No. The fact is we should not have been in the FIRST Iraq war either.

          3. We also found out he had been making chemical munitions rounds with better tech than the pre-1991 ones when an insurgent tried to use one as an IED. Apparently Saddam mixed in his chemical munitions rounds with the standard ones, of which he had an immense number– the figure I heard was at least a dozen munitions dumps in Saddam’s Iraq each of which was larger than the island of Manhattan.

  13. “Let’s get ‘em now Mike, while we got the muscle.” Frank Pantangeli

  14. “Reports now suggest that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye towards domestic politics.”

    “Foreign leader”? Lmfao. How ennobling. Akin to Al Baghdadi being sold as an “austere religious scholar.”

    1. Which is thinner, the sources from this “journalism”, or the evidence of a “threat”?

      1. Journalism left with the typewriter. Couple that with the old “ unnamed sources, “ phlogiston, and then base your narrative on some hack from the NYTimes, well, you get Pravda redux.

        This author should have instead just cited the graffiti he reads on the stall of his favored outhouse; at least then he could justify the stench of his words.

  15. So the facts…

    Qud forces are a designated terrorist group of which Soleimani is the known general.

    He is directly linked to both the killing of the US contractor as well as the attacks on the embassy. He has also been linked directly to the deaths of at least 600 Americans.

    There is an active war power for both preemptive and retaliatory strikes against members of a terrorist organization, which the Qud forces are designated.

    The attack occurred in an active conflict zone of which Soleimani was participating in active attacks.

    This has far more legal justification than the murder of Osama bin Laden.

    Now let’s look at the evidence trump did this merely as political cover for the impeachment…

    Wait there is none.

    God people like Boehm and Sqrsly are dumb.

    1. Correct on the above, now:
      “…Now let’s look at the evidence trump did this merely as political cover for the impeachment…
      Wait there is none…”
      Pelosi’s waiting for the senate to allow her to conduct the ‘non-partisan investigation’; she’ll find that Putin something, something and also Trump returned a library book late!
      Isn’t that enough?

    2. But Trump is a big meanie that brings them lots of sadz, so anything he does is a crime, and wrong.

      That is exactly how their little squid brains function.

      1. Say one thing you’ve ever criticized Trump for that doesn’t have to do with Twitter.

        You calling other people brainwashed.

        He’s the most ridiculous head of state the world has ever known. Literally. I feel that’s part of why you goobers feel the need to suck his testicles so much. Classic overcompensation.

        1. The most ridiculous head of state ever?

          This is why no one pays attention to you.

          1. I for one am glad Lefties like Tony helped get Trump elected in 2016 and will get him reelected in 2020.

        2. Tony. You’re probably too fucking stupid to realize this… but your whining here only makes sense of you can point to something you’ve said positively about trump you fucking retard.

        3. “Say one thing you’ve ever criticized Trump for that doesn’t have to do with Twitter.”

          Banning bump stocks via executive order. Pretty sure that was a heavily criticized move around these parts. What do I win?

          1. Don’t forget the dumbass tariffs.

        4. Oh look the smartest retarded faggot ever to crawl out of dumbfuck Hicksville chimes in with his assessment of world leaders.

  16. To be fair, we don’t actually know what the outcome of the latest events is going to be so it’s perfectly fair and reasonable to assume it’s going to be really, really bad. This is not “baseless speculation”, of course, but “thoughtful analysis”.

    I mean, Jesus Chris, “we’ve poked a bear and now the bear is going to eat us” is an hysterical, run-around-with-our-pants-on-our-head reaction when “we poked a bear and now the bear knows not to fuck with us if it doesn’t want another poking” is just as likely an outcome. Or more likely, given the size of our bear-poking stick.

    Criticize Trump all you want for being an ignorant fat-headed liar who apparently actually does not have any intent to stop meddling in far-flung places we have no business meddling and doesn’t actually know what he’s doing, doesn’t actually have any ability to pick only the best and therefore listens to bad advice, but how the hell this is somehow categorically worse than the past 75 years of American foreign policy is beyond me. It certainly seems to be cheaper so far, and if you’re going to fuck shit up, might as well go for the low-cost fucking rather than the deluxe package.

    1. “It certainly seems to be cheaper so far, and if you’re going to fuck shit up, might as well go for the low-cost fucking rather than the deluxe package.”

      Yep. With respect to enemies foreign ( or domestic), the Trump Doctrine is simple enough; eliminate the threat before it becomes a crisis.

      1. Honestly, that’s the only way to deal with threats in the Middle East. Leaders like Iran has do not respect negotiation. They see it as a sign of weakness if you try to negotiate after they attack you. They respect strength…they hit you, you hit them back far harder than they could ever hit you and do some real damage, they back down. They don’t back down, you keep hitting them until they do.

        It’s not how we prefer to do it in the West, but this conflict isn’t in the West.

        1. Not yet, anyway, but that could certainly change! War is dirty and very unpredictable. People with nothing to lose can become dangerous, very quickly. Should (when?) the ‘homeland’ reap(s) the whirlwind our government has sown, it will certainly be interesting to see just how much warmongers enjoy experiencing what they presently advocate for others, from the comfort and safety of their armchairs.

          1. Who exactly is advocating for war with Iran?

            1. Some people think there are only two options: all out war or doing nothing.

              These people are pussies

              1. Exactly. But Trump is introducing a new option. I call it the Mike Tyson Strategy: punch the mothers out in round one so you don’t need to waste man power in later rounds

                Or to co-opt from Mr. Churchill: better to punch-punch than war-war.

        2. I realize a lot of you are skeptical of this take, but experience says there is a lot of truth to it.

          Every leader over there has drawn lines in the sand, claimed he’d make the sand run red with his enemy’s blood, even launched ineffectual attacks in the face of sure destruction. They never back down until they are forced to. I think it might be a cultural thing…. like they expect to take some losses before having to capitulate, just to maintain their standing.

          Hussein did this with the US. Twice. Even after getting obliterated in the Gulf War, he still saber rattled and played brinksmanship with Bush II…. over nothing.

          So it is very possible that Iran is fully expecting to continue escalating until we really do a lot of damage…. and then capitulate to a deal they could have had a year ago. It would be very consistent with everything we have seen for the last 40+ years.

          1. So it is very possible that Iran is fully expecting to continue escalating until we really do a lot of damage…. and then capitulate to a deal they could have had a year ago. It would be very consistent with everything we have seen for the last 40+ years.

            That’s how I see it. The question is, how will they retaliate? They’ve messed with tanker traffic and oil infrastructure already, to no great effect. Doing it on a greater scale will be annoying, and may result in US or Canadian exports being forced to take up the slack, but won’t drive the US out or get Trump defeated.

            Strikes on US military members overseas? Tragic, but ultimately quickly forgotten. Who’s going to remember the names of the guys who died at Camp Simba in a week or two? Civilian overseas deaths? Possible, and might lead to air strikes within Iran. CONUS civilian strikes? Probably opens a Pandora’s Box the mullahs don’t want, and would close the door for any deal not involving wholesale regime change. For WMD strikes, just underline and put in bold the previous sentence.

            So what will they do? It’s not going to be World War 3. A fight with China might, but not Iran.

        3. Look at how negotiation went for the British in the 1842 retreat from Kabul. Negotiation is just a tool to take as much as possible from you before the real fighting begins.

    2. I suspect that if Trump could just waive a magic wand, he’d just withdraw our troops from the Middle East. But he has to deal with the mess people left him. And the fact is that after all the aggression and terrorism coming from Iran, some response was needed.

      As far as responses go, this was far more effective in that it targeted the regime without hurting ordinary Iranians.

    3. WE poked a bear?

      WE did?

      WE ARE the bear. and the lion, and the shark, and any other apex predator metaphor you want.

      There is no other. Not China, not Russia, not the laughable EU and definitely not the collection of stone age shitheads that make up modern Islam–whatever country they’re currently shitting up.

      They poked the bear.

      And the bear ripped their fucking hand off.

      And they need to stop screaming and flailing about–‘cos the bear might start looking at their head.

      1. Damn straight.

  17. Inside the plot by Iran’s Soleimani to attack US forces in Iraq

    This may well be a stupid ill-thought out move by Trump and advisors. But this particular story by Reuters seems well-sourced – and in particular it ain’t the usual bullshit DC sources.

    And it also fits, post decapitation, with that militia warning Iraqis to stay away from all bases with Americans starting tomorrow. Presumably it means they had the plans/weaponry in place already – so they will retaliate sooner rather than later. Iranians will most likely retaliate later than sooner.

    1. Thanks for the link, JFree! Interesting read indeed…

      1. You didn’t read anything, because you’re illiterate.

        1. Squirrelly is an outright idiot. Somewhere he is depriving a village of his services as such.

    2. Thank you for the link, JFree.

      From the link:
      “…Soleimani told them such a group “would be difficult to detect by the Americans,” one of the militia sources told Reuters…”

      Post 9/11/01, there seemed to be a general agreement that the US had no intel from those on the ground in the mid east.
      That was 18 years ago, plenty of time to make enemies, but also plenty of time to make friends with those fed up with a medieval, thuggish culture; quite possibly women who prefer to take those goddamn rags off their heads.
      I’m not proposing a general acceptance of what the CIA provides, and given the treatment Trump has gotten from them, I’ll assume a large salt shaker at his hand.
      But confirmation by a source like Reuters suggests the claims might be robust.

    3. There are other reports from before his demise that said he was moving more sophisticated rockets and anti-helicopter missiles into Iraq to step up attacks on US forces.

      This was in response to a 4 month long and growing protest movement against Iranian interference and militias. Those were the folks celebrating in the streets of Baghdad in the middle of the night. His plan was to stir up a fight with the Americans to redirect the anger of the Iraqi people toward the US and away from Iran.

      1. “There are other reports from before his demise that said he was moving more sophisticated rockets and anti-helicopter missiles into Iraq to step up attacks on US forces.”

        The presence of Lebanon Hezbollah leadership supports such conjecture.
        They reportedly have hundreds of thousands of rockets of varying advancements

    4. Thanks for the link. Maybe Bohem will read it. I’m very disturbed by the possibility of yet another full blown ME war and spent a lot of time yesterday trying to educate myself on the situation. There are plenty of opinions on both sides but I sure wouldn’t go to NYT or WAPO for an unbiased analysis. The linked article is a valuable piece of the puzzle I had missed.

  18. First, the suggestion that either the NYT or WaPo could be trusted here is, frankly ludicrous. Both have spent the last 3-4 years trying to keep Trump from being elected, and then, once elected, either neutered or removed. Both are infamous for printing the strategic leaks of the lead participants in SpyGate.

    But maybe more importantly, you set an impossible standard. The Quds commander had more American blood on his hands than probably anyone else. His forces had just attacked the US by forcing their way into our Iraqi embassy. ANd, yes, there is evidence that he was planning on other attacks against our military. Maybe not imminently, but certainly within the next month or so.

    He reason that you set an impossible standard is that he was the top level planner for regular attacks on our people, and had been for decades. Your imminent attack standard would essentially put high level, and maybe even medium level, commanders off limits, because their job is to plan attacks, pass them off to their subordinates, and go set up attacks with other subordinates elsewhere. That is what this guy did – he planned the attacks. He didn’t carry them off. Instead, people working for him did that.

    Keep in mind that he was killed in an active war zone where he shouldn’t have been, where our military is operating with the permission of the (Iraqi) government, pursuant to two AUMFs and multiple UN resolutions. He was the leader and head strategist of an officially designated terrorist organization. Yet, we were supposed to leave him alone because, while he was caught red handed, the blood on his hands was a couple days old.

