Iran

Donald J. Trump: The Fickle Warrior Against Endless War

After the assassination of the Iranian general, Trump's supporters should admit they were wrong that he was anti-war.

|

For three years, President Donald Trump's supporters have insisted that whatever his other flaws, he is at least no warmonger, unlike his more establishment alternatives in thrall of "the blob," the foreign policy establishment whose consensus rules Washington regardless of public opinion. That was never true. But the assassination last night of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, commander of the elite Quds Force, has put America on the precipice of a major new conflict, proving that Trump was at best a fickle warrior against "endless war."

Soleimani, along with other Iran-backed militia figures, was killed at Iraq's Baghdad International Airport in a strike ordered by President Trump. There is no question that Soleimani was a bad guy. He was the head of an elite unit of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and second in command behind Iran's leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Soleimani was also a shadow puppet master who got his minions—militia groups and regimes from Tehran to the Mediterranean—to run proxy wars against his enemies. He propped up the brutal regime of Bashar Assad in Syria to crush Iran's Sunni enemies; he trained and funded Hezbollah in Lebanon to counter Israel; he stirred up a civil war in Yemen by backing the Houthis to make trouble for Saudi Arabia.

That doesn't mean eliminating Soleimani so brazenly was anything but a reckless act that marks a major escalation in a war that Trump himself started when he tore up the Iran nuclear deal and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran. Those sanctions banned not just American but also foreign companies from buying oil and other Iranian exports. This threw Iran into a major recession, causing its currency to crash and inflation to soar 40 percent. The upshot has been widespread shortages of basic food, housing, and medicine —and rampant hunger and disease for the poorest, naturally, worst hit.

The Trump administration had hoped that this strategy of "maximum pressure" would prod fed-up Iranians to overthrow their rulers and put in place more moderate ones friendlier to America. In other words, Trump launched a war of "regime change," too— except that instead of using military means as "the blob" might have favored, he opted for economic warfare.

But people who are struggling to keep body and soul together don't usually launch revolutions—and Iran's mullahs have crushed all domestic unrest with decisive force. The bigger problem, however, is that "maximum" economic warfare makes actual warfare inevitable. This is partly because no sitting regime can accept the ignominy of such hostility and partly because, in the absence of mutually beneficial commerce with enemies, the cost of retaliation greatly diminishes. As they say, if goods can't cross borders, soldiers or bullets will.

That's basically what's been happening for the past few years.

Iran has attacked two tankers in the Persian Gulf, downed a U.S. drone, and in an act of sheer chutzpah in September, reportedly sabotaged Saudi Arabian oil facilities because that kingdom is its enemy and a U.S. ally. And then, last week, Soleimani used the pro-Iranian militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH) in Iraq to attack the U.S. base near Kirkuk—killing one American contractor and injuring several American and Iraqi troops.

Two days later, America struck back at five different sites, killing at least 25 KH members in Iraq. This generated massive anti-U.S. protests and the near-siege of the American embassy in Baghdad earlier this week. U.S. military authorities claim that Soleimani orchestrated all this. But it's also the case that Iraqis are becoming wildly cynical about America's continued troop presence whose primary purpose they see not as training Iraqi troops, as America claims, but using their country to retaliate against regional enemies.

Be that as it may, given the tinderbox-like situation in the region, the wise course would have been to lower the temperature by easing sanctions and offering to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime. Instead, Trump, who had been showing some signs of softening at one point, ended up doing the exact opposite.

Nor should this surprise anyone. Under Trump, America's military footprint has expanded, not shrunk.

For starters, the number of American troops stationed abroad has barely budged— 198,000 under President Barack Obama and 194,000 under Trump. In Afghanistan, there are 8,500 more troops on his watch than under Obama's. Meanwhile, Trump has sent more troops to prop up the murderous king of Saudi Arabia while backing out of his own much-ballyhooed withdrawal plan from Syria.

Trump has expanded the scope of drone warfare. Obama was no slouch when it came to drone bombing. However, Trump upped him, launching 238 drone strikes in his first two years compared to 186 by Obama at the same time in his term. Worse, Trump subsequently reauthorized the CIA to carry out its own drone bombings and rescinded an Obama-era rule requiring the agency to disclose all the civilian casualties it causes. This makes it much easier to attack countries that America isn't technically at war with and much harder to track the death and destruction the U.S. is causing, all of which will only sow the seeds of a future backlash from those it is terrorizing.

Furthermore, far from delivering on his promise of reducing the fiscal burden of America's foreign policy, Trump, who once called U.S. military spending "crazy," has pushed it to levels that even the Pentagon didn't think was imaginable. The defense, or rather offense, budget has gone up a whopping $140 billion on his watch.

But handing military authorities such lavish means while weakening accountability practically guarantees that they will find missions abroad to justify their largesse. At least to some extent that is what's going on with the decision to escalate hostilities with Iran.

The only thing that's certain right now is that Iran will not take this lying down. The mullahs have pledged to retaliate "forcefully." The question is whether they'll do so overtly or through Soleimani's legacy of proxies.

It is unclear whether Trump was ever really serious about ending endless wars. But even if he was, it is not enough to merely wish for that end. He needed to also eliminate all the internal incentives that keep pushing the U.S. from one quagmire to the next. That requires patience and strategic thinking. Unfortunately, those are not Trump's strong suits and he might have gotten America into a whole new quagmire of his own making.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

NEXT: 'Active Disinformation' or 'Honest Mistake'? Story Shifts on Leaked Letter Saying U.S. Will Leave Iraq

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

  1. “Trump’s supporters should admit they were wrong that he was anti-war.” ???!?!?!?

    HOW can you SAY that?!?! Just LOOK at how he TOTALLY got us out of Afghanistanistanistanistanistanistan, and ALL the OTHER 17 Stanistanistanistanistanistanistanistanistanistans!!!!

    1. Trump took out a piece of garbage, he didn’t start a war. It was the piece of garbage that kept poking the bear which may eventually have lead to a war, but Trump stopped that notion.

      The Iranians are in no shape to go to war with the US. They are broke, their own people are protesting and want a secular government.

      Trump is not the wimp Obama is. The Iranians now know that he will roast their arses if they attempt further retaliation. Trump showed a lot of restraint up to this point, but enough is enough.

      I think he is handling American foreign policy brilliantly. He is scaring the holy crap out of the snowflake left and that is great entertainment in itself. Those loons are always living in fear and dread and rage. That is what a head full of misinformation leads to.

      1. And it’s always “fun” to see the Left side with theocratic regimes and known terrorists against the US

      2. The general Trump liquidated was asked to come to Iraq to discuss a supposed proposal sent by the Saudis, the Iraqi acting as intermediaries. Clearly it was a setup to drone him and the Saudis were complicit. Besides the general being killed an Iraqi officer who guarded the US embassy against the protesters who tried to burn it down was also killed. In total 15 people were droned including Iraqis.
        I bet the Iranian general was much more of a man and a soldier than Trump the chump, chicken hawk and Vietnam draft dodger would ever hope to be in his lifetime. It is easy, to make believe you are brave and execute people while hiding in safety, thousands of miles away. I could not ever imagine Trump doing battle one on one, man to man, or even on a battlefield…much too chicken to do it. Supposedly had bad feet to get out of the draft. Wonder how much his daddy had to pay off someone on the draft board.

      3. Do the corrupt Socialist Democrat Establishment Elite want us to send the Obomination to Iran with apologies and pallets of cash?
        Are they more interested in enriching themselves while aiding in the destruction of America?
        If it comes to all out war, it will not be endless, Trump will finish them fast and we do not have to worry about a worst government replacing the Mullahs.

      4. Not a huge Trump fan, but this was the right call. How many attacks are “acceptable?” The “peace at any cost” crowd doesn’t understand the cost of what their position will eventually be.

    2. Hey Squirrely, weren’t you whining just yesterday about how none of us engage you in a substantial discussion? Yeah, this is why.

      Now go commit suicide, you valor stealing traitor hypocrite traitor.

      1. Libertarians for suicide! Libertarians for worshipping destruction, self-destruction, and hatred (to include self-hatred)! How are your appeals working, Shitsy? How’s that workin’ for ya? … I am completely drop-dead serious now, Shitsy, go study up on suicidal obsessions and self-hatred. I have known a few cases myself. It ain’t pretty! Curt Cobain was fascinated by suicide, and, surprise, surprise, punched his own ticket!