    1. Per the Democrats, and, apparently, Reason, the way to defeat Iran is to let them run international terrorism, destabilization of the Middle East, and nuclear weapons programs until they just get tired and quit.

      1. If they get a little tired with the terrorism thing maybe they can unwind a little and hang a few gays and stone an adulterous or two.

        They’ll have their batteries recharged and be right back to the Death to America thing on Monday morning.

        1. And then build their regional caliphate. Which would be just awesome for everyone. Especially all those Jews in Israel.

          1. And all the womyns.

  19. “Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials…”

    You know, I interviewed two unnamed DNC staffers that said Hillary Clinton had Jeffry Epstein assassinated. If you don’t believe me, just ask them.

    1. Do those staffers now have stains on their blue dresses?

  20. Seriously? Unnamed sources cited in the New York Times are your entire hook? Why not personally consult the angel Moroni instead, and tell us what God thinks about this action by Trump?

    Okay, setting that aside and pretending this is any more credible than the grocery scanner story . . .

    1) Given the imperfections of intelligence data and the nature of predicting the future, it is of course uncertain exactly how imminent and how big any anti-American action was going to be, and thus the available evidence at any given time can be dismissed as “razor thin” by a motivated reasoner. But even if that dismissal were accurate, only a total fucking moron would doubt, given his past record of doing so, that Soleimani was planning attacks on Americans in the future. Nit-picking about how imminent or not those attacks might have been is asinine.

    2) Knocking off Soleimani as a response to an American mercenary getting killed would indeed be “far out”. Which is why the US reprisal taken was strikes on the military forces affiliated with the attacks that killed the US citizen, not an attack on Soleimani.

    Then Iran took the “far out” action of launching an attack on our embassy.

    Responding to an Iranian attack on high US officials in Iraq with a reprisal attack on a high Iranian official in Iraq isn’t “far out”, but exactly proportionate. And that the official who was targeted was the one in ultimate military responsibility for the attack on the embassy makes it utterly appropriate he was the one targeted by the proportionate response.

    No reference to Trump’s psychology necessary.

    1. Coming in 2020 – Reason starts using Magic 8 ball to evaluate Trump’s actions.

      1. Don’t knock the Magic 8-Ball, it told me “Outlook not so good”. I’m planning on asking about Exchange Server next.

    2. “…Responding to an Iranian attack on high US officials in Iraq with a reprisal attack on a high Iranian official in Iraq isn’t “far out”, but exactly proportionate…”
      As a student of WWII, this is a constant whine regarding the Pacific war; the US was only supposed to kill a similar number of Japanese, or it was ‘not proportionate’ in capturing the islands for the air bases.
      Bullshit. Proportionality is irrelevant; if you try to kill me with a pocket knife, I’ll be happy to blow your head off with a Colt 1911, with no apologies. Shut up, fuck off, and die.
      “…And that the official who was targeted was the one in ultimate military responsibility for the attack on the embassy makes it utterly appropriate he was the one targeted by the proportionate response…”
      Tell me that Trump has directed (and succeeded in killing) someone who is blameless in the deaths or the attempted deaths of US citizens and I got your back. Nuff said.
      “…No reference to Trump’s psychology necessary…”
      Well, to TDS victims it certainly IS!

      1. I don’t care much for the idea of some sort of numeric proportionality myself, but in the face of all the idiots declaring this was an unprecedented escalation, it’s worthwhile to point out that it didn’t escalate anything at all. It matched the Iranian escalation, nothing more. If you attack US officials on diplomatic business in Baghdad, there’s no escalation if the US attacks your officials on diplomatic business in Baghdad. Tit-for-tat is the opposite of escalation.

        1. “Tit-for-tat is the opposite of escalation.”

          And, as Ken likes reminding us here, Tit for Tat is how Donald Trump has done business for the last forty years. My best guess is that Trump isn’t going to attack anything further in Iran unless Iran or its little helpers attack something American first.

          Given how face-driven Arab and Persian culture is, and how pissed off the Iranians seem to be about this guy getting killed—draping the main mosque in Qom with a blood red flag, weeping on state TV, etc—we’re not going to have to wait very long for their attack.

    3. Good summary.

      And now the Iranian regime has been put on notice that there are 52 of their most important figures already in our crosshairs, knowledge that should be beneficial to them as they decide how to proceed from here on out

  21. He was wearing a short skirt just was asking for it, why not fuck him?

    Excuse me a minute while I have a flavored post coital vape.

  22. a) + b) + c) is hardly evidence of an imminent attack

    This is why those unnamed sources get paid the big bucks.

    1. “a) + b) + c)”

      What about Left-Right=Zero?

      /Full Hihn

      1. “/Full Hihn”
        Good. GOOD!

  23. “Reports now suggest that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye towards domestic politics.”

    Trump succumbed to retaliation for Iran’s own escalations.

    1) Iran shot down a U.S. drone.
    2) Iran interfered with oil tankers as they went through the Strait of Hormuz
    3) Iranian proxies attacked Saudi oil production facilities.
    4) Iranian proxies attacked a facility with rockets that killed an American contractor.

    Trump was responding to this escalation.

    It is unlikely that Trump’s retaliation would deescalate the situation, and I’ve been arguing that this rationalization was dubious since Friday.

    . . . but that’s no reason to ignore the real reasons why Trump retaliated.

    Trump was retaliating in response to escalating provocations by Iran, and if you don’t think he should have done so, then you should respond to that.

    Gillespie one pointed out that where Trump’s critics take him literally but not seriously, Trump’s supporters take him seriously but not literally.

    There is usually more than one reason why anybody ever does anything, and just because Trump’s reasoning was bad doesn’t mean that wasn’t his reasoning. Pretend it was all about something except what it was really about, however, and you’re not bringing attention to Trump’s bad reasoning. You’re bringing your own objectivity and credibility into question.

    Trump was responding to escalating provocations by Iran.

    I don’t know what President Trump will do or say next week, but I have no doubt but that Boehm will cast it in its worst possible light.

    And that’s pathetic.

    1. bingo, Eric is an idiot

    2. Trump was retaliating in response to escalating provocations by Iran, and if you don’t think he should have done so, then you should respond to that.

      Personally, I think we should just withdraw from the Middle East altogether.

      However, as far as retaliations go, this seems like one of the best possible: it hurts Iran’s leaders, it hurts Iran’s effectiveness, and it doesn’t hurt the Iranian people.

      1. I thoroughly endorse Trump’s recision of the unconstitutional and foolish treaty Obama signed off on, which would have allowed Iran to enrich their own uranium despite having forfeited that right under the auspices of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which they are a signatory. The reason Iran has been trying to provoke a response from the U.S. is in the hope that France, Germany, and some of the other European countries will withdraw support for the U.S. led sanctions regime Iran is suffering under. They hope that Trump will overreact, and it will alienate our European allies.

        And that is likely to happen if Trump continues to retaliate.

        In other words, the best reason to oppose the strike Trump ordered is that it plays directly into what Iran wants–the end of the sanctions regime that’s devastating their economy. The reason Trump has resisted the urge to retaliate in the past is because he knew why they were trying to provoke him.

        I suspect the reason people like Boehm are reluctant to make that argument is because it would require them to stick up for Trump’s recision of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. They don’t want to do that. I happen to believe that the long term threat to American security comes from Iran’s nuclear program. In the shorter term, I’m concerned that Hezbollah, which hasn’t specifically targeted Americans since 1983, might be drawn into directly attacking American targets–and we aren’t likely to fare any better at defeating them than Israel did.

        These are excellent reasons to oppose Trump’s ordered strike.

        Boehm doesn’t even seem to be aware of them.

        1. Doing nothing in the face of escalating Iranian action would also be a form of overreaction.
          Trump’s reaction in this case has been perfect.

        2. The reason Iran has been trying to provoke a response from the U.S. is in the hope that France, Germany, and some of the other European countries will withdraw support for the U.S. led sanctions regime Iran is suffering under. They hope that Trump will overreact, and it will alienate our European allies.

          Our European “allies” are incapable of dealing with the Middle East on their own; they know better than to break with the US. They will grumble, nothing more.

          1. I wouldn’t bet U.S. security on that.

            1. US security doesn’t depend on our European “allies”. If we stopped fighting their wars for them and cleaning up their messes, we’d be more secure.

              1. The completely fear-driven response of some Americans, unfortunately visible (see: McGowan, Rose… as well as the entirety of corporate media) is disappointing, but not unexpected.

        3. “I’m concerned that Hezbollah, which hasn’t specifically targeted Americans since 1983, might be drawn into directly attacking American targets–and we aren’t likely to fare any better at defeating them than Israel did.”

          Not true, at least the first quoted clause. Hez, the al-Hejaz version, was behind the Khobar Towers bombing. Which is neither the Iraq version, nor the Lebanese, but is still an Iranian proxy.

          Strange, as AQ was thought to be behind it, but the wiki for attack makes it look like Clinton wanted to soft-pedal Iranian involvement so that he could achieve some diplomatic victory with Iran. Your guess is as good as mine.

          Certainly they’ve not targeted as many North American targets as they could’ve, though they evidently love to ship cocaine up here. And bomb the fuck out of Argentinians for some reason.

      2. “Personally, I think we should just withdraw from the Middle East altogether.”

        That’s probably the best option, but as of now the departure would be premature. We can’t leave until we have them established with casinos, water parks, and laser tag arenas because those are the things that bring about world peace.

    3. There’s “retaliation”.

      and then there is also a unique target of opportunity.

      You had two top terrorist leaders meeting in Baghdad, where you can do something about it, and you know about it. That’s a pretty rare opportunity.

      I’d bet that having the guy who attacked the embassy and the Iranian puppet master who has been controlling and funding these organizations for the last couple of decades in the same place at the same time was a major factor in the decision.

      It is really hard to pretend that Iran isn’t the one ordering strikes on US and Iraqi people and assets when these two are meeting in Baghdad. In fact, arguing that there wasn’t something big in the offing is kinda stupid, since meeting in Baghdad had to be seen as a risk…. therefore requiring an adequate reason for taking such a risk. (although I really doubt that getting blown up was given all that much consideration. At least not getting blown up by the US)

      1. There are two questions to be answered in every action.

        1) Is this action justified?
        2) Is this action smart?

        We let guilty baby murderers go free if they can’t be convicted by a jury of their peers, without being forced to testify against themselves, with the advice of a defense counsel, and with the evidence collected against them respecting the baby murder’s right not to subjected to unreasonable search and seizure.

        Whether this was a bad man isn’t the only consideration–even limiting the scope of the question to whether this was justified.

        In terms of whether this is smart, you have some questions to answer–even if the action in question was justified. I may be justified in shooting a teenage burglar, but that might not be the smartest thing to do. If not shooting the teenage burglar is the smartest thing to do, then that’s what I should do–regardless of whether I’m justified in shooting him.

        We should what is in the best interests of the United States regardless of whether doing something stupid is thoroughly justified. If Iran is lashing out because the sanctions are killing them, then preserving the sanctions may be the smartest thing to do and doing something that jeopardizes those sanctions might not be smart–even if it’s justified.

        1. Ok, Ken, what would you have done?
          I mean, we all appreciate your platitudes, but at some point we’ve read them over and over and over again and they cease to meaningfully contribute.
          So you oppose this response. Ok.
          What would you have proposed instead?

          1. I think Ken is wrong about this drone bombing giving Iran sympathy to get out of sanctions.

            Iran was riding the fence. This US retaliatory attack makes them put up or shut up. Iran either has to stop with nukes, absorb further debilitating sanctions, escalate into a full-blown conflict, or continue with proxy attacks and the USA picks off Iranian leaders.

            1. I respect Ken’s thoughts, but I also think they stray too far into rigid, abstract dogma at times.
              Reality is a thing.
              Human nature is a thing.
              If Ken has an idea for alternative action, not “do nothing” (and invite further action through the communication of weakness), I’m honestly interested in hearing it.

            2. It isn’t about Iran sitting on the fence.

              It’s about Merkel and the Europeans sitting on the fence.

              They support Obama’s deal with Iran, and they want the U.S. to return to the deal. They’re complying with Trump’s sanctions reluctantly, and they could easily change their sympathies and refuse to comply with U.S. led sanctions against Iran.

              The current state of affairs is that Iran claims to be abiding by the deal that Iran made with Barack Obama–and so do the Europeans. They signed onto the deal, too. They didn’t pull out of it and neither did Iran. The question remains why the Europeans are complying with sanctions when Iran isn’t yet violating the terms of their deal with Obama.

              And the answer is . . . unclear.

              The Europeans probably will not back open hostilities with Iran, and if the United States is engaged in open hostilities with Iran in spite of the fact that Iran is complying with the terms of the deal they signed with Iran, then they can and probably will feel compelled to abide by the terms of the agreement and not comply further with Trump’s sanctions.

              The Europeans don’t give a shit about whether Obama’s deal was ratified by the U.S. Senate. They just know that we’ve torn up that agreement showing what the Europeans consider to be bad faith, and they want the Trump administration to return to that agreement. If failing to help enforce Trump’s sanctions regime is part of pressuring Trump to return to Obama’s agreement, they very well might be prepared to stop cooperating with Trump’s sanctions–if and when Trump moves to open hostilities with the Iranians.

              1. What the Iran Crisis Reveals About European Power

                Here are some thoughts by Lefties about how they cannot stand up to Trump’s strategy regarding Iran.

                Europe’s leaders thought Trump was a joke and they could control him via US media. This strategy failed and as with EU-American trade, Trump has HAND. The US gives financial incentives to nations for a reason and that usually involves control as that country comes to count on that foreign aid.

                As for bad faith, France and Germany have zero moral high ground. France is notorious for selling nuclear equipment to aggressive nations like Iraq (under Hussein) and Iran. Iran would be nowhere near where they are in nuke tech/equipment and missile equipment without Western help.

                The EU wants the USA to follow all their Socialist bullshit laws. Then when they should know and ACTUALLY DO KNOW that the US Senate ratifying treaties is the only legal way the USA can enter into treaties with other nations, they act like they dont care because Obama said so.

                Fuck Europe. Also tied into this is the USA pulling out of NATO and help Garbage Island BREXIT and recover from being an EU punching bag.

                Europe is always making horrible decisions that drag the USA into war. I dont have enough fingers to count all those examples in the 20th Century.

                1. “Fuck Europe”

                  The problem with the fuck Europe idea is that they are participating with the sanctions right now, and it’s having a devastating impact on Iran’s economy. We want them to continue to support our sanctions regime. I appreciate that the EU are jackholes and have taken advantage of our generosity for far too long. Their cooperation is in the best interests of the United States–whether or not they deserve the Jackholes of the Year award.

                  I should say that the Europeans were helpful during the Cold War, too. When Reagan deployed Pershing missiles in western Europe, there was a big protest movement over there against them. Why should the Europeans make targets of themselves when the Russians inevitably launched their nuclear missiles? Reagan went over there and made speeches directly to the European people asking for their support and for support for the Thatcher, Kohl, Mitterrand, and other European leaders–and they won reelection despite going along with Reagan’s deployment of Pershing missiles. Once those were deployed, it became impossible for the Russians to launch a strike against the U.S. without suffering retaliation from European based Pershings before the missiles launched from silos in the U.S. were even hit. It changed the Soviet’s calculations during the Cold War. When the collapse of the Soviet economy started accelerating, the Russians couldn’t turn to direct conflict with the United States to buck the trend–because winning was no longer possible. The Russians tried like crazy to break NATO apart. It was their only hope.

                  The Iranians are trying to break our alliance up on the sanctions for the same reason. The Iranian economy is imploding, and the rate of its collapse is due to increase over the next year as they continue to burn their foreign reserves of cash to keep inflation, etc. as low as it is and to keep capital equipment flowing into the country. Their foreign reserves are now below where they were when they capitulated to sanctions under Obama and came to the negotiating table. That Obama sold the farm for some magic beans is one of the worst things he ever did for American security. The Iranians used that windfall we sent them to finance horrific atrocities all over the Middle East.

                  By European cooperation with the sanctions in danger now, we risk doing the same thing in a different way. If the sanctions regime falls apart, and Iran can reach capital markets in Europe and sell its oil on the world market, we’ll lose all the progress we’ve made. That is why Trump has been reluctant to respond to Iran’s provocations up to now, and that is why I hope Trump continues to hold course by not retaliating to provocations that are intended to break up the alliance behind the sanctions.

                  Yeah, fuck Europe, but we need their help, and if it’s in the best interests of the United States to keep them on our side, then shaking their filthy hands and smiling at them despite the way they’re treating us may be a necessary, grown up example of putting America first. That’s the kind of leadership Trump has been giving us, and it’s one of the reasons I think he’s been a good president.

                  1. As you say toward the end of your comment, “fuck Europe” as in they need to understand that they will never control the USA. If they want to be allies, fine. Its in all our best interests to keep violent aggressiveness at bay and trade.

                    So, Europe knows that a nuclear Iran is very bad for a bunch of the World, including Europe. I like that Trump tells Europe how it is and they follow America’s lead or not. European leaders, of course, hate a strong American centric President. Russian taking Crimea scared Europe and they know that they cannot stop a militarily aggressive Russia on their own.

                    Pretty much the same thing during the Cold War. Europe needed the USA and everyone knew it. As you say, the USSR tried like Hell to break up NATO. Reagan putting Pershing missiles in Turkey and Europe standing up to the Commies really scares Socialists who dont want a strong USA. Reagan’s moves help put America on top while Socialism in the USSR failed. The EU Socialists then recovered from this setback with weak US Presidents in Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

                    Trump knows full well that nearly every nation needs America. For military protection and/or trade. Put pressure on these nations because he puts America first.

                    We can have sanctions on Iran without that ridiculous nuke deal that Iran is evidently violating. Ultimately, I think the only real way to keep Iran from using nukes is to convince them that trying to get nukes is a mistake. Thanks to Obama and Hillary with the Libyan betrayal, tyrannies know that they are susceptible to regime change if they dont have nukes.

                    1. iloveconstitution1789 Wrong. The IAEA said that Iran was in full compliance with the Iran deal.

                  2. Iran just pulled themselves from the iran agreement. If Europe wants to act weak and fund them knowing they are now openly doing what they’ve had been doing the last 5 years, it just shows the dishonesty of Europe.

                    1. If and when Iran formally withdraws from the NPT, it will be to tell the Europeans that they’ll come back to the agreement–just as soon as they drop their support for sanctions.

                      The most important thing to them is pursuing nuclear weapons, but getting rid of the sanctions is a close second. That’s why we should keep the sanctions in place. The pressure we put on Iran by keeping the Europeans on board with the sanctions is far greater than our taking out some god awful murderous terrorist of theirs.

                    2. Sorry, but the IAEA said Iran was in full compliance, lying sack of shit. Of course Iran left the deal BECAUSE TRUMP DID FIRST. Moron.

                    3. And the IAEA had full access to every site in Iran conducting enrichment, plutonium production, or nuclear weapons related research? Uh-huh, sure. Nobody at the IAEA realized Pakistan was enriching fissionable material and doing weapons research either, until they set one of the damned things off. And when it happens with Iran, no one at the UN, their affiliate agencies, or the international media organizations covering for them, will apologize for their bullshit. No one will lose their jobs or suffer in anyway. The US and the West will simply be told that this is the new state of affairs, and we have to live with it. Just like Pakistan.

                      We went through 40 years of the Soviet Union cheating up one side and down the other of every arms-control treaty we signed with them, only stopping when they ran out of money. They claimed they were following the letter of the law too.

              2. Iran is engaging in open hostilities with us.
                A State Sponsor of Terror is using the State Arm of Terror to repeatedly attack us, and their oil tankers. And we just attacked the leadership of the illegal State Terror Arm in a 3rd country, where he had just killed 1500 of their citizens, killed one of ours, and invaded the sovereign soil of our embassy. We did not attack Iran.

                I thought you were intelligent.

                1. I thought you were intelligent.

                  Because something is justified doesn’t make it smart.

                  There are four possibilities.

                  1) Justified + Smart
                  2) Justified + Stupid
                  3) Unjustified + Smart
                  4) Unjustified + Stupid

                  Initiating a direct conflict with Iran and Hezbollah is stupid–regardless of what Iran does and regardless of whether it’s justified.

                  P.S. The only thing dumber than the idea that we could wipe out the Iranian Revolutionary Army or Hezbollah by invading Iran, Lebanon, or Syria is the stoopid idea that we could win a direct conflict with Iran or Hezbollah without invading their territory.

                  1. Definitely Ken. The USA took over Iraq by quickly defeating the Iraqi Army. That is the easy part.

                    The hard part is all the stuff after that.

                    The US military would likely quickly defeat the Iranian Army. The impossible part is getting Iranian people to support a US invasion. Iranians allow themselves to be ruled by religious tyrants.

                    Americans would likely support the US Military sinking every ship the Iranians have along with every aircraft they have. This is relatively low risk if missiles are used. This would not solve the problem that the Iranian is violently aggressive and wants to remain in power. Without economic stability the Iranians are going to get more and more upset with their government. War with Iran just solidifies Iranian nationalistic spirit to prop up their government.

                  2. You’re just wrong here, Ken.
                    1) “initiating” – the US did not initiate direct hostilities, but are certainly experiencing them
                    2) “direct hostilities” with Hezbollah and Tehran doesn’t require wiping out Hezbollah or the Iranian regime, so there’s no need for invasion.
                    You refuse to look at this from their perspective. “Winning” in this case means convincing the Iranian regime that carrying on open hostilities with the US carries more costs than possible gains. Avoiding response at all costs in the face of any affront sends the exact opposite message.
                    You know Iran’s economy is a disaster right now and they’re dipping into foreign reserves, as you said.
                    But you apparently think waging open hostilities is free?

                    1. You keep ignoring the history of Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah since the mid-1980s.

                      Hezbollah is the group that invented the suicide attack within the context of the Middle East.

                      Entering into direct conflict with them and/or the Iranians is not in the interests of the United States.

                      There is no reason to think there is any more upside to the United States entering into open conflict with Iran and Hezbollah than Israel has won from Hezbollah since the mid-1980s.

                      And the downsides are tremendous.

                      What you’re proposing is a bad investment with no exit and little or no upside.

                    2. “Entering into direct conflict with them and/or the Iranians is not in the interests of the United States.”

                      Let’s just tell the Iranian regime that and we can get this whole misunderstanding behind us

              3. Although Amano did not identify specific states, Israeli officials have called on the IAEA to visit undeclared sites in Iran and follow up on materials that Israel stole from an Iranian archive in January 2018 and shared with the agency later in the year. In September at the UN General Assembly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically called on the IAEA to visit a site identified by Israeli intelligence as housing materials and documents related to Iran’s past nuclear weapons program.
                IAEA Says Iran Abiding by Nuclear Deal

                The IAEA report raised the need for additional budgetary contributions from IAEA member states to meet the cost of implementing the JCPOA. IAEA monitoring activities in Iran are projected to cost 9.2 million euros ($10.4 million) in 2019, of which 4 million euros ($4.5 million) is extrabudgetary. The report noted that the agency has 3.1 million euros ($3.5 million) in extrabudgetary contributions available to meet the costs of JCPOA-related activities for 2019.