        Read this book, it might help you. M. Scott Peck, The People of the Lie
        https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonmagazinea-20/

        1. Yep, suicide is your choice. So very libertarian. Now go kill yourself you worthless bitch.

      2. Also, Shitsy, I have another good read for you… No cost to you, unlike “People of the Lie”, the book…

        If you are trying to retain ANY good lessons from your US Army experience, in your personal life, then “humility” is a good thing, and “arrogance” is a bad thing. Seems to me, your ratio (of these 2 things) is badly in need of tweaking. The below is an EXCELLENT read for just about anyone, but ESPECIALLY for you! Humility, properly understood, is a WAAAY important, and under-appreciated, virtue!

        https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/the-us-army-is-promoting-a-contentious-new-leadership-value-heres-why-every-business-leader-should-embrace-it.html
        The U.S. Army Is Promoting A Contentious New Leadership Value. Here’s Why Every Business Leader Should Embrace It
        It’s a word you’ve heard before. But the Army has a very detailed way of describing what it really means.

        1. I’m not going to read anything you suggest. I just want you to kill yourself. And thanks to your tiresome bullshit, so does everyone else here.

          You brought it on. Think about that.

          1. Libertarians for Satan worship! How’s that working for ya?

            1. This thread would be better without the both of you. Your childish drivel wastes space and lowers the quality of the thread for everyone.

    3. When someone attacks the U.S. they are fair game.

      From the State Department:
      “U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, as well as foreign embassies and consulates in the United States, have a special status. While the host government is responsible for the security of U.S. diplomats and the area around an embassy, the embassy itself belongs to the country it represents. Representatives of the host country cannot enter an embassy without permission — even to put out a fire — and an attack on an embassy is considered an attack on the country it represents.”

      Soliemani financed, armed, and directed the proxy militia that attacked our embassy in Baghdad (among many other attacks he made on U.S. soldiers and citizens). Trump’s directed response was appropriate and timely.

      So, I’m guessing the author of this article is actually former President Jimmy Carter with an assist by former President Barack Obama.

      1. He might have been fair game in some grand sense, but do you think killing him was a wise move?

        I don’t even think it was wise for Trump’s own self interest. He might not lose that many supporters, but he’ll probably lose more than he gains. Do you agree?

        This was a a big risk, and I don’t see what the gain might be.

        1. Maybe he felt that ignoring increasing violence by Iran was failing and decided let’s try something different.

        2. Trump did the right thing.
          Death is permanent and justified.
          Would you spend million$ keeping him in a Prison.

    4. Out of Afghanistan? He simply transferred some troops to a hotter zone in Iraq, since the Iraqis are protesting against the US imposed government, hundreds of the protesters being shot to death. Iraq is unraveling. I am sure the void was filled with private contractors, something the US government does not have to report. Now the Canadians are sending troops to Kuwait, fearing it will be a target of reprisal. Trump the Zio Chump has done everything he could to start a war with Iran.

      1. So Trump is responsible for Iran Kling 600+ Americans from 2005 to 2011? Trump is responsible for Iran shooting down a US drone in international watedA? Trump is responsible for Iran trying to shut down international waterways? Trump is responsible for Iran bombing American bases in Iraq and is responsible for Iran directing their Iraqi stooges to attack the US embassy?

    5. So…hmm, where to start. There’s so much to address here.
      1) The author is apparently a Democrat (I shudder to add the “ic” when they act so socialistic) as he includes all Trump supporters in on his rant about the supposed hypocrisy of Trump. Ironically, Democrats are notorious for being hypocrites so one would think they’d ignore it. But I digress….
      2) As a proud Trump Supporter I have no problem with war. It goes without saying that if someone attacks any country’s embassy they need to be squashed…whoever they are…and the US should set an example as squashing even if that embassy is Iranian.
      3) It’s obvious to me that Trump is setting the precedent of NOT letting anyone off the hook for what they do to any American people. Past President’s have taken what they call the high road letting these entities get away with a slap on the hand…enabling them to try for bigger targets (i.e. USS Cole bombing enabling 9/11 attack). In the past, it was always, “don’t do it…the American’s will respond”. Now, even Iran acts like it doesn’t care. IMHO Trump should respond to the embassy attack by dropping a kinetic gravity weapon on an Iranian nuclear power plant. Just level it and everything within 10 miles…and no apologies. When they respond with more fire bombs, we do it again to an airbase. They will quickly realize that any attack against us causes them to lose something and will stop, shooting anyone themselves who try so we don’t cause them to lose something else. Suddenly there will be peace…and all you liberals can apologize to the world for a President who defends the US of A. I say, “Fuck the world”. If they don’t like the new sheriff in town, they can tell us to remove our troops protecting them and let China, Russia, and ISIS kill them when we leave. Win-Win for us.

  2. Nobody said Trump was anti-war, Shikha, you moron.

    1. I don’t understand how Shikha thinks that killing some murderous asshole equals a whole war. She’s either prevaricating or doesn’t actually know what the word “war” means.
      When the Lightbringer had Bin Laden killed, does she think that was a war on Pakistan?

      Every article she writes just denigrates Reason further.

      1. I don’t know how she ever got through school being so stupid. Let some go fully employed.

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

    I already disapproved of the mission that killed the ISIS guy because it was reportedly launched without informing Pelosi beforehand. But this Iran thing is even worse.

    #Impeach
    #Resist

  4. Orange Man literally started World War III.

    By killing a uniformed enemy general officer, who was on foreign soil, coordinating attacks on American people and property.

    I want us out of goatfucker territory time yesterday. Sincerely. But the panty-twisting over this asshole being blown into strawberry jam is dumb as fuck.

    1. Shikha doesnt wear panties.

      She rides the broom Commando style.

      1. Poor broom.

    2. I guess Iraq voting US forces out and old, steadfast allies like Britain telling Trump his twitter threats constitute a war crime are just “panties in a twist”?

      No one is mad that an Iranian general is dead. People are mad that Trump is bumbling through it, as usual. Why not kill the guy covertly, like Israel did/does with Iranian Nuke scientists? Why? Because that would require a plan that takes time and does not have the immediate gratification and headline that Trump craves.

      Now he’s blocking Iranian delegation from coming to the UN, in violation of our agreement with the UN, has angered the Iraqis to the point that they want us out completely, and basically lost ground with every country on earth. Great move! *golf clap*.

      1. “I guess [Shiite militias] voting US forces out”

      2. “Britain telling Trump his twitter threats constitute a war crime”

        That’s the stupidest fucking take ever. Seriously. We finally hit the bottom.

        1. No, dude. There is no bottom.

      3. Ouch, bad news! What violations of international norms and agreements will Trump come up with next? Isn’t it better to let diplomats make boring speeches (under the illusion that most people care), than to have frustrated people make more war instead? Talking better than fighting, maybe? Just as an idea to be tested?

        But thanks for the news (even if bad), I was not aware of this yet…

        It is good to actually get INFORMATION here on the comments, instead of just vitriol! Thanks!

        https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/01/06/trump-administration-blocks-iran-foreign-minister-zarif-addressing-un-security-council/

        Trump Administration Blocks Iran’s Top Diplomat From Addressing the U.N. Security Council
        Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif had sought to give a speech condemning the U.S. assassination of Qassem Suleimani.

        1. Your “Some Jerk” sock was better Mary.

        2. “international norms and agreements”

          AHAHAHAHAHAHA

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

          WIKIPEDIA

          AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA

          HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

          HAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        3. Why do you always post solely from shitty liberal sites?

          FP was the org that just had a crappy womans conference featuring Gillenbrand and Sheila Jackson Lee.

          All you do is post liberal bullshit.

          1. Facts are facts are facts… Did Trump prohibit this guy from coming here, contrary to USA agreements with the UN, or not?

            “The sky is blue”, says a liberal source. Jesse will accuse you of posting liberal bullshit!

            “Did Trump prohibit this guy from coming here, contrary to USA agreements with the UN, or not?” = Rhetorical question… As far as I am concerned, any reply from you isn’t worth bothering to read anyway, seeing your long and deep history of posting total lies.

            Beware! Do not be deceived by JesseAZ! JesseAZ does NOT believe that LIES are bad in ANY way! Only ACTIONS matter, ethically or morally! See https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480
            “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, threatening to kill elected officials, false representations concerning products or services for sale… 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 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 are talking of).
            With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
            “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

            I say again, this is 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!!!

            1. You’re still broken I see.

              1. You cite the Washington Post, with a straight face? THIS is a sample of what your esteemed “Washington Post” has to say:
                https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/russian-women-find-a-punchline-in-the-age-of-metoo/2019/08/07/de45293e-8f95-11e9-b6f4-033356502dce_story.html
                Russian women find a punchline in the age of Me Too
                “While Communism gave Soviet-era women key freedoms decades ahead of their Western sisters — from the right to vote to legal abortion…”
                Wooo-Hooo! The “freedom” to vote for a one-party dictatorship! JesseAZ adores and admires and cites WaPo! JesseAZ looks forward to the “freedom”, it seems, of voting for the One-Party Trumptatorship! WaPo my ass! They LIE almost as much as JesseAZ!