                The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2020 budget request includes $106 million to meet the U.S. assessed contribution to the IAEA, down slightly from the $111 million request in fiscal year 2019, but more than the $103 million appropriated last year. The budget request also includes $88 million in voluntary contributions to the IAEA, similar to requests over the past several years.

                If only the USA had investigative journalists who would discuss why the USA is paying IAEA when the USA does not have a ratified treaty.

              4. Since Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced in May 2019 that Tehran would reduce compliance with the 2015 nuclear deal, Iran has breached limits imposed by the agreement every 60 days. While none of the violations pose a near-term proliferation risk, taken together, Iran’s systematic and provocative violations of the nuclear deal are cause for concern and jeopardize the future of the deal.

                Also Ken, evidently Iran is violating the terms of the deal. Supposedly only administrative violations.
                Assessing the Risk Posed by Iran’s Violations of the Nuclear Deal

              5. So the US should tolerate an undefined number of dead American bodies and assaults upon US territory because we’re afraid of what the Europeans will think…
                This is your position no matter how much you dress it up.

                What would it take for the Europeans to approve of the US defending itself from open hostility by the Iranians?
                Apparently a dozen rocket attacks, a dead American, and a stormed US embassy aren’t enough in your mind.
                So where’s the line?
                Be specific

  24. “The U.S. carried out military strikes in Iraq and Syria targeting an Iranian-backed Iraqi militia blamed for a rocket attack that killed an American contractor, Defense Secretary Mark Esper said Sunday.

    Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the strikes send the message that the U.S. will not tolerate actions by Iran that jeopardize American lives.

    “Precision defensive strikes” were conducted against five sites of Kataeb Hezbollah, or Hezbollah Brigades, Defense Department spokesman Jonathan Hoffman said in a statement earlier Sunday.

    The U.S. blames the militia for a rocket barrage Friday that killed a U.S. defense contractor at a military compound near Kirkuk, in northern Iraq. Officials said as many as 30 rockets were fired in Friday’s assault.

    —-Chicago Tribune, December 29, 2019

    If you don’t respond to that justification, most people will assume it’s because you can’t.

    If you didn’t know about or couldn’t understand that justification for the strike, plenty of people will suspect you have TDS–and rightly so . . .

    Can anyone else think of a good reason why a piece about the reason Trump ordered the strike didn’t mention the reasons given by both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense?

    1. Were either of those reasons included in the tweet by some random journalist who claims to have talked to two… yes TWO! source who say the evidence is thin? No, it wasn’t included in the tweet. So it isn’t important, now is it?

      There were two anonymous sources who said it was thin. What more do you want?

    2. Can anyone else think of a good reason why a piece about the reason Trump ordered the strike didn’t mention the reasons given by both the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense?

      Yes, journalistic animus to POTUS Trump. And that animus is abundantly clear in Boehm’s writings, regardless of topic.

  25. Let’s hope that the “razor thin” evidence Trump used want a dossier from a gentleman name Steele.

    1. “Wasn’t”. Motherfuck.

      Although, if he wanted the Ds to be on board with his plan, maybe that would be a good thing.

      Also, as pointed out above, the Post and the Times, with their terrible reporting that has been clearly designed to make Trump look bad, truth be damned, will wonder when Trump is reelected why their stories weren’t more influential with the public.

      1. “…“Wasn’t”. Motherfuck…”
        Which is the reason Reason got $50 bucks from me this year; an edit feature would have gotten much more…

        1. You’re part of the problem with this organization then.
          Good to know you support shit “journalism” and progressive water carrying.

          And fuck an edit button, this site is better off without it.
          Can’t weasel out of a position afterward.
          I like an accurate record

  26. So Reason sides with the terrorists. Good to know.

    1. not surprising

    2. Ha! Channeling another great patriot. Speaking about the French (or was it the Axis of Evil?) he said:

      “You’re either with us, or against us”

      I thought this was 2020, but more and more, it’s looking like 2002. Wipe the drool off your chin and try not to choke on your freedom fries, sunshine patriot!

      1. When we’re attacked and you take a side, you’re either with us or with the terrorists.

        And if you’re from this country and claim you don’t have to take a side when people are openly threatening and attacking us (for 40 years), then you’re a fucking coward.

        1. +100

  27. it was about the attack on the embassy and attack which killed the US contractor, Eric…Christ you get dumber by the article…this is right up there with your “market crashes” articles when the market is down 1%


      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano thinks Khashoggi was an American.

        1. totally, what a moron

        2. Sometimes we forget when it’s flag-waving nationalist time for libertarians. It happens so randomly. Or whenever there’s an (R) in the Oval Office.

          1. Well, the left certainly hasn’t forgotten its old mid-2000s playbooks, but they really don’t apply in this case.

            1. I believe my subtle point was that libertarians are supposed to be for human rights regardless of which nation-state whose flag they were born under.

              I realize that is not especially hip for the Trump years, but you’re supposed to be better than that. But you’re not. Sad.

              1. libertarian are not supposed to be for that implicitly at all, read up champ

              2. Maybe your side should stop thirsting for a war with Iran, then.

              3. Which human rights are you defending? Not killing someone openly committing terrorism? Tony, are you arguing terrorism is a human right?

      2. please look up the term “non sequitur”…it will help you before you make a fool of yourself again

      3. More gibberish from a psychopath

      4. If a private citizen of Saudi Arabia, resident in Turkey, is killed by Saudi Arabians, in a Saudi consulate, in Turkey . . . the whole situation doesn’t actually involve the United States in any way, and so isn’t remotely the business of the United States of America or the President thereof in any way, shape, or form.

        Whereas if a US citizen, while under contract to the United States Government, and in a place where his contract the United States placed him, is killed, the United States is, in fact, involved.

        And that if you torture the words “American contractor” to pretend they’re remotely equivalent, it proves nothing more than your mendacity.

      5. Fuck off Hihn. Make the world and your offspring happy; commit suicide.

        1. Can someone rid us of this vile crap?

          1. Nothing is more vile than your psychotic internet bullying!

      6. Khoshoggi was also a terrorist, or at jest clearly associated with terrorists.

        1. *at least

        2. The Commies in the US media dont consider being Propagandists for terrorist organizations to be accomplices.

  28. Ha! Channeling another great patriot. Speaking about the French (or was it the Axis of Evil?) he said:

    “You’re either with us, or against us”

    I thought this was 2020, but more and more, it’s looking like 2002. Wipe the drool off your chin and try not to choke on your freedom fries, sunshine patriot!

    1. You guys are so hilariously desperate to pull your mid-2000s playbooks out of mothballs. No, The Daily Show is not going to become relevant again, and neither is the neocon strategic philosophy.

  29. Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times’ top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that

    Well, I guess that settles that! Two unnamed sources to the NYT! I’m convinced! /sarc

    But 48 hours after the drone attack that claimed Soleimani’s life, that narrative is starting to unravel amid reports that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye towards domestic politics.

    Oh, please, stop the propagandizing. Trump had a proven terrorist and member of a terror regime killed on Iraqi soil.

    1. Well, I guess that settles that! Two unnamed sources to the NYT! I’m convinced! /sarc

      Tucker Carlson and Chris Wallace have convinced ME that you are not a tribal puppet. (/sarc)

      Did you notice NAMED sources? 🙂

      1. Dumbfuck Hihnsano desperately wants people to parrot Fox News political pundits.

      2. Tucker Carlson and Chris Wallace have convinced ME that you are not a tribal puppet. (/sarc)

        You’re a fascist. Go away.

    2. If the reason Boehm’s criticism of the strike Trump ordered ignore or evade the obvious fact that Trump was responding to Iranian escalation, it may be because Boehm can’t formulate a coherent argument on that basis against the strike Trump ordered.

      I’ve been making those arguments against the strike since the moment I heard about it. Making bogus arguments against these strikes isn’t doing anybody any good. It’s Jane Fonda Syndrome over and over again. There are perfectly legitimate arguments to make against the strike–just like there were legitimate arguments against Vietnam.

      Jane Fonda’s bullshit claims that American POWs were well treated by the North Vietnamese hurt the credibility of the anti-war movement more than her bullshit claim could possibly have helped. And Boehm isn’t doing the anti-Iranian war side of the argument any good with his bullshit either.

      He does the same thing on trade, like Dalmia does on immigration, too. It’s bad enough making arguments for doing away with visas for Mexican citizens with a treaty and being pro-trade with China–without having to undo all the damage Boehm and Dalmia do with their bullshit.

      1. Criticize Trump for one thing. Just one. And don’t mention Twitter.

        1. I’ve been criticizing Trump on his trade policy (I opposed the trade war with China entirely), on his immigration objectives (I’ve advocated for a treaty with Mexico that gets rid of the requirement that Mexican citizens need a visa to enter the U.S.), and if that isn’t enough, I oppose this strike Trump ordered for strategic reasons–because I think it plays into Iran’s hands and makes it more likely that the sanctions regime against Iran will break down.

          That’s three things.

          For those of you who think I’m a Trump basher, I also support Trump’s decision to withdraw our troops out of harm’s way in Syria, and I support Trump’s tax cuts, deregulation, and his success in getting El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras to sign Safe Third Country agreements–seriously crimping the asylum crisis without building a wall. I’m also hopeful that Trump’s trade war with China will prove to do something substantial on forced technology transfers–even though I opposed his trade war with China from beginning to end.

          I prefer Trump to anyone on the Democrat side–especially because the Democrats are openly advocating socialism in the form of the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. But I have both plenty of criticism for some of his policies–as well as some praise for others.

          That’s how I roll.

          My positions on foreign policy, international trade, deregulation, taxes, immigration, etc. haven’t changed because Trump is in office, and I both support and criticize Trump to the extent that his policies are moving towards or away from the policies I prefer.

          1. You really think shitbag is competent to understand your comments? Seems he’d often drunk by mid-morning.

            1. It just gave me a chance to make a point I wanted to make anyway.

              Remember that time Gillespie asked Maddow to name something she didn’t like about Obama?

              If I’m gonna go around accusing people of TDS, I better be able to answer that question myself about President Trump.

              1. This is possibly the dumbest and most un-libertarian thing Trump has ever done, and you’re defending him.

                1. Tony, I have not only said that I opposed what he did but also discussed the reasons why–in this very thread.

                  That you can’t see that–despite my response–is telling. If you decided I supported Trump on this, and nothing anyone says to you can convince you otherwise, then why should anyone discuss anything with you ever?

                  Regardless of whether it’s because you don’t understand what you read or because you can’t understand anything that defies your preexisting biases, anyone would have to be stupid to continue a discussion with you after that.

                  You know who else told his followers not to bother explaining things to people who are so far gone that they can’t even comprehend the value of what’s being said?

                2. And precisely how is blowing up a guy who is directly responsible for attacks on US soldiers and citizens that have killed and wounded hundreds “unlibertarian”? The NAP being in play, I’d say he aggressed toward the US aplenty over the last decade.

                  Heck, there are even reports (from far left organizations, btw) that the Iranian general had recently personally lead a meeting where he ordered militias to step up attacks on Americans – attacks which included the killing of the American contractor and the attack on the Embassy – in order to deflect Iraqi anger at Iran and Iranian militias on to the US. Sort of his own version of Wagging the Dog, I suppose.

                  There’s no angle to play “not libertarian” on that one.

                  Now, you can certainly argue “dumb”. That’s pretty defensible. Or wrong. Killing is pretty easy to describe as wrong in almost every instance.