            2. JesseAz… Hypocrite as well as a liar!

              Jesse citing the Washington Post:

              https://reason.com/2020/01/02/critics-want-immigration-advisor-stephen-miller-fired-over-his-alleged-white-nationalism/

              JesseAz
              January.2.2020 at 4:28 pm

              …and ondown…

              JesseAZ cites liberal sources!!! JesseAZ is a liberal commie pinko faggot-traitor!!!

              1. Wow. You’re too fucking stupid to know what the word only is fucking hilarious. It was kind of a key word dummy.

                1. JesseAZ… The world’s foremost EXPERT on what is, and what is not, a liberal source! Did you get any credentials in this topic area? I mean, from sources other than the voices in your head!

                  (PS, do NOT “take therapy” from the voices in your head! That does NOT work!!!)

      4. This is what you get after a three-year-period featuring four national security advisors; multiple secretaries State and Defense; handfuls of press secretaries and chiefs of staff; an administration populated by misfits who couldn’t get hired anywhere else; and a leader who doesn’t read, operates by tweeter and impulse, and is more vainglorious than anything else.

        America First was a predictable path to America Alone.

        1. He should have hired an English major with no experience who then shipped them pallets of cash. It’s a treid and true strategy. The English themselves did it in a similar situation.

        2. “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

      5. Hey remember when I caught you lying about Trump having the largest defecit in US history?

        Good times!

      6. Why not kill the guy covertly, like Israel did/does with Iranian Nuke scientists? Why? Because that would require a plan that takes time

        Huh, so killing al-Baghdadi was done on the fly?

      7. Even after 4 days you still dint understand the shiite vs sunni thing and dont realize it is only the iran supporting shiites in iraq who are outraged. 4 days.

      8. killing enemy combatants covertly does not send a message to the world that we are not f ing around. also I refuse to use the assassination since it was a battle field killing and assassinations are illegal.

      9. De Oppresso Liber
        January.7.2020 at 11:59 am
        No one is mad that an Iranian general is dead.

        De Oppresso Liber
        January.7.2020 at 12:01 pm
        Brought to you by the people who now feel Putin is a better friend to them than their fellow Americans. Trash people.

        Notice how often the loudest complainers about other people mischaracterizing them freely engage in it themselves.

        1. Jeff has never been capable of honesty.

      10. Plenty of you progtards are mad and sad an Iranian general is dead. Plenty of reports to prove that.

        So please Pedo Jeffy, just stop with your lies, and sock puppets, your stolen Valparaiso, and your love of child rape.

        Please just kill yourself, because you are not worthy of discussion or debate.

      11. Why not kill the guy covertly, like Israel did/does with Iranian Nuke scientists?

        We did turn Soleimani into red jello, covertly. All anyone knew was that Baghdad airport had a bombing. Then we announced to the world we killed him. Suits me fine. Just a pity we did not take close-up photos of his mangled body pieces and broadcast that into Iran. I want every Iranian to know what we did. Repeatedly.

        I especially want their leaders and commanders to know. They should know that we have the capacity and political will to turn them into red jello.

        As for the UN, I’ll answer you this way: If the UN doesn’t like it, they are welcome to pack up their shit and leave. We’ll be sure to wave goodbye at the shoreline.

  5. //That doesn’t mean eliminating Soleimani so brazenly was anything but a reckless act that marks a major escalation in a war that Trump himself started when he tore up the Iran nuclear deal and imposed crippling sanctions on Iran.//

    Ah, I see. The “war” actually started when Trump refused to honor an incredibly one-sided agreement that Iran was never complying with in the first place and which was sold to the public under palpably false pretenses.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/obama-official-says-he-pushed-a-narrative-to-media-to-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal/2016/05/06/5b90d984-13a1-11e6-8967-7ac733c56f12_story.html

    Brilliant analysis. Fucking brilliant.

    1. So he pushed a propaganda effort that got the deal done yeah? And Iran, for all their faults, was somewhat adhering to it.

      But you insist that assassinating the #2 person there, no matter their flaws and deserving of it, and leading towards more all out war, is a good thing? So tearing up a half good thing and going backwards is progress huh?

      Man, the mental gymnastics. Brilliant analysis indeed on your part.

      1. No, he insists that it wasn’t the start of a war to ignore the deal.

        Jesus Christ fuck man, read once.

      2. JCPOA provided no mechanism to inspect Iran’s nuclear development facilities. Iran began breaching the deal almost as soon as it was implemented.

        But, I guess “somewhat adhering” is now the operative standard. Or, when you pull your head out of your ass, you can just be honest and call it completely breaching the entire fucking agreement.

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-noncompliance/

      3. You’re such a useless little drama queen.

        1. Yours was better than mine.

      4. JCPOA provided no mechanism to inspect Iran’s nuclear development facilities. Iran began breaching the deal almost as soon as it was implemented.

        But, I guess “somewhat adhering” is now the operative standard. Or, when you pull your head out of your ass, you can just be honest and call it completely breaching the entire fucking agreement.

        You have no idea what you are talking about.

        https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/05/iran-nuclear-deal-flawed/559595/

        1. I didn’t catch that, lolol “somewhat adhering” lolololol

          1. Even “somewhat adhering” is being generous. The reality is that the Iranians were ignoring most of JCPOA’s material restrictions, while collecting the cash.

            https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/07/iran-nuclear-deal-noncompliance/

      5. And Iran, for all their faults, was somewhat adhering to it.

        Somewhat adhering to it? In other words they were not adhering to it .

        1. Kind of like being somewhat pregnant.

          1. When Iran has a successful nuclear test, these same people telling us how wonderful and effective the JCPOA was, will be screaming that Trump allowed the Iranians to get nukes. Despite it being impossible to bootstrap a nuclear weapons development program from nothing, if they only started when Trump announced the deal was off.

            Then after that, those people will be screaming that this is the way the world is now, and we just have to get used to it, like we have to with North Korea and Pakistan.

            Utter hypocrisy. Absolutely shameless.

            1. Mostly dead.

          2. Well, it’s kind of the opposite. Somewhat pregnant is pregnant.

            Somewhat adhering is not adhering.

    2. I love the belief that ignoring attacks makes them stop.

      Should we start wars? No.
      Should we ACCEPT attacks? Also no.

  6. “For three years, President Donald Trump’s supporters have insisted that whatever his other flaws, he is always right.”

    Fixed that for you.

    1. “Trump owns liberal’s fucking souls, and makes them cry on the reg and sperg out relentlessly”

      Ftfy

      1. Destroy the country! That’ll show those libs!

        Brought to you by the people who now feel Putin is a better friend to them than their fellow Americans. Trash people.

        1. Yes, progressives are destroying the country and are trash people.
          If we’re being generous, as you’d have to be to call the hive mind that is progressives “people”

        2. Hey remember when I totally busted you lying earlier today?

          Thanks.

        3. Fucking sad that you’re reduced to posting Facebook Boomer memes.

        4. Putin… russians and you literally have the same talking points in regard to Soleimani… yet you yell Putin.

  7. I would advise Dalmia, should she wish to assimilate into American culture, to acclimate herself to Christianity and the Bible, specifically Psalm 23:

    The Trump is my shepherd; I shall not want.
    He maketh me to lie down in green fairways; He leadeth me beside the water hazards and the sand traps.
    He restoreth my soul; He leadeth me in the paths of yuge righteousness for His name’s sake.
    Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil; for Trump art with me; His Twitter and His Tweets, they comfort me.
    He preparest a Big Mac for me in the presence of mine enemies; He anointest my head with MAGA hats ; my cup runneth over with Trump Water.
    Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I will dwell in the Trump Hotel forever.

    If you’re expecting Trump’s supporters to ever admit they’re cult members worshipping a fallible God, you’re barking up the wrong cross.

    1. This is the most un-libertarian thing ever posted on this site.

      The definition of Libertarianism is supporting Trump no matter what he does.

      Please, take my bump stock.

      1. Did you two exchange cards and contact information at a circle jerk or AA?

        Be honest.

      2. That sock probably would have worked better if you hadn’t taken the first opportunity to swallow Obama’s load.

    2. Wow, oikophobia, class discrimination and snobbery all in one overweening post.
      Good job, Jerryskids.

    3. This is hilarious. I was thinking similarly. Someone above said she either doesn’t know what the word means or she’s being deceiptful. To me, it’s pretty obviously both and worse. She’s feigning ignorance in an effort to comfort others and/or persuade them into believing greater lies. Believing in Trump is, by no means, a path to enlightenment or salvation, but the alternative is pretty clearly damnation and self-ruin.