                  But “unlibertarian”? No… that makes no sense in this case.

                  1. If we only had a media service that took investigative journalism seriously and provided facts on Iran, Iraq, and the current situation there with as little bias as possible.

              2. “…If I’m gonna go around accusing people of TDS, I better be able to answer that question myself about President Trump.”

                OK, but it’s a shame to waste time on the most dishonest piece of shit who posts here.

          2. how precisely does it play into their hands?

            1. I broke that down above.

              Iran has been purposely antagonizing the United States in the hope that we will retaliate because retaliation by the U.S. is likely to alienate our European partners in the sanctions regime. Iran wants the sanctions to go away.

              Since Trump reimposed sanctions, Iran has lost about 90% of its oil revenue and the annual inflation rate is near 40%

              “The sanctions have driven away foreign investors and have contributed to a precipitous fall in the Iranian currency, the rial, and a major shrinking of the economy — which the International Monetary Fund predicts will have contracted by a whopping 9.5 percent over the course of 2019.

              . . . .

              Iran’s troubles were sharpened in November by violent protests triggered by a significant state-enforced hike in the price of gasoline.

              The outbreak of demonstrations against the price increase spread to at least 100 cities and towns nationwide where many protesters chanted slogans against Iran’s top political and religious leaders, poverty, and state corruption while banks, government buildings, and police cars were set alight amid the protesters’ rage.


              If our economy contracted by 9.5% in one year, we would have riots in the streets, too. By way of comparison, our economy shrank by about 2.5% during the Great Recession of 2009.

              Anyway, this is the reason Iran has been antagonizing the United States, trying to get us to attack them. The Europeans are only maintaining the sanctions reluctantly, and if Merkel and the Europeans decide the U.S. is being belligerent, they’ll withdraw their support for the sanctions–which are not only against oil but also cut off Iran’s access to world credit markets. The sanctions are destroying them, and the U.S. attacking Iran is the second least resistant path to getting the Europeans to defy Trump’s sanctions regime.

              The least path of resistance is for Iran to come back into compliance with the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but obviously they can’t do that and pursue nuclear weapons, so . . . they sought to provoke the U.S. into attacking them instead.

              1. you broke it down poorly….before you said over-react, not in this you say just retaliate….please pick…cause there is a big difference between the two

                1. It’s hard to tell the difference between retaliating and overreacting until we see how far Iran escalates this and whether the Europeans bail on sanctions enforcement, isn’t it?

                  Pointing a gun at your head and pointing the trigger to see if it’s loaded isn’t a smart thing to do–regardless of whether the gun goes off. If the gun doesn’t go off, I’ll be glad.

                  But if hold off on resisting Iran’s provocations until the gun goes off, it’ll be too late.

                  1. 1. This paragraph takes away any thinking in any policy decision of any sort. It is not hard to tell at all. Taking this guy out of country and basically only this guy is retaliation, while something like sinking an Iranian frigate or attack on Iranian soil might go to the overreaction terrorist. What the Euros think has nothing to do with it.
                    2. non sequitur
                    3. continuation of the non sequitur

                    1. Ken has backed himself into a corner where only absolute passivity is “smart”.
                      It is the most reactionary position I’ve ever seen

                    2. “1. This paragraph takes away any thinking in any policy decision of any sort. It is not hard to tell at all. Taking this guy out of country and basically only this guy is retaliation, while something like sinking an Iranian frigate or attack on Iranian soil might go to the overreaction terrorist. What the Euros think has nothing to do with it.”

                      You make the decision about how big Iran and it’s Hezbollah minions react to provocations?

                      Actually, it’s a roll of the dice.

        2. Bad hair. Trump has really bad hair.

        3. Criticize Trump for one thing. Just one. And don’t mention Twitter.

          Tony….The spending of POTUS Trump is pretty unbelievable. I mean, he is not spending like a drunken sailor. No, he is spending like a fucking squad of drunken marines. Of all the things that annoy me about POTUS Trump, this is at the top of the list.

          1. Most of the federal budgets were passed as veto-proof.

            Trump still should have vetoed them on principle.

        4. Poor Tony.

          Who cares what he demands. tony has zero credibility here. Like most unreason writers.

        5. Tony, did you ever have any criticism of Obama other than complaining that his cock was too big for your mouth?

      2. “…There are perfectly legitimate arguments to make against the strike–just like there were legitimate arguments against Vietnam…”

        Ken, not going to buy an Iran – Vietnam equivalence for a legitimate argument; there’s no dolphin in the water here, and no claim of such.
        See JFree’s link to the Reuters article; that was no whale, and I’m pretty sure you know that reference.
        There are legitimate arguments to bail from the near- and mid-east totally, and to do the same with NATO, and I love them all; let the Starbucks frogs rush east when the Russian bear looks west.
        But the target here is not the dolphin/whale, it is someone who directed strikes against US installations, bragged about it and (it sure seems) hoped to direct more.

        1. I wasn’t trying to compare Vietnam to Iran so much as I was trying to compare Jane Fonda to journalists who hurt the credibility of a movement by making bullshit claims they think are persuasive.

          I can oppose Trump’s strike–even if he did it because of Iran’s escalating provocations. And that’s just like how Jane Fonda could have opposed the Vietnam War–even if the North Vietnamese really were torturing American POWs.

          “When REASON speaks of poverty, racism, the draft, the war, studentpower, politics, and other vital issues, it shall be reasons, not slogans, it gives for conclusions. Proof, not belligerent assertion. Logic, not legends. Coherance (sic), not contradictions. This is our promise: this is the reason for REASON.”

          —-Lanny Friedlander, Issue I, Volume I, May 1968

          Reality has a libertarian and capitalist bias, so we don’t need to use bullshit. That’s why Friedlander called his magazine “Reason”. And when this place was great, it was because more of the staff still understood this.

            1. +1000

              It’s unreason magazine now.

    3. Unnamed sources from the intelligence agencies thay have just been caught plotting a coup against Trump. So … not the most reliable source of information about Trump’s actions then.

  30. We won’t know if it’s good or bad for a while.

  31. So everyone who praised Trump because he wasn’t a warmonger like Hillary are all in the fucking yellow ribbon club, right? Except Tucker Carlson, for what that’s worth.

    1. Tony
      January.5.2020 at 12:37 am
      “So everyone who praised Trump because he wasn’t a warmonger like Hillary are all in the fucking yellow ribbon club, right?

      To which of Obo’s wars are you referring, shitbag?

      1. You’re not even real.

        1. Tony believes in giving in to the terrorists so they maybe don’t hurt him. He believes appeasement is the best foreign policy, because paying the Iranians to be our friends worked out so well.

          Tony believes the consulate staff at Benghazi got what they deserved for making Obama look bad and the terrorists are the real victims.

          1. Well, you saw how Trey Gowdy treated Hillary when he questioned her.

            Or did you mean the other terrorists?

            1. Hahaha…good one. 🙂

        2. Tony
          January.5.2020 at 1:07 am
          “You’re not even real.”

          As if that meant anything to an entity other than the drunken voices in shitbag’s head.
          Your continued existence harms the world; don’t continue to do so.

    2. The mid-2000s called and wants its protest arguments back.

      1. I can’t be against Republican warmongering twice in one lifetime?

        1. Responding to acts of war from a foreign aggressor US not warmongering.

          1. How about violating the sovereignty of Iraq? That’s not warmongering?


            The Law and Consequences of the Recent Airstrikes in Iraq

            “…U.S. willingness to engage in what most Iraqis see as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty plays into popular concerns about U.S. intentions. The end result may be that Iraq’s leadership—or its parliament, which has frequently considered such measures in the past—decides to rescind or narrow its consent to a U.S. military presence in Iraq. If this were to occur, then U.S. troops would almost certainly have to withdraw to whatever levels the Iraqi government was willing to continue authorizing.”

            1. Fuckin’ LOL at citing a Brookings-funded blog as evidence.

              “most Iraqis”–Like Square = Circle, who actually appears to understand the complexities of Middle Eastern politics, pointed out yesterday, the Shias around Basra were probably pissed about it. The Sunni Arabs around Baghdad weren’t all that upset as evidenced by their street celebrations after it happened. The Sunni/Kurd/etc. tribes around Mosul and the western side of the country probably couldn’t give a squirt of piss.

              The Shiites passed a resolution yesterday that had almost no Sunni/Kurd participation; the latter didn’t even bother to show up to vote. “Most Iraqis”–RFLMAO.

              1. Brookings-funded blogs can NOT be allowed to get in the way of the Intergalactic American Empire! ALL perceived injustices EVERYWHERE must be corrected, dammit, by superior American killing power! The only GOOD non-American is a DEAD non-American!

                Killing power PROVES “wisdom power”, which is required to tell good guys from bad guys! Might makes right! Our experience in Afghanistan PROVES it!

                1. Why are you so thirsty for a war with Iran?

        2. How is killing a general who ordered an attack on our embassy that wasn’t even in his own country warmongering?

        3. Well, Tony, you didn’t manage to stand against Democrat warmongering even ONCE.

    3. I’m not aware of any wars Trump has started. So far, all he has done is eliminate a terrorist.

      1. This Narrative from Lefties just exposes yet another lie from them.

        From their position, it is unacceptable for America to engage in self-defense or retaliate against aggressive nations that attack Americans.

        These Socialists are a clear and present danger to the United States of America.

    4. Trump didn’t start this war. Iran has been carrying out acts of war for 40 years.

      1. Since the CIA overthrew Iran’s elected government in 1953 and installed and supported a brutal regime for almost 30 years. Why would Iranians rebel?

        1. Go back to 1941, when Persia was sympathetic to Nazi Germany so an Anglo-Soviet invasion force took over Iran to protect the Lend-Lease route to the USSR.

          1. Sure, then let’s go back… In the spirit of endless backwards-looking to justify war boners… To the “Christian” invasion of the Levant, motivated by religious fanaticism, during the Crusades!

            I am QUITE sure (in light of modern science at least) that I carry Neanderthal genes! It means my Neanderthal ancestors were brutally RAPED by invading Africans! (Or SOMETHING!!!).

            I want REVENGE, dammit!!!!

            1. And if Iran decides to carry out another attack, you’ll get your wish, shit-muncher. So relax, if you’re lucky your dreams of having something to REEEEEEE about might just come true!

            2. Apparently the Muslim invasion of the Levant was motivated by good feelings rather than religious fantacism.

              Next, the shit-vacuum will tell us how efforts to end the Arab slave trade was actually warmongering.

            3. “Isant REVENGE”

              And then you’ll turn around and justify Iran’s aggression with the usual Islamofascist Useful Idiot bullshit about them just seeking righteous blowback vengeance cuz Evil Jooze and the Great Satan. Oh, wait, you already did. Moron.

            4. The first crusade was a response to an Arab invasion of the holy land. You’re premise is 100% wrong

              1. Dizzle, you’re correct, according to Wiki… I checked it out w/respect to Crusade #1… I stand corrected!

                Proper conservatives don’t believe in Wiki, though, so I don’t know any more… If it ain’t Breitbart, it ain’t true!

        2. “rebel”

          And yet, when the Iranian people actually DO rebel, the Left sends billions to their oppressors.

          Oh, wait. You didn’t mean actual rebellion against their actual oppressors in the caliphate, you mean terrorism and murder of innocent Great Satans.

          1. Nicmart mentioning some honest history set you off? “The endless cycle of violence” means nothing to you? My tribe, right or wrong?
            You going postal now soon? What city do I need to stay away from?

            1. “Nicmart mentioning some honest history set you off? “The endless cycle of violence” means nothing to you? My tribe, right or wrong?”

              It’s no surprise that the chief victim of TDS cherry-picks history.
              Fuck off.

              1. You’ve got a clear case of pro-Trump TDS. I don’t think that there’s any meds formulated for that yet. You might try meditation. Ooooooommmmm…

  32. That cretin needed to die and he did.
    Now Tehran now has control of the fuse and they best think twice before relighting it…

  33. If you think the strike on Suleimani increases rather than decreases the likelihood of continuing combat with the Iranian regime… you’re wrong, and have poor understanding of history, human psychology, and physics.

  34. Thank you for sharing such an informative blog. We are offeringbest assignment help online! All updated documents, case studies, essay and projects that will help you score good.

  35. The top Iranian commander in charge of proxy militias and terrorist groups across the region is meeting with one of the top terrorist/militia leaders from Lebanon in Baghdad a couple of days after that militia leader lead an attack on the US embassy…..

    Uh… how thick do you want your reed to be? I mean, I get that some progressive reporter tweeted out a rumor of unknown legitimacy, so you gotta go to press with that. But don’t you think that “was in the middle of meeting a guy who just attacked our embassy after having just ordered strikes that killed an American” was enough to stack on top of “runs dozens of terrorist organizations and has been labeled a terrorist by presidents of both parties”. Whatever other “imminent threat” stuff you have in your bag is kinda just bonus content at that point.

    None of which is to argue that taking him out was going to be conducive to peace. I don’t know the answer to that one. But I do know that everyone who knows what they are talking about on the topic seems to think this was long, long overdue. Even if they hate Trump and the US and think Trump did everything wrong.

    Heck, just go ask Moynihan. He was on the air with 5th column when the news hit and was able to rattle off a half dozen reasons why this guy needed blowing up right off the top of his head. And he absolutely hates Trump.

  36. What would have happened if Iran killed a US General?

    1. Or Don Jr or cyber attacked Trump’s hotels for the next 50 years? That’s what I would be guarding against. If Iran attacks our troops or just regular Americans that would be a mistake.

  37. Your headline alone tells me that this is just more Trump derangement syndrome.

    There are, I’m sure, arguments against this act, as anything. That he was not an immediate threat is not one of them. The very idea suggests giving up on strategy in war, allowing the enemy to dictate events and responding on a purely tactical level, as well as the more obvious advantage to the enemy that he can attack your command and protect his own.

    Strategy demands that military operations in war are chosen to affect the course of the war, not simply to counter short-term threats. Indeed some well-known decisions have been made at great short-term penalty for greater strategic advantage (e.g. allowing some known attacks to fall in order to keep the breaking of German codes secret in WWII). The senior command that thinks only of immediate threat will lose, and quickly.

    If you think that there is no war then the Iranian government disagrees. They have been carrying out acts of war on the US and other nations for 40 years. That the US had previously refused to acknowledge this or to act as if she is at war is irrelevant. This had emboldened Iran and diminished the US. Responding both in sanctions and with force against important targets is a strategy that, I think, will be a better one.

    1. I forgot to point it that, in the past, Trump had been told his strategy is dangerous and will lead to war. Trump has proved his critics wrong.

    2. This is a great analysis

      So sad that Reason has come to this, to be the same as the news media.

      “What nearly the entire DC / academia / journo natsec/forpol commentariat actually means by its critique, though, is that they weren’t included in any of this …

      Donald Trump’s template for Iran-related policymaking is the smoking wreckage of a terror mastermind’s vehicle. The courtiers see it, and want to know what’s in it for them.

      Americans see it, and they know.”

      1. From 2011 until the end of 2018, the president of CBS News was David Rhodes, the brother of Obama aide Ben Rhodes, … who famously bragged in 2016, … “We created an echo chamber,” to sell the Iran deal. … The media “were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

        “All these newspapers used to have foreign bureaus,” Rhodes said. “Now they don’t. They call us to explain to them what’s happening in Moscow and Cairo. Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

        This describes some of the reason staff that are writing about foreign policy. Robby Soave, eric Boehm, Billy Boy….

  38. Y’all can argue all you want (I’m looking at the birdbrains: boehm, binion, dalmia) about this military action. But that son of a bitch Soleimani is just as dead. Fuck him, he has the blood of Americans on his hands. Nobody disputes that.

    I for one, am not the least bit sorry that son of a bitch Soleimani is on the one-way paradise train to wherever he goes.

  39. It would have been interesting to be a Farsi-speaking fly in the wall when the Ayatollah got the news.

    Disbelief? Anger? Sadness? I’m curious how that all played out.

  40. But 48 hours after the drone attack that claimed Soleimani’s life, that narrative is starting to unravel amid reports that Trump took the unprecedented step of killing a foreign leader based on thin evidence of a threat and with an eye towards domestic politics. Indeed, the administration has so far provided little evidence that killing Soleimani has made Americans objectively safer—while the strike has clearly worsened the status quo by raising the likelihood of Iranian reprisals and the prospect for open war.

    More nonsense from Boehm. I still dont understand why Eric even bothers writing. He’s bad at economics. He’s bad at military matters. He’s bad at international matters. He’s bad at domestic matters.

    1. You are a Trumpian, not a libertarian. You love of the constitution doesn’t include congressional declaration of war. Phony.

      1. The fact that you think that congressional declarations of war are somehow more libertarian just shows you to be a hypocrite.

        1. The AUMF was good enough for Chocolate Jesus.

          1. The AUMF applies to anyone, anywhere in the world–deemed by the president–to have associated with any of the organizations that attacked us on 9/11, and it gives him the authorization to do so forever.

            Any president might use that as a justification to go after most any Sunni terrorist organization. You could use it against ISIS, certainly, especially since they associated with and used to call parts of the themselves, “Al Qaeda in Iraq”.

            I think the president would have a hard time using the AUMF to justify attacking a Shia terrorist group and keeping a straight face. If he wants to increase hostilities with Iran, he should get another congressional authorization.

            1. I for one think DoW should be much more specific and have an end specified. Those requirements are not in the US Constitution, so evidently an AUMF with no end specification is sufficient for many.

              The fact that these Iranian and Iraqi generals killed planned and executed on terrorist actions against the USA, would fall under the AUMF. Critics of this would then have to agree that an Iranian general killed Americans which would give the USA casus belli. Not that the USA needs any more reasons from Iranian violence (US Embassy in Tehran 1979, US Navy ship attacks, sailor kidnapping, tanker seizures, violations of international law, US Embassy in Baghdad….).

              S.J.Res. 23 (107th): Authorization for Use of Military Force

              1. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons,in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

              2. I think the governing principle may be that if Congress wants to impeach the president for taking out a terrorist who is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American heroes, they should do so.

                It’s the same “justification” for Obama violating the Constitution, among other things, by killing Osama bin Laden. If killing Osama bin Laden was technically an impeachable offense, knowing that he could have killed Osama bin Laden and willfully choosing not to do so might be an even greater impeachable offense–regardless of whether it was legal.

                If I were president, I’d have killed Osama bin Laden even if it was unconstitutional. It’s like Evel Knievel beating the shit out of his agent with a baseball bat. Knievel was glad he did it. To my knowledge, he never apologized. And he plead guilty to battery. The press asked why he plead guilty, and the responded, “because I did it”.

                Trump is basically in the same boat.

                I’m not talking about whether what Trump did was unconstitutional or wrong or perfectly constitutional and right as rain. I’m just saying that not even the Pelosi Democrats would impeach Trump because he took out a terrorist mastermind who killed hundreds of American heroes who are now buried in Arlington.

                Trump could plead guilty to that and the Democrats would be too scared to impeach him for it. I’m not saying that’s the way it should be, but I think that’s the way it is.

    2. poor new sock troll nicmart.

      I wish unreason would do a local story on how many Iranian agents are socking this website.

  41. The people controlling Iran are basically the sort of people who had they grown up in our society would be attracted to the Republican party. They’re deeply religious, socially conservative and militaristic. They hate women and gay people.

    1. Sounds like traditional Democrats to me.

      Of course, these days, Democrats have been taken over by socialists. Not an improvement.

      1. Yup. Lefties are deeply religious (Pray for Nanny State), socially conservative (hate drug legalization), and militaristic (love the police state and murdering Americans with drones).

        1. *Democrats

  42. It’s always fun to read on a “libertarian” site the justification for such escalation and desire to perhaps start yet another war.

    1. Reason has long been ambivalent about American militarism. Shameful.

    2. The article has nothing to do with libertarianism. Trump is not a libertarian president and the US is not a libertarian country.

    3. It’s always fun to read dumbfuck naive people think a world without conflict actually exists and dont realize that libertarianism doesnt require getting repeatedly punched on the face. This was a retaliatory strike dumbfuck. Tit for tat is completely rational for libertarianism. What isn’t is cowering before others to be ruled over.

  43. The people controlling Iran are idiots and lunatics so I’m not the sure they know how to respond in the way that serves their own self interest. If they weren’t so fucking crazy they wouldn’t be in this mess in the first place. They could be a free society and probably the envy of the middle east. My advice to them would be to renounce all violence and devote themselves to the business of living and letting live but I’m afraid that isn’t possible because Iran is in the grip of religious fanatics with death wishes.

    1. No, you moron, the people controlling Iran are not “idiots and lunatics.” Idiots and lunatics don’t control a post-modern nation for 40 years, or they would have been overthrown before the 80s even came to a close.

      They are currently in a struggle with Saudi Arabia and its allies in the GCC for control of the Middle East. That’s all this is about. Your contention that they are insane is nothing more than part of your own desperation for this to turn into something you can bitch about Trump for.

  44. The more Iranians and Lefty media Propagandists moan, the more sure you can be that we got the correct Iranian and Iraqi leaders in that drone bombing.

    1. I know that. If I wanted you to like something I would attack it.

      1. Now do Bin Laden.

    2. poor pod.

      8 years of not saying anything about Obama murdering Americans and getting thousands of US Servicemen killed, is exhausting.

  45. Iraq’s parliament just voted to cancel status of forces agreement and expel US forces from Iraq.

    1. Citation fell off.

      If true, good news for Trump and America. Congress cannot force Trump to keep troops in Iraq if they expel the USA.

      Then Iran can takeover Iraq with ease. It will be fun to watch Iraqis beg America to give them weapons like they did during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s.

      1. search it yourself. It’s on the Internet. I don’t give a fuck if you are waiting for Fox to spin it for you

        1. Yeah I did. You’re either illiterate or lying if you think that’s what they voted.

          1. The vote was 170-0 in Parliament, but many of its 328 members, primarily Kurds and Sunnis, did not attend the session and did not vote.
            Iraqi Lawmakers Vote to Expel U.S. Troops as Iran Mourns a Slain General

            poor Jfree doesnt even know how to provide citations.

            1. So basically, all the Shiite members of Parliament who are already either in bed with Iran or are at least sympathetic, are mad that one of their allies was killed.

              1. “all the Shiite members of Parliament who are already either in bed with Iran or are at least sympathetic, are mad that one of their allies [and paymaster] was killed.”

              2. It would appear so.

                After the USA leaves Iraq and Iran takes over Iraq, I would not doubt that these Shiite members of the Iraq Parliament become various ministers in the new Iranian puppet state on the Euphrates.

      2. poor JFree.

        So wants people to take him seriously.

      3. If true, good news for Trump and America.

        So – the DIRECT goal of Soleimani – to get Iraqis angry at the US and to get US forces out of Iraq – is actually ‘good news’ for Trump and America.

        God you people are so fucking stupid

        1. Getting pasted by a Hellfire was one of Soleimani’s goals?

          1. I had no idea that Iran was on America’s side and was willing to sacrifice its generals to help the USA get out of Iraq.