  8. You know how Trump’s opponents keep desperately reaching, conflating him with Hitler, calling him the worst President ever, rapist, etc.

    You’re doing it again. And Trump is going to win even bigger because of it.

    And you’ll have lit what credibility you had on fire.

    And Trump will still be your anti-war President.

    1. Trump re-election = job security for the TDS writers’ guild.

  9. Has anyone ever claimed that Trump was anti-war?

    Three years of combat operations in the MERV and Afghanistan is supposed to align with this strawman that Shika’s put up that Trump was antiwar? This included a war against ISIS who, I’ll point out, unlike Soleimani hadn’t actually attacked us before Trump’s predecessor started dropping bombs on them, supplying their opponents, and embedding SOF and the Marines in both Iraq and Syria, all at the behest of the GCC and the international media.

    The same people crying about this were all bitching that he “abandoned” the Kurds just two short months ago, and crowing about “Trump’s Benghazi” when the embassy was attacked. As XM pointed out a couple days ago, this isn’t principled or even intelligent opposition, it’s just TDS-driven, opportunistic anti-Trumpism.

    1. I fully intend to NOW and forever going forward, just to be sand in the panties of people like Dalmia.

    2. I still laugh at the Kurd thing. The Kurds are divided into five factions and leave it to the TDS left to pick the worst faction to defend: The PKK. A faction deemed a terrorist organization by Turkey, USA and the EU.

      1. Anything Trump does, you can rest assured that the Democrats and liberals will be on the other side of the issue.

        In the case of the Kurds, Trump should have stationed troops to confront the Turkish military in its excursions into Syria. Heck, he should have gone to war, if needed.

        In the case of the Iranians, surgically bombing one person is basically a declaration of war, and we need another war like we need another hole in the head.

        Democrats and liberals are perfectly capable of believing all of these things simultaneously because the common denominator is, inevitably, “Trump is wrong.”

      2. “A faction deemed a terrorist organization by Turkey, USA and the EU.”

        I wouldn’t put much stock in these designations, which are tools of propaganda more than anything else. The USA collaborated for years with the Kurdish PKK in the fighting against ISIS. Same goes for Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran’s militias under Soleimani, most significantly with the liberation of Mosul while Obama was president.

        1. The liberation of Mosul didn’t happen until July 2017. Who was President at that time?

          1. “Who was President at that time?”

            Perhaps your parent or guardian can help you with that.

            1. Here’s a hint–it wasn’t Obama. Your timelines are even worse than Some Jerk’s, considering you don’t seem to be aware of that.

            2. Wait, what?
              “the liberation of Mosul while Obama was president”
              “The liberation of Mosul didn’t happen until July 2017”

              1. Ahahahha oh God I will never let him hear the end of this

              2. The operation started when Obama was president. It was completed under a subsequent administration. At least two US administrations collaborated with groups designated as terrorists.

                1. Nope. You said

                  “the liberation of Mosul while Obama was president.

                  It wasn’t liberated when Obama was President. When you’re wrong like you obviously are, just sack up and admit it.

                  Playing games will get you nowhere.

                  1. “The armed forces liberated Mosul, and the creation of the armed forces began with Adam and Eve, so Eve liberated Mosul”

                  2. The operation started when Obama was president. It was completed under a subsequent administration. At least two US administrations collaborated with groups designated as terrorists.

                    1. But that’s not what you originally said.

                    2. I wouldn’t put much stock in these designations, which are tools of propaganda more than anything else. The USA collaborated for years with the Kurdish PKK in the fighting against ISIS. Same goes for Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran’s militias under Soleimani, most significantly with the liberation of Mosul while Obama was president.

        2. “I wouldn’t put much stock in these designations, which are tools of propaganda more than anything else.”

          So, ignore “international thought” on who is a terrorist but NOT on who is a bad prosecutor who should be fired?

          1. “So, ignore “international thought” on who is a terrorist but NOT on who is a bad prosecutor who should be fired?”

            Yes. Terrorist designations are propaganda tools and can be ignored when deemed expedient. Please don’t take them too seriously. Your military doesn’t and ignores them when convenient.

            1. You can’t even read a fucking calendar bruv.

              1. “You can’t even read a fucking calendar bruv.”

                At least I haven’t collaborated with terrorists as much as Obama or Trump.

              2. poor mtrueman thinks the type of terrorist Propaganda that he spews is not collaborating with terrorists.

                1. I’ve never tried to hide the fact that I’ve collaborated with terrorists. I’ve been critical of pretty much every president since the Trump administration.

      3. Because it wasn’t the PKK, but the YPG who bore the brunt of it. The YPG had destroyed their fortifications facing Turkey at the request of the US, in exchange for US aid. Then Trump decided, all on his own with no warning to allies or even the Pentagon, that we should fuck the Kurds over. And now because Trump will not adhere to the constitutional requirement for him to divest, we are forced to wonder if the pull out had more to do with Trump towers Istanbul or America’s best interest.

        1. “The US should attack (NATO ally) Turkey in Syria, but should turn a blind eye to Iranian attacks on US embassies”

        2. we are forced to wonder

          No, no one is “forced” to do anything of the kind. You’re just parroting the same stupid left-wing fan fiction I see on Facebook.

        3. “Because it wasn’t the PKK, but the YPG who bore the brunt of it. ”

          Same bunch, different name.

          1. Didn’t they liberate Mosul while Obama was President?

            1. Oh right, no one did.

            2. I don’t think the PKK were involved in Mosul.

            3. Real question is if they laughed at all of Ricky Gervais’ jokes.

        4. Right, but I totally caught you straight up lying just today.

          1. “Right, but I totally caught you straight up lying just today.”

            Catch me while you can, monkey boy.

    3. >war against ISIS who, I’ll point out, unlike Soleimani hadn’t actually attacked us before Trump’s predecessor started dropping bombs on them

      I mean besides those beheadings of Americans but go off king

      1. “those beheadings of Americans”

        Ahahahahahahah

        HAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        HAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        HAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

        HAAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      2. The US started bombing ISIS on August 8th 2014. The first American beheaded by ISIS was James Foley on August 19th 2014, specifically in response to that bombing. We already had boots on the ground in Iraq in June and were conducting counter-humanitarian operations and ISR missions.

        Feel free to point out where in that timeline the beheadings of Americans came before combat operations started, dumbass.

        1. Also, fuckin’ LOL at you justifying the bombing of women and children because you wrongly thought that it was in response to one journalist–who’d been kidnapped in 2012 by the same assholes that McCain and Obama initially supported because they were fighting Assad–got his head cut off. I thought we were supposed to be the warmongers here.

          At least the only ones Trump’s strike killed were Soleimani and his Iraqi counterpart, and were in response to actual attacks ordered and planned by these guys.

          1. At least the only ones Trump’s strike killed were Soleimani and his Iraqi counterpart, and were in response to actual attacks ordered and planned by these guys.

            This move was artistry. I mean, how much more precise could you possibly get?

            Got Soleimani
            Got the Iran-sympathetic Iraqi militia leader
            And got 4 senior generals in the IRGC.

            In one, big, beautiful, perfect shot. It simply drives people like DOLiber absolutely wild. That alone is worth reading.

    4. “, it’s just TDS-driven, opportunistic anti-Trumpism.”

      And anyone pointing out the inconsistency, hyperbole, and just plain irrationality is defacto a “Trump defender.”

      Only to the extent that the people opposed to this recent action are lunatics or flat out on the other side.

  10. he was a uniformed soldier committing terrorist acts against Americans and many other nationalities. Do we no longer defend our selves from such acts? If you don’t like the U.S. being in Iraq talk about that but as long as we are there it is the job to eliminate such actors and doing so does not escalate something that was already being escalated by bad actors. Any President who did not act as Trump did should be removed from office for not acting and hopefully preventing future attacks, we had that experience once before where a president did not act and it led to 3000 people dying in high rises on American soil. fuck off Shika

    1. He was a father, a brother, a poet, a musician, and an avid hobbyist. He was killed by a monster. That monster is Trump. Now we are literally at war, a third world war. Literally.

      1. Yea well there is that. I wonder when he will be sainted by the left or whatever the Islamist equivalant is, hell make him a saint anyway

          1. Holy shit those will soon be as popular on American campuses just like Che Guevara t-shirts.

            1. Iran to get one!

            2. I don’t know. I think these things are more likely to be purchased by people intending to burn them publicly than wear them in support of the guy. Don’t you think?

              Then again, I have been known to be wildly naive about such things.

    2. Well, you might notice she’s pretending the Iranian attack on our embassy was a spontaneous Iraqi mass protest.

  11. “After the assassination of the Iranian general, Trump’s supporters should admit they were wrong that he was anti-war.”

    Anti-war?

    No, he’s a pragmatist.

    He’s not a neocon, but, no, he’s no peacenik, and he doesn’t start wars unless they’re in the best interests of the United States.

    Meanwhile, it isn’t clear to me that this strike was a precursor to war at all.

    Meanwhile, Trump moved troops out of harm’s way in Syria rather than engage the enemy, and he resisted the temptation to retaliate against Iran’s numerous provocations up to this point.

    I don’t support what he did, but I support his foreign policy up to this point as being pragmatic like Reagan’s, Bush Sr.’s, and Clinton’s rather neoconservative like Bush Jr.’s and Obama’s.

    Because Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for Lockerbie didn’t mean we were going to war with Libya.

    Bush Sr. may have went to war with Iraq over Kuwait, but he restrained himself from toppling the Saddam Hussein regime and occupying Iraq.

    Clinton may have bombed the Serbs, but he didn’t go to war with Serbia and he didn’t invade Rwanda.

    Trump is far more pragmatic than Bush Jr., Obama, or Hillary Clinton, and that makes him reluctant to go to war unless doing so is in the USA’s interests. When that was the guiding principle, we did not invade Iraq and we did not invade Rwanda. That makes him significantly less likely to go to war than his ideological neoconservative critics, but, no, he is not “anti-war”. He’s just head and shoulders above the competition.

    1. //Meanwhile, it isn’t clear to me that this strike was a precursor to war at all.//

      Anything short of putting Soleimani up in a pampered suite at one of Trump’s hotels is an “act of war.”

      1. You really can beat the shit out of a strawman.

        1. And you lie about deficits.

        2. Not without congressional approval, obviously.

      2. “Anything short of putting Soleimani up in a pampered suite at one of Trump’s hotels is an ‘act of war.'”

        So! You want Trump to violate the Emoluments Clause!

        Impeach Foey-Fi! REEEEEEEEE!

    2. You let GHWB off too easily. He set us up for decades of conflict and arguably triggered the rise of al qaeda. Or at least aimed them at us by occupying Saudi Arabia and placing us in the middle of the perpetual intra-Islamic war.

      1. “Or at least aimed them at us by occupying Saudi Arabia and placing us in the middle of the perpetual intra-Islamic war.”

        Yay Petrodollar!

        How much benefit, in a quantitative sense, does this petrodollar effect have on the USD? Anyone know?

    3. It’s Dalmia. Much like Pravda it’s all about reading between the lines. And if this is the best she can do it is fairly safe to conclude that Trump did alright this time.

    4. “He’s not a neocon, but, no, he’s no peacenik, and he doesn’t start wars unless they’re in the best interests of the United States.”

      Good to know. Which wars has Trump started which were in the best interests of the US?

      1. Which wars has Trump started?

        1. “Which wars has Trump started?”

          Only those which have been in America’s best interest.

          1. At leat Obama was President when Mosul was liberated.

            1. Oh wait, no he wasn’t.

          2. So, none?

            1. Give the guy a break. Rest assured when he does start one, it’ll be in America’s interest.

              1. Give the guy a break for not starting a war?

                1. Better still if he ended one. I thought his best chance would be a formal end to the Korean war, but it seems to be slipping through his fingers.

                  1. Better still if he ended one.

                    He didn’t pull troops out of Syria? The left was really crying the blues about that one.

                    1. “He didn’t pull troops out of Syria? ”

                      I don’t think he has. He said he was going to but that’s as far as he got. I don’t think he’s pulled troops from any of these countries. In fact he’s announced multiple troop increases.

                    2. I don’t think he has. He said he was going to but that’s as far as he got.

                      So the media was lying when they breathlessly reported on our forces exiting Syria to the sound of jeers from the Kurds?

            2. At least mtrueman admits that Trump has no started a war.

              It’s always baby steps with these babies.

              1. “At least mtrueman admits that Trump has no started a war.”

                He might get one anyways. These targeted assassinations can bring unintended consequences. What shocked me most about Trump was his over-riding Congress when they condemned the actions in Yemen. I was never convinced that starving and murdering Yemenis were in America’s best interests.

                1. What shocked me most about Trump was his over-riding Congress when they condemned the actions in Yemen.

                  How did he override Congress if they didn’t cut funding for those operations?

                  1. You can read about it on the web if you want to get more details. Find a source you trust and take it from there. You shouldn’t need me for that.

                    1. So you don’t actually know.

                2. Incidentally, the Senate voted 68-23 a year ago for an amendment that rebuked Trump’s suggestion to pull troops out of Syria and Afghanistan.

                  The press at the time called it a “bipartisan rebuke.” Did you think Trump should have overridden Congress then?

                  1. Not only should he have overridden the rebuke, but also followed through with the withdrawal(s). As it stands now, he’s done neither. It’s a disappointment to me.

                    1. Please.

              2. But when he does… That’s the best mtrueman could come up with as a rejoinder.

                1. “That’s the best mtrueman could come up with as a rejoinder.”

                  Forget about this endless war business. Let’s discuss something interesting: the quality of my rejoinders. I can come up with better rejoinders. That wasn’t my best, as my readers here will readily tell you.

                  1. No, now you are deflecting. You can’t point to a war Trump has started so now you move the goal posts to condemn him for wars others started.

                    1. Here is Ken’s claim:

                      “and he doesn’t start wars unless they’re in the best interests of the United States.”

                      It is nonsensical. I will tell you why if you like, but maybe you can figure it out for yourself.

                      Trump hasn’t started any new wars but that’s damning with faint praise. How many wars has he ended? Are overseas troop levels and military budgets increasing? His record here is disappointing.

                    2. Still moving the goal posts. A very worry way of admitting that is all you are doing.

                    3. “Still moving the goal posts.”

                      According to my rules, moving goal posts is allowed if the initial goal posts are nonsensical. If you want to nonsensical goal posts, find another playmate.

                    4. Moving the goal posts is the only debate tactic you have.

                  2. And no, you can’t come up with better rejoinders based upon your history of mendacious bullshit responses. If you can, you have never once offered any evidence to prove it.

                    1. “If you can, you have never once offered any evidence to prove it.”

                      Go through the comments again, carefully, if you think it’s worth the effort.

                    2. If you ever came up with a clever rejoinder, provide it.

    5. Because Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for Lockerbie didn’t mean we were going to war with Libya.

      He retaliated for their bombing of a Berlin discotheque, which killed a GI, and other Line of Death silliness. Well, and funding Abu Nidal’s band of shitheads who shot up the Rome and Vienna Airports the prior year. Interestingly, Italy let the surviving shithead out of prison after 22 years, for ‘good behavior’. 16 dead and 99 wounded just doesn’t get you as much jail time as it used to.

      Pan Am 103 was two years after Eldorado Canyon.

      (But only 6 months after Iran Air 655 got blown away by USS Vincennes in the Persian Gulf… Yes, I know Libya officially admitted responsibility in 2003, a few months after OIF started. Totally unrelated, I’m sure.)

      I’ve enjoyed reading these posts of yours, the last few days, Ken.

      1. “Because Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for Lockerbie didn’t mean we were going to war with Libya.”

        Is Lockerbie still being pinned on Libya? The latest info I can find points to a Palestinian splinter group based in Syria.

        1. The Libyans did officially take credit for the act in 2003. Of course, this was a few months after Operation Iraqi Freedom kicked off, and Khadafy was doing all he could to make sure his country wasn’t the chocolate afterdinner mint to the main course of Iraq.

          As I alluded to in my post, I’m not sure who actually put the bomb on that airliner, but I think the Iranians put them up to it. Which is why there was no Operation Eldorado Canyon Part 2 after the bomb killed nearly 300 people, and ended one of the world’s great airlines: the powers that be saw it as the Tat to the Iran Air Flight 655, 290 fatality, Tit and thought it best to just drop the matter.

          1. “The Libyans did officially take credit for the act in 2003.”

            Libyans have been known to lie. I thought that these days it was well recognized that Syria was behind these attacks, not Libya. Where are you getting this “Libya did it” line?

            “Tit and thought it best to just drop the matter.”

            They didn’t drop it, they insisted for decades that Libya was responsible and bombed the place. Apparently, Americans still think that Libya did it.

            1. Except we didn’t as Gray Jay pointed out. It’s a false narrative.

              1. “It’s a false narrative.”

                That’s what I’m saying. Blaming Lockerbie on Libya is a narrative which is false.