        2. Do you, or do you not, think that US troops leaving Iraq would be good for the US?

          1. I’m not the one with a warboner re Iran.

            1. Keep dodging, JFree. That and lying are about all you got.

            2. I’m guessing that most of the people you conceive of as having “war boners” have been saying they don’t want war and are making arguments that decisive response, like the hit on Suleimani, decreases the likelihood/need for war.
              Acting like a pussy only avoids conflict for so long, and ultimately makes conflict inevitable and more severe.
              Just to be clear about my position: the strike on Suleimani was the most effective and surest route to peace with Iran

              1. Actually pretty much everyone commenting here has repeatedly said that scrapping the Iran deal and putting pressure on Iran was the way to get a better deal. ‘Killing Soleimani’ – cuz feelz – is the blind enraged moron’s way of ‘putting pressure on the Iranians’. ‘Risking war’ is obviously not the goal. Putting pressure on Iran to negotiate a different agreement is the goal. Right?!?

                The first consequences of killing Soleimani – handing Iraq over to Iran is NOT ‘putting pressure on Iran’. It is in fact giving gifts to Iran. Eliminating our ability to operate in Iraq is NOT ‘putting pressure on Iran’. Those aren’t disputable assertions. They are statements of the obvious.

                One step forward and two steps back is not ‘putting pressure’. It is merely the way drunks stagger when they have no idea where they’re going. Now you twits are gonna instead pretend its 16D foreign policy chess by the only true libertarian Prez we’ve ever had.

                1. Actually pretty much everyone commenting here has repeatedly said that scrapping the Iran deal and putting pressure on Iran was the way to get a better deal

                  Yeah, and funny how the only people here claiming that we’re going to war are the ones who are supposedly against us going to war.

                  1. It would be rather silly for Iran to go to war. You blowhards are yielding all the terrain without that. Even funnier – it’s almost like Iran is getting first dibs on deciding who gets to fill the vacuum. Yeah I know that isn’t a result of design but merely of our random projectile vomiting. but still – it is pretty funny.

                    1. It would be rather silly for Iran to go to war. You blowhards are yielding all the terrain without that.

                      So are we hoping for war with Iran or not? I realize someone who was so out of the loop he literally thought the Masterpiece Bakery owner was from Colorado Springs might be a bit confused about that, but at least have enough self-awareness to make up your mind.

                2. So you think the Iran deal should not have been scrapped?
                  You think Suleimani should not have been harmed?
                  You’d rather we piss our pants and cry about the draft more?
                  I’m failing to see you propose any position beyond “orange man dumb, USA bad”.
                  As you accuse others of not thinking things through, you fail to show any thought as to alternatives yourself.

                  1. Trump ordered the death of Americans. That is the known certain consequence of his action. Making that sort of decision is why Presidents get gray hair. Because they are forced into making DIFFICULT decisions. Between bad outcomes and worse outcomes. The sort of decision that requires a bit of sociopathy because it requires that one group of dead Americans and a different group of dead Americans be somehow balanced against measurable progress towards some ‘bigger objective’.

                    Did he give a nanoseconds thought to the consequences? Any notion whatsoever flit through his mind as to how this achieves those bigger objectives? To me, the answer is pretty obvious. Of course nothing happened inside his skull. He’s a reality show dog who lives for the applause when he starts humping legs and tweeting about it. That is who he is and who he has always been and silly as hell to ‘blame him’ for something he probably can’t even control.

                    YOU and your ilk of clapping seals otoh. Are very much to blame. You choose to applaud mindless impulsivity. Choose to pretend there is no possible downside here – that this was a decision between something good and something bad. An EASY decision. YOU – not Prez Trump – are the reason we are in permawars

                    1. So you complete dodge the questions and go with whatever your prejudice tells you.
                      Good call.
                      Real convincing argument.
                      Looks like a ton of thought went into your reflexive reply

        3. You failed to note it is only the Shiites upset, the iran proxies. So nothing has actually changed here.

      4. It’s like the double victory proclaimed in J-Men Forever (The Secret World War). Thanks, Jesse Walker. By the way, Phil Proctor is a fan of Clay Pigeon’s “Wake and Bake” on WFMU.

    2. If only. They actually voted for the government to create a plan to end the presence of foreign forces. It means nothing.

      1. It’s not even that weakly worded. It’s actually a vote to *ask*–not tell the government, just ask it–to end the security agreement and tell the coalition against ISIS to leave.

        170-0 advantage, and they can’t even be bothered to actually demand that the government do this? Pathetic.

      2. Of course it’s nothing. That’s why Trump is now threatening Iraq with sanctions if they follow through. Cuz it means nothing.

        1. You said it yourself: “if they follow through”. Since there is an “if” in that sentence, you confirm what I said: they haven’t actually voted to oust American troops.

    3. It was a non actionable show vote. It was a non binding resolution voted on by essentially only the shiite members. Weird how you missed that part.

    4. So much winning…


      1. I’m still waiting for you to explain why you wouldn’t want to be in the Upper Peninsula during the Spring.

    5. “Iraq’s parliament just voted to cancel status of forces agreement and expel US forces from Iraq.”

      You do realize that posting idiotic misrepresentations like this only serve to further diminish your credibility, don’t you?

  46. Reason awakens when something profound happens, but the rest of the time it’s almost entirely indifferent to US militarism and imperialism. It’s never been in the antiwar wing of libertarianism.

  47. How can an attack get any more “imminent” than “already happened”? This was retaliation for an attack the Iranian general had already conducted against one of our embassies!

    1. Who Was The Iraqi Commander Also Killed In The Baghdad Drone Strike?

      Plus, this fucking guy was killed too.

      America got at least 2 birds with one big ass stone.

  48. Yellow cake anyone?

  49. Iranian Generals ImplodingEXPLODING!

      1. It will be equally funny when a couple of Trump hotel ballrooms and Trump office tower penthouses explode.

        You didn’t think our adversaries would recognize that targeting Trump-branded properties outside the U.S. would be the smart move?

        1. Kirkland, you didn’t get the memo?
          This is never an easy thing, so I’m just going to say it directly:

          you’ve been replaced.

          By Kuckland.
          We finished up the interview process a couple weeks ago

          1. LOL….now that was pretty funny. 🙂

        2. “It will be equally funny when a couple of Trump hotel ballrooms and Trump office tower penthouses explode.”

          Asshole bigots will find that amusing, asshole bigot.

    1. +1000

      traitor Iraqi general EXPLODING too!

  50. ‘Is the standard for assassinating foreign officials now as murky and minimal as proclaiming them to be “bad guys?”‘

    Good enough for impeachment, so…

  51. Dumb as fuck article. And it’s not even so bad it’s funny like a Binion or the crazy Indian lady articles .

    Nick laments his fallen libertarian cause. Well Nick did you ever think that you and Reason are not actually libertarian?

    What Orange man bad article is teed up for tomorrow ?

  52. The General was a soldier on the ground planning attacks against American interests. The Iranian and Iraqi people celebrated Soleimani’s death. The Iranian leaders will make a big deal out of this specifically because THEY are also on the hit list. Yeah, this will escalate, but sometimes you have to fight your bad neighbor, and Iranian government is a damned bad neighbor.

    1. Iran in not our neighbor. Unless, perhaps, you are dumb enough to mistake Saudi and Israeli interests for American interests.

      1. Oh, look! The asshole bigot tries some pedantry! And makes an ass of himself but yet again.
        Fuck off and die, you pathetic piece of shit.

  53. “…Taken together, the reporting from the Post and the Times…”

    …are about as reliable as the claims of ‘TEH RUSSKIS!!!!!!!!’

  54. “Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times’ top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that “evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin'” and that the Trump administration made an “illogical leap” in deciding to kill Soleimani.”

    Unnamed sources as reported by the New York Times has never been wrong in the recent past. If these people have a problem with what Trump did then resign and come forward publicly. We don’t know who an unnamed source is, how high up they are, and if they’re actually in a position to know anything.

    I don’t know if what Trump ordered was right or wrong. I do know it is no worse than the bombing of Libya and the assassination of Qaddafi.

    1. I am always skeptical of government bureaucrats. More suspicious of pre-Trump government claims. Very suspicious of Deep State claims. Less suspicious of Trump actions. Absolutely skeptical of MSM claims.

      Therefore, unless there is a detailed media review of this event, I call bullshit on most of what the Propagandists in the MSM say.

      1. Trump is a big boy. Obese, even. He can show his evidence. Until that occurs, the only people who accept the “imminent threat” story will be the gullible slack-jaws who constitute his base.

        1. I don’t accept any of it. From either side.

          The only thing we know is that the U.S., under Trump’s direction, killed Soleimani. It’s the only thing that’s been confirmed by all sides.

          Unnamed sources against the decision and the administration’s refusal to provide documentary evidence for it’s decision only leads to speculation and misinformation.

        2. “…the gullible slack-jaws who constitute his base.”

          Or the asshole bigot posting here under some fake “Rev.” handle, asshole bigot.

    2. Yeah Eric it really seems “hollow”. Jesus Christ.

  55. Half this thread is Hihn talking to itself. The Derp State.

  56. Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials . . . Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times’ top correspondent . . .

    So unnamed liars, and one known and named liar working for a propaganda outlet are cited sources for this?

    If the comments weren’t such a good treatment for low blood pressure, I would give up on this site.

  57. So lemme get this straight…nobody actually believes this. Not the person writing it, not the people reading it. It’s just virtue signaling: a certain set of people insincerely writing this to each other.

    Why do they have to embarrass themselves by doing so publicly? Why can’t they just develop a code word or phrase, like, “The fragistan is cumfoofle,” for them to signal their presence to each other? Or is the price of virtue signaling that you have to embarrass yourselves by doing this publicly, and spouting gibberish wouldn’t be as effective as spouting lies?

    On the other hand, it worked for covfefe.

    1. Virtue signaling doesn’t carry any weight unless you embarrass yourself publicly. Anybody could just mouth a code phrase, being willing to look like an idiot shows commitment. Also, virtue signaling is an arms race, and the sensible and genuinely virtuous stuff got left behind long ago.

      That’s why it ALWAYS involves something stupid or reprehensible, or ideally both.

  58. “Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times’ top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror, reports that “evidence suggesting there was to be an imminent attack on American targets is ‘razor thin'” and that the Trump administration made an “illogical leap” in deciding to kill Soleimani.”

    Sorry, no. Try citing two named US intelligence officials next time. People willing to go on the record. Or at least hiding behind first-person whistleblower reports, meaning things they knew about. Not things they’d been briefed on by others talking to a buddy at the NY Times. Incognito.

    General Soleilmani died with his boots on, as far as I know. The honored dead. Goodbye and good riddance.

    1. General Soleilmani died with his boots on, as far as I know.

      I don’t know about the boots, but the son of a bitch died with his ring on.

  59. There’s not going to be any war. No one’s going to be drafted to fight against Iran. To see people act so intentionally obtuse is beyond comical.

    Did you see “anti war protesters” eulogizing Soleimani, and doing their usual antisemtic things in their rallies? These people aren’t concerned about wars, they certainly didn’t when Obama was in office. These are merely TDS stricken, mentally inept lemmings who can galvanized into action by feeding them all kinds of “Trump bad” narratives – concentration camps at the border, wave of hate crime committed by MAGA hat wearing racists, NRA engaging in killing sprees, etc.

    They pulled this same hysterics when Trump halfheartedly pulled out of Syria. Does anyone even remember that? After some initial atrocities a ceasefire was declared and Erdogan agreed to some face saving measures. Oh those poor Kurds abandoned by America, the media stopped caring about them by Thanksgiving.