                1. No, we didn’t bomb Libya because of Lockerbie is the false narrative and you know that is what I was speaking about. But you thought you could try and be cute and act othersie. It is typical of your typical sophomoric discourse.

                  1. “Because Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for Lockerbie didn’t mean we were going to war with Libya.”

                    That’s the quote from both Ken Shultz and Gray Jay. They are the ones propagating the false narrative, which I thought I’d point out in my typically clever and entertaining way.

                    1. Nothing you ever say is clever or entertaining. And Gray Jay was correcting Ken, not supporting him. He stated it was because of the Berlin bombings not Lockerbie. Reading comprehension is tough for you, we know.

                    2. What he was doing with his subsequent post on the Pan Am flights was pointing out that you are technically incorrect about Libya being responsible for the Pan Am flights, since they took credit for them and admitted guilt. Maybe Syria was behind the attacks but Libya is on record admitting guilt. It isn’t that difficult yo understand.

                    3. At 12:10 pm Gray Jay specifically stated the Pan Am bombing happened two years after the attack on Libya, ordered by Reagan. Just so we are clear that once again you are wrong.

                    4. “Nothing you ever say is clever or entertaining.”

                      You need to loosen up.

                      “He stated it was because of the Berlin bombings not Lockerbie. ”

                      But it’s all pretext, isn’t it? Do you actually take them at their word? Libya was bombed because it was an easy target that wasn’t about to hit back, unlike Syria, who was behind actual terror attacks.

                      “since they took credit for them and admitted guilt”

                      It was a cynical sham and I can’t understand how you don’t see through it.

                    5. Except the Pan Am bombing happened two years after the US bombing, which was in response to Libya’s attack on US servicemen in Germany, why is that so fucking hard for you to understand?

                    6. Who said I believe them, I was just pointing out Gray Jay’s point, which you seem to have completely missed. As for lightening up, your the one claiming to be clever but you keep making completely dishonest posts.

            2. Do your own research. FWIW, the cite in the wiki for Pan Am 103 doesn’t work anymore for that doc at the UN. Guess they changed their document repository system.

              Libya “accepted responsibility” in a letter to the UN Secretary General in 2003. And paid out money in compensation. That’s why I’m saying that, Officially, Libya did it.

              I’m going to regret engaging with you anymore than I already have, but what “bombed the place”? The US and Libya maintained a detente from 2003, when they decided to divulge the details of their chemical weapons program, and among other things, accept responsibility for Pan Am 103, up until the Libyan Civil War of 2011. There was no bombing at any time during that period, up until Odyssey Dawn. In 2006, the State Department rescinded their declaration of Libya as a state sponsor of terrorism.

              All of which you could find with a few minutes digging in an encyclopedia.

              1. ” That’s why I’m saying that, Officially, Libya did it.”

                I was pointing out that in fact, it wasn’t Libya but Syria that was behind the Lockerbie bombing. At least Syria hosted the people who perpetrated the bombing, but Libya was bombed anyway not long after the Lockerbie bombing. I didn’t mean to offend you and I appreciate your efforts to engage.

                1. But they weren’t bombed after the Lockerbie bombing buy two years before S Gray Jay pointed out at 12:10 pm, four hours before your response.

                  1. You and Gray jay are correct about the timing. So many bombings, how’s a poor guy supposed to keep them all straight? Are you claiming that Libya officially did Lockerbie but it was Syria unofficially? Why the need for the distinction? It sounds like the mealy mouthed dissembling of a trapped Pentagon spokesperson.

    6. Reagan retaliated against Qaddafi for bombing a Berlin Nightclub, killing some U.S. servicemen. Lockerbie happened in Reagan’s last month in office. No one ever avenged that act.

  12. It’s revealing Reason writers must pretend one killing is “war” to justify their beliefs. Didn’t they used to pretend to oppose hysterical emotionalism?

    I guess that was only during the fund raisers.

    1. Can we go back to calling it “overseas contingency operations”?

      1. No, because the term is “kinetic action”.

        1. lmao

        2. LOL…..nice one.

      2. Can we go back to calling it “overseas contingency operations”?

        If we’re going to pretend killing one person is war then we’ve been at war with Iraq for decades. So what’s the problem with killing an enemy general in a war?

        These idiots are so confused they can’t even map out a coherent position.

        1. //These idiots are so confused they can’t even map out a coherent position.//

          I don’t think there’s any confusion. Hacks like Dalmia are lying through their teeth.

          1. “Whatever Trump does is the worst. Ever.”

            It may not be accurate, it may not be rational, it may not be reasonable, but it is coherent.

            1. And consistent.

      3. “kinetic action”

    2. Didn’t they used to pretend to oppose hysterical emotionalism?

      Yeah. Then they started incessantly polling millennials.

  13. Lmao all those “””libertarian””” Reason readers who apparently love endless war when Trump does it are gonna be mad again

    GO TEAM RED, NO MATTER WHAT

    1. Reason readers who apparently love endless war when Trump does it

      When someone accuses you of supporting Iran be sure to whine about their inability to reach logical conclusions.

    2. Bitch, you can’t even get your timelines straight, don’t act like you know something.

      1. <3

    3. Dont we have to first start a war prior to it becoming endless?

      1. We just did. And for no reason you can possibly make an excuse for. Even you.

        1. We just did.

          Did we? If killing an enemy starts a war how was the war not already started when Iran killed our soldiers?

          What we’re seeing is the left’s anti-Americanism coming out in the guise of TDS. Nothing any other country does counts as a start or escalation, their own decisions are never examined for accountability. All failings accrue to the US.

          1. Just to Trump. This was a dumb move, even if we were at war with Iran, which we weren’t.

            Do you guys wake up with cleanly wiped brains every morning? This would be literally the worst Benghazi ever if it were anyone with a (D) after her name.

            1. The Benghazi that killed no Americans is worse than the one that killed 4 because hillary turned down multiple security requests?

              Soleimani dying is a bad thing? Please do go on. He is only directly linked to thousands of murders including hundreds of Americans. Please tell us how him dying is bad.

              1. I can’t even with this retarded, insane, pathetic excuse-making. There are lots of bad dudes in high ranking positions in hostile countries. Do we assassinate Kim Jong-Un?

                What about Putin? Do we assassinate him?

                Do you have even the slightest infantile concept of foreign policy strategy? Sometimes you don’t just kill everyone you don’t like. Derpy derp. Libertarians, your time is fucking running out. You don’t get to be a libertarian and a) worship every fart of the most powerful politician on earth, including b) his insane warmongering recklessness.

                1. I can’t even with this retarded, insane, pathetic excuse-making.

                  Tony can’t keep his own accusations straight. He asserted killing Suleimani started a war and this embassy attack is worse than Benghazi. Now the best defense he can offer is that he thinks it bad policy which seems to admit it didn’t start a war and isn’t worse than Benghazi.

                  1. I think you can be a libertarian an disagree with this action, as well as Trump’s threats to commit war crimes.

                    In fact I think it’s required.

                    What if everyone here who has Trump cock in his mouth instead of thoughts in his head goes somewhere else and let us freedom lovers talk?

                    1. Libertarianism doesnt require letting someone kill tens of thousands without a response. You honestly have no fucking clue who Soleimani is or who the Quds forces are. You’re ignorant.

                      He wasnt a peaceful elected leader of a foreign country. He was the head of a designate terrorist group. He is directly linked to tens of thousands of murders including multiple political arrests, torture and killing in Iran.

                      Stop defending him Tony.

                    2. Tony
                      January.7.2020 at 2:56 pm
                      I think

                      Let’s be serious.

                      Remember your assertions were that the Baghdad embassy attack was worse than Benghazi and that killing Suleimani started a war.

                      Try to stay on topic.

                      What if everyone here who has Trump cock in his mouth instead of thoughts in his head goes somewhere else and let us freedom lovers talk?

                      Yes, yes, disputing what is so obviously and stupidly false you stopped defending it proves they must be sucking cock. You sure told us.

                    3. I’m not defending him, I’m criticizing you for brain-dead partisan politician worship.

                      Do you think this assassination will result in more peace for America? How exactly?

                    4. It’s not an assassination. And we don’t know if it will or won’t work yet.

                  2. According to dipshit Tony we are at war with Libya, Lebanon, Somalia, Niger, Mexico, Canada, Britain, and every country on Earth.

                    And our war with Iran is reaching an incredible 41 years since they kidnapped Americans in 1979.

                2. You keep using the word assassinate. He was in an active combat area planning and advancing military attacks. He wasnt at home in Iran. The fact that you cant understand this is your own retardation. If he had stayed in iran instead of going into iraq to work with terrorist militants against us and iraqi interests he’d still be alive.

                  Facts matter dumbfuck.

                  1. “Facts matter dumbfuck.”

                    Facts according to JesseAz…

                    With reference to Trump, JesseAZ says…
                    “He is not constitutionally bound on any actions he performed.”

                    https://reason.com/2020/01/01/trumps-inartful-dodges/#comment-8068480

                    I, for one, do NOT welcome the new-and-improved Trumptatorship!

                    1. You contribute nothing

                    2. Nardz
                      “You contribute nothing”

                      Nardless the Nadless, I THANK YOU very much, for converting proteins and carbohydrates to feces and carbon dioxide! The autotrophs in our ecosphere, they VERY MUCH appreciate your efforts! PLEASE keep on “doing your thing”!

                3. Tony….Deep breath. Stay with me.

                  First, this was the lawful killing of an enemy combatant.
                  Second, no we do not turn Kim Jong-Un or Putin into red jello.

                  Iran has attacked US troops no less than a dozen times in the last 3 months or so. Not once, not twice….over a dozen. POTUS Trump was pretty clear that the line was killing an American. Iran thought they could get away with killing Americans since they have done so without consequence in the past. They thought wrong.

                  My point to you. It is Ok to express satisfaction that we nailed that son of a bitch Soleimani. He was a bad man. You should not mourn him. We’re all better off now that he is fertilizer.

                  1. But we are evidently not. Iran wants to retaliate. Iraq wants us out. This action caused no discernible good. The only reason you’re defending it is because a guy with an (R) after his name did it. That he happens to be the biggest idiot in the universe is also relevant.

                    1. Because doing nothing accomplished so much good. Ask the family of the civilian contractor killed recently how much good ignoring the attacks did.

                    2. “Iran wants to retaliate.”

                      I’m sure the regime does.
                      It hasn’t yet, but they’ve talked a lot about it.
                      Let us all cower in fear

                    3. The only reason you’re defending it is because a guy with an (R) after his name did it.

                      No Tony, I would feel the same way no matter who was POTUS. I think there are many people who see this the way I do. In international relations, you don’t attack my embassy – ever. That is literally (and legally) an act of war. To your point, I was around for the Iran embassy takeover in 1979, and I would have absolutely supported POTUS Carter had he undertaken military action. The disastrous rescue attempt was something I supported, because you have to try. Sadly, the rescue mission failed.

                      Political party is irrelevant in that context. This is a matter of national honor specifically; and more broadly, confronting a malign country and making them pay a tangible price for their misbehavior.

                      And BTW, there is a very stern and unpleasant conversation to be had with Iraq behind closed doors on the obligations of a host country to protect embassies.

            2. Just to Trump.

              Someday maybe there will be a leftwinger capable of better analysis than “everything I dislike is the fault of those I hate”. But probably not.

              This would be literally the worst Benghazi ever

              You think increasing security with zero dead is way worse than refusing to increase security and 4 Americans dead huh? Also note several dozen people you pretend to care about were killed in the Benghazi attacks compared to zero at the Baghdad embassy.

              You reveal more than you realize with your blather.

              1. So we killed this guy for not killing anyone. Fair enough.

                All I can do is suggest you stop shoving your skull up Sean Hannity’s asshole. I mean, there’s no talking to you people until you get off the propaganda. I don’t even know why it’s such a good drug. Seems like you’re anxious and angry all the time. Like coke but without the coke part.

                1. So we killed this guy for not killing anyone.

                  In fact his attacks have resulted in hundreds of American deaths.

                  All I can do is suggest you stop shoving your skull up Sean Hannity’s asshole.

                  Yawn.

                  Seems like you’re anxious and angry all the time.

                  Tony’s first comment of the day:
                  Tony
                  January.7.2020 at 12:57 pm
                  Hey assholes.

                  Maybe next time think just a little and say one thing not laughably stupid.

                  1. “Maybe next time think just a little and say one thing not laughably stupid.”

                    C’mon.
                    It’s more fun this way

                2. You are fucking dumb tony. Stating he has killed nobody is the height of ignorance. Not even Pod pulled that one off.

                  1. Kim Jong Un killed Americans. Should we assassinate him?

                    Your answer is that if Obama did it it would be a war crime. If Trump did it you’d jack off to your newsfeed. There is no reasoning with you cultists.

                    1. Had Kim Jong Un coordinated attacks against Americans, resulting in 600+ casualties over the past decade and is he in the process of planning more attacks? Stupid analogy.

                    2. The only thing Kim’s been killing lately are boxes of HoHos.

            3. This was a dumb move, even if we were at war with Iran, which we weren’t.

              So if Iran’s killing our men didn’t start a war our killing Suleimani doesn’t start one either.

            4. Hint: attacking an embassy is considered by international law, an act of war.

              1. Which embassy was attacked?

                1. We pointed it out. You choose to ignore it. I just stayed which one, as have multiple other ones. Are you contending the Baghdad embassy wasn’t attacked on December 31st? Are you really that stupid?

                2. Bruh….

        2. Attacking an embassy–not starting a war.
          Killing a paramilitary leader conducting combat operations on foreign soil–starting a war.

          1. What embassy was attacked again?

            1. The US embassy which is designated US soil. Do you not know that? Probably not. You know nothing else either.

              1. I have been on vacation so maybe I missed it, but which embassy was attacked and when?

                1. Tony
                  January.7.2020 at 2:35 pm
                  I have been on vacation so maybe I missed it, but which embassy was attacked and when?

                  I guess this is the moment Tony literally admitted he has no idea what he’s talking about. But seriously it’s not like knowing the facts has ever been important to Tony before now.

                  1. But he is so confident in his not knowing.

                2. Vacation? I though for sure it was you got murdered and had your balls eaten by that guy because of grindr.

                  1. I’d chip in to send him on that vacation.

                3. Tony, an Iranian sponsored militia attacked the US embassy, broke into the grounds, and trashed a reception area. They helpfully left graffiti on the walls saying it was a present from Soleimani. Since this was technically an act of war (attacking our embassy), it deserved a very serious and severe response.

                  There are 25 less militia members. We killed them.
                  Soleimani is transitioning from red jello to fertilizer.

                  Hope it was a good vacation.

                4. Uhm, the US embassy in Baghdad, just last week.

                  1. Two days before Trump killed the man who planned the attack.

        3. No we didnt. And you’re too dumb to realize that.

  14. But the assassination last night of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleiman […]

    I had to double-check if someone else had been killed, ’cause this article is dated January 7th (making “last night” January 6th), and General Soleiman was killed on January 3rd.

    That’s… a pretty big editing mistake.

    1. “That’s… a pretty big editing mistake.

      Allowing Dalmia to be published, you mean?

  15. No one ever said he was a pacifist.

    He has previously called off strikes that other presidents probably wouldn’t have.

  16. This column is a great reminder of how libertarians fought the Cold War: it didn’t matter what the Soviet Union or its Marxist proxies did, the real problem was the US defense budget. Or supporting the Mujahedeen. Or deploying Pershing missiles. Etc, etc, etc.

    Iran has been fighting the equivalent of a Cold War with the US, and libertarians have returned to their appeasement instincts. After noting that Soleimani was a bad guy, Shikha turns her fury on the real villain here: that nasty, uncouth Orange Man who had the temerity to fight back against a bona fide enemy of America.

    The irony is that when the repressive theocratic Iranian regime finally collapses from within, Reason will celebrate the liberation of the Iranian people while ignoring how they opposed every effort to bring it about.

    1. Libertarianism’s biggest problem is that it is a comically unworkable system in the real world.

      1. Only when its opponents decide what it means. But then all systems fail that standard.

        You’d think cons wouldn’t do this after experiencing libs telling them what their beliefs are and finding it juvenile and stupid. But they do it anyway.

      2. damikesc….You know what, I would refer you to the work of Charles Murray. Yeah, he is controversial (for some, not me). But he has used big data in a way to illustrate how libertarian oriented solutions might look. Speaking for myself, I would love to know who the next Charles Murray’s are. Who in the libertarian movement has the skill set (data analysis, interpretation, excellent speaking, writing skills, and good public presenter) that he does?

        Because those are the people we want to craft the solutions of the future.

    2. The irony is that when the repressive theocratic Iranian regime finally collapses from within, Reason will celebrate the liberation of the Iranian people while ignoring how they opposed every effort to bring it about.

      So, our goal in the ME has been to liberate the people of Iran? Que generous!

      1. “Come Ayatollah, let us reason together.”

        1. That… might actually be possible now

  17. Just a reminder to everyone who agrees with Shikha’s premise here:

    You’re agreeing with Shikha.