    Just a few weeks ago the democrats were crowing about “Trump’s Benghazi” and now they discovered the value of deferring to congress which they never once applied to Obama.

    There’s no concern about wars or government restraint here. It’s all opportunistic anti Trumpism. These same anti war pacifists are hunky dory with the national guard coming to seize guns from citizens who aren’t charged with a crime. We killed a uniformed terrorist, get over yourself. We’re not going to somehow start targeting members of the North Korean regime, every situation is different.

    It would be best if presidents sought congressional approval for war actions and treaties. The democrats are welcome to introduce bills that ensure that Elizabeth Warren can’t enter a Paris treaty without a vote from congress.

    1. That kind of nuanced thinking has no place here. We must fan our face about World War 3 starting because our attention spans don’t extend beyond a 48-hour news cycle.

      1. I’m with you. Nations should have the right to preemptively kill any person they deem as a threat to peace. If Iran assassinates some General in Iraq would that really be a reason for world war 3. Come on. No it wouldn’t!

        1. If there was one thing that Soleimani defined, it was “man of peace”.

        2. Why do leftists have such a hard-on to see World War 3 happen?

          1. I don’t. That’s why i’m For assassinating any person who could be presumed to be a threat to peace. Mike Pompeo certainly qualifies.

            1. Sure you do. That’s why you’re jonesing so hard for one.

              The biggest threat to peace is apparently progressives. Perhaps Trump’s just picked the wrong target and should be dropping JDAMs on your place of residence instead.

            2. So you’re advocating for the assassination of Mike Pompeo?

              Ken’s point about Jane Fonda is well made, but doesn’t quite go far enough.
              I’ve seen more than just this leftist go beyond praising the enemy into wishing for the deaths of Americans as revenge.
              Modern Leftism, folks

        3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
          January.5.2020 at 7:42 pm
          “I’m with you…”

          No, scumbag, you got your hat handed to you a post or so above.
          Get back to us when you’ve paid your mortgage and acted like an adult, you pathetic piece of shit.

    2. It’s kind of mind boggling on so many levels. Here in Montreal people marched demanding a stop to the ‘war machine’ while waving Iranian flags and pictures of that terrorists. It was obscene.

      It does beg the question: What the frick were they for eight years under Obama? This has nothing to do with peace or principles. They’re just idiots. Fools.

      Check who’s back. Bandy Lee! If this is what Yale let’s into its psychiatry department all I can say is ‘Yeesh’. And the comments. Wow.

      1. A lot of folks on the left seem intensely dedicated right now to speaking a war with Iran into existence, similar to what they tried a few months ago with a recession.

      2. The Regressive Left has put Iran first ever since they demanded we sacrifice Salman Rushdie to them back in the 90s.

      3. Holy crap! She’s a mental patient…..

        Trump: “If you’ve been to a VA Hospital in recent years and seen a young man missing limbs, there’s a reasonable chance Qasem Soleimani is responsible for it.

        Interpretation: “If you’ve been to a VA hospital in recent years and seen a man missing limbs, there’s still almost 100% chance it’s a Vietnam diabetic foot. Suicides are almost all Iraq. These will be nothing next to Iran.”

    3. The constraint on war powers ended when Truman did his Police Act in Korea and every war since except Iraq where Bush did actually get overwhelming bi-partisan approval for that stupidity.

  60. Boy, it sure would be terrible if some Iranian sleeper cell suicide bombed Mike Pompeo or the Joint Chiefs or a particular obese fat man on the 14th hole of the resort located at 1100 Ocean Ave, Palm Beach, FL. I mean, after all, these are horrible men responsible for thousands of deaths in the ME. Eliminating them would make the world a safer place, right?

    1. Speaking of the regressive left…

    2. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll hit Hollywood as a favor to the deplorables. Trump’s guaranteed not to go to war over that city of pedophile degenerates getting irradiated.

      1. Well, now that Iran is enriching uranium again that’s always a possibility. Gee, there’s a silver lining to everything, isn’t there?

        1. Sure is. With any luck, you’ll be caught up in the blast, which would really make my day.

    3. LeaveTrumpAloneLibertarian
      January.5.2020 at 7:39 pm
      “Boy, it sure would be terrible if some Iranian sleeper cell suicide bombed Mike Pompeo or the Joint Chiefs or a particular obese fat man on the 14th hole of the resort located at 1100 Ocean Ave, Palm Beach, FL….”

      Yep. It would be far preferable if they fire-bombed some eastbay scumbag who bailed on his commitments, scumbag.
      Pay your mortgage and maybe someone here will think your bullshit is worth something.
      Or, fuck off and die where we can’t smell the remains.

  61. “listen people i dont know you expect to ever stop the war if you cant sing any better than that …“

    Country Joe McDonald

    1. Stooopid post winner for 1/5/2020.

  62. According to a report from 2018, Israel was “on the verge” of assassinating Soleimani in 2015, but Obama’s officials foiled the plan. In fact, they reached out to Iran with news of Israel’s plans.

    The Trump administration, on the other hand, gave Israel a green light to assassinate Soleimani, according to a January 1, 2018 report from the Kuwaiti newspaper Al-Jarida.

    The paper quoted a source in Jerusalem as saying that “there is an American-Israeli agreement” that Soleimani is a “threat to the two countries’ interests in the region.”

    1. MiseKKK… Libertarians for denying the holocaust!

  63. Funny how the one thing Libertarians used to agree the executive branch had (an explicit, enumerated power for President to be commander in chief) has turned into TDSers saying “well this one intelligence officer disagrees and the government won’t reveal sensitive information about ongoing operations so BLONALD BLUMPFFFFFFFF.”

  64. So, did Trump just find a back door way to get us out of Iraq?! I mean, kill an awful terrorist, get Iraqi council to vote to kick out the US, and then say, “coo, we out.” If so, I’m starting to move back to a 4D chess game.

  65. Think how many American, Iraqi, Syrian, Lebanese, and YES, Iranians would be alive today if this guy had been composted years ago?

  66. Where does Reason find idiots who think that killing terrorists who are responsible for the deaths of many hundreds of Americans is unjustified?

    Seriously? Does Boehm get his understanding of national defense from the cast of Charmed?

  67. This is a rather idiotic piece. Focusing on what our autistic president *said* is a mistake. Note it, criticize it, then move on to some real analysis. Iran is playing chess here and has been doing it quite well. Either we get in the game or sue for the best peace we can and tell everybody in the Middle East they’re on their own. Whether or not there was an “imminent” threat is completely irrelevant for multiple reasons. Firstly, he is the military head of IRGC-QF. As such, he is *directly* responsible for numerous killing of American civilians, military personnel, and contractors. He’s done it before, he’ll do it again, and we won’t know until after he’s done it. He’s a legitimate target and I think his killing was the right move *if we are playing chess*. Those who are claiming this is step towards war don’t have even the slightest understanding of the game board that Iran sees. Iran will *never* go to war with the US, no matter how many generals of theirs we kill. We just have to make sure our leaders do play the game with an aim toward checkmating Iran.

    1. I used to think Ms. Mangu-Ward was intelligent. She writes well, and can make a case for her own quirky views. But she’s let a lot of shit run in reason recently that at least should have been better argued, including this howler.

  68. 1) This general was involved in the murders of 700 Americans (aside from Iranians, Kurds, Iraqis, etc.). He’s a serial killer. Why would one not kill him? Even if he were old and were not going to kill more, which he was clearly going to do.

    2) Who gives a fuck what the American intelligence community thinks at this point (or for that matter, your run of the mill reason contributor)? They’ve been wrong, and for partisan reasons, so often. Why not just have Trump briefed by Mossad or or British intelligence or his own hand selected people?

  69. Since the beginning of recorded human history, people are killing each other and stealing each other’s land. This “policy” will never, ever end. It’s part of being human that we are warlike.

  70. I cannot judge the rationality of your concerns here without seeing your written reaction to the assassination of Osama bin Laden. Personally, I think both assassinations are positive events but it is possible that a rational person could object to both assassinations. It would be irrational to believe that the bin Laden assassination is fine but this assassination is wrong. The bin Laden assassination was much more dangerous; Pakistan is a nuclear power. Furthermore, bin Laden was much less dangerous to America sitting incommunicado in the middle of nowhere watching porn on his VCR. Rationality is better than Trumpaphobia or Obamaphobia.

  71. The question of “imminent” is a red herring. Salami has a long history which alone justifies taking him out when the chance to do so comes up. There is no need for there to be yet ANOTHER planned attack by him, imminent or not, to take action. If a serial killer takes a break from killing for a year do you no longer want to “take him out”?

  72. When a NY Times reporter like Rukmini Callimachi attacks Trump based upon the word of “two unnamed” sources it is always best to not jump to conclusions because the accusations turn out to be false many more times than they turn out to be true. Always remember the best thing about an “unnamed source” is that they cannot be questioned…..

    1. Thank you! Next thing you know, Reason will ask us to believe in what Paul Krugman says…

  73. “Citing two unnamed U.S. intelligence officials who have been briefed on the Soleimani assassination, Rukmini Callimachi, the New York Times’ top correspondent covering ISIS and the War on Terror” > Seriously or is it sarcasm?

  74. Seems to me that much of the Middle East is at war and Soleimani was a combatant.

  75. I’m getting really tired of the argument by people with TDS that in this dysfunctional global family we all have to treat Iran as if it were the drunken abusive father who must be dealt with by walking on eggshells so as not to upset him and provoke his violent abusive behavior. The fact is that Iran is a violent terrorist state bent on acquiring nuclear capability. This should not and cannot be tolerated. This violent, hateful group of outright murderers should be removed from the face of the earth. They are no better than Nazi Germany. Why do cater to their demands about anything?

  76. The media, ALL media, seem to have only one response to nearly anything. And that response is “I will jump to conclusions, and explain in 6 paragraphs why my childish jumping to conclusions is smart”.

    I look forward to a world where the internet is destroyed, and media is only what can be written and printed locally. Yeah, I yearn for the 1800’s, as global news 24/7 is poison, innuendo, lies, foolishness and more misery than any human should ever be exposed to.

  77. An attack by islamo-fascists, most often backed by Iran, are always “imminent”.
    There will be no increase in attacks because of this, though the claims will be made of it being the cause.
    They attack whenever they get the chance or have put together a coordinated assault.
    This won’t change.
    Taking out any islamo-fascist is always in response to an imminent attack.

  78. What I don’t get is when Iran shot down our drone and 45 purposed an airstrike as retaliation he backed away, but now based on something that happened over three decades ago and I hope on more recent intelligence, he decided to do this. I’m having problems wrapping my head around the need for this attack. It can’t just be because he, 45, heard rumors of possible future attacks because Iran has been spouting off about that for years.

  79. Sounds as if the author is trying to apply inapplicable US civilian self-defense criteria to an on-going war with foreign terrorists. More lies from the Fake News crowd.

  80. Nonsense. This is not a war. This is a warning not to start a war. Just as Trump, bless his heart, said.
    I would advise being just perhaps a bit more subtle, and have the State Dept make an official declaration that “The government of the United States denies that it has nuclear missiles targeted on Masjid al-Haram, Al-Masjid an-Nabawi, Mashad, Tehran, Tajrish, Qom, Imam Ali Mosque, Imam Husayn Shrine, Al-Baqi’, Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque, Al Abbas Mosque, Sayyidah Ruqayya Mosque and others. Rumors to that effect are without foundation. No questions, sorry.”

    That may not be necessary now, with Iran having satisfied its honor with a gesture of an attack, giving Trump to opportunity to be gracious and not respond.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.