    1. I’m pretty sure that nobody is agreeing with Shikha’s premise here. Some of us are laughing at the idea that Trump supporters would ever admit they were wrong and the rest are proving our point.

      1. Wrong about what? You’ve never actually said what they are wrong about. Are they wrong that Soleimani is a bad person? Wrong that iran hasnt been committing acts of aggression for decades? What are they wrong about?

        1. No. I don’t think anyone is saying you are wrong about those things.

          I don’t think killing this dude was morally wrong. I’m just worried that it might not have been wise.

          Now, maybe I can be convinced that on net this was a really wise move for American interests, and perhaps global interests. I promise you I am open to hearing that argument.

          It honestly doesn’t matter what I think about Trump on other fronts. I’m neither a fan nor a knee jerk hater. Maybe he’s the lesser of evils. I’m open to that argument as well.

          I just don’t really learn much from the attacks at Trump’s detractors. I mean, I understand the motivation behind them, but they aren’t particularly persuasive to someone who isn’t involved in that kind of partisan fighting.

          I’ve heard a lot of specifics from people who think this move was unwise, but so far I’m only hearing moral arguments in favor of the killing, not so much practical ones.

          1. There doesn’t have to be a moral calculus in killing a guy who was a paramilitary operative in a foreign country, had been the lead on the Shiite militia IED program during the Iraq war, and was responsible for ordering the attack on our embassy a week ago. Those aren’t moral questions, they’re military ones.

    2. jerryskids then proceeds to agree with Shikha and then try to not admit that is the case.

  18. “After the assassination of the Iranian general, Trump’s supporters should admit they were wrong that he was anti-war.”

    Even if they weren’t wrong? Seems a bit

  19. Shiksa you ignorant slut…

  20. Tell you what Dalmia. You sound real broken up about Soleimani’s death. I know you’re probably looking for the number to call to send flowers to the Soleimani family. Here is an alternative for you. Why not fly your ass to Iraq, and go hug an IRGC general.

  21. “assassination” lol

  22. “Iran has attacked two tankers in the Persian Gulf, downed a U.S. drone, and in an act of sheer chutzpah in September, reportedly sabotaged Saudi Arabian oil facilities because that kingdom is its enemy and a U.S. ally. And then, last week, Soleimani used the pro-Iranian militia Kataib Hezbollah (KH) in Iraq to attack the U.S. base near Kirkuk—killing one American contractor and injuring several American and Iraqi troops.”

    Libertarianism allows for defensive action against those initiating force.

  23. second in command behind Iran’s leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

    Why do people just repeat this without reflection? Iran has a whole government, and the Quds force is only part of the Iranian military. There’s a president, for example, who arguably is fairly powerful.

    Yes, the Quds force reports directly to Khamenei, but that doesn’t make Suleimani second-in-command of Iran. It’s not unlike calling the White House Chief-of-Staff “second-in-command of the USA.”

  24. Shikha derangement syndrome….

    1. Keep calling criticism of Shika deranged, sarc.
      It’s a real good look

      1. Keep freaking out whenever something shows up with her on the byline. It’s a real good look.

        1. Hold up.
          Are you saying that you generally agree with Shikha’s takes?

        2. Don’t bother with a citation, sarc.
          Shika is a shit writer with shit takes.
          It’s weird that people calling her out for lying and other dishonest rhetoric upsets you so much

      2. sarcasmic is not being sarcastic this time.

  25. “…the wise course would have been to lower the temperature by easing sanctions and offering to restart nuclear negotiations with the Iranian regime.”

    Sure, more pallets of money for “somewhat adhering” with no means of verification.

    Dalmia is a fool’s fool, from any angle.

    1. So obviously the best idea is to take away even the suggestion that they should not have a nuclear program. Oh and kill one of their most beloved leaders so that they are even more motivated to obey us.

      Sounds like we gave them a whole shit ton more than some of their own cash this time.

      1. They were already developing nukes. They needed cash to continue developing them while they expanded their regional power. Obama was happy to oblige and they continued develop in open violation after getting paid.

        You, you’re just a useful idiot with his head in the sand.

        1. That’s a lie. You’re lying.

          1. Lol. No it’s not. Lion at israeli or German intelligence. Ask the inspectors who noted they were denied entry to various locations.

            You’re just a useful idiot.

            1. Look at german or israeli*

      2. He wasn’t beloved. The Quds were the ones killing pro democracy protesters. They hated him.

        1. Mike Pence isn’t beloved either. Does Iran get to assassinate him now?

          1. Is Mike Pence the leader of a designated terrorist group?

            1. I do not buy the formulation that we can declare war on a concept and never have. I guess I’m just a libertarian like that.

              1. Tony sure has gone crazy.

                The fact that he is calling himself anything but a lefty will be on his loony bin admission form.

              2. We didnt declare war dummy. You keep saying things that are completely untrue.

          2. Is mike pence openly planning and coordinating attacks in a combat region?

            1. Depends on whether Trump lets him in on the meetings where Trump is doing just that.

              1. Oh. So you think trump is flying into other countries, funding and planning with local terrorist groups, and helping execute attacks.

                You’re totally sane

          3. “Mike Pence”
            Tony really, really wishes American Evangelicals were as bad as Radical Shia. But you know what Tony, if they were, you’d be dead and your politics illegal.

            1. The soft bigotry of low expectations.

              1. American Evangelicals “we don’t like gays but don’t condone violence against them”.
                Iran “we kill all people accused of being gay”. Yeah low expectations. What a fucking moron.

            2. Dont tell tony… but soleimani isnt even a vice president.

          4. You’re fucking retarded.

    2. Iran has been interfering in Iraq long before we ever entered Iraq which pre dates Trump and his actions by a long shot

      1. Iran has been interfering in Iraq long before we ever entered Iraq

        Since roughly the sixth century BC, in fact.

        1. which is why we should just leave and let them develop nuclear bombs because they would use them on each other first eliminating the problem all together. The place may end up radio active but we can drill for that oil from outside locations

          1. which is why we should just leave

            Agreed. I doubt they would actually nuke each other, but Iran gaining control over Iraq and the Gulf isn’t going to result in as bright a future for the Supreme Islamic Council as they think it’s going to, IMHO. Might lead to a more prosperous Iran, but it’ll be the demise of Iran’s leadership.

  26. Hey assholes. Name the thing Trump could do that you wouldn’t support. Make something up. I need to know just what fucking kind of crazy I’m dealing with here. Because I’m pretty sure inflaming the Middle East was what Trump campaigned against doing. Not to state the goddamn obvious or anything.

    1. I need to know just what fucking kind of crazy I’m dealing with here.

      Good luck with that.

      1. So now you’re on team Shikha and team tony. Good to see you’ve accepted full TDS. Can stop expecting the occasional worthwhile comment now.

        1. Just name one thing.

          1. I did dumbfuck. Learn to read.

          2. I wouldn’t support Trump ordering an airstrike on your house. I wouldn’t mind, but I definitely wouldn’t support it.

        2. My team is Me, Myself, an I.

    2. inflamed the press and (D). middle east always on fire.

    3. Trump threatened to commit war crimes again and they supported that so I’m pretty sure I got my answer to a question I posed long ago. If you remember, during the campaign Trump said he would bring back waterboarding “and a lot worse” and that a good way to discourage terrorists would be to go after their families. When reporters pointed out these would be war crimes and the military would refuse to follow such unlawful orders, Trump just shrugged and averred that the military would do what he told them to do. I asked at the time, which is scarier? That Trump believes the US military would commit war crimes if he told them to or that Trump was correct to believe such a thing?

      1. You seem to be confusing twitter with actual actions again. Said that you have to do that to get a win. When he actually targets a non military backed cultural site I’ll agree with your outrage. Until then I’ll stay outraged at assholes here removing cultural sites in America instead.

        That’s the difference. You think words are equivelant to action.

      2. I noticed as well that Trump campaigned explicitly on bringing back torture and killing civilians deliberately (you have to go after their families). And then there’s the shockingly gratuitous threat to destroy cultural sites like he’s a common member of the Taliban.

        Now we have a political assassination caused by KFC heartburn for all we know. It certainly wasn’t strategically smart.

        Yet his supporters all insisted they liked him because he wasn’t a warmonger. Not like Killary.

        1. Solemio was a military commander engaged in the killing of Americans he was a legitimate target. He thought he was untouchable and that was a mistake.

          1. The frustrating thing is I have to wade through a whole layer of bullshit before I can even get to the principle of the matter: “How is he a legitimate war target when we aren’t at war with his country?”

            We just get to pretend that we are, because neocons wanted it to be so, and I guess libertarians are officially extinct. Good fucking riddance.

            1. You dont have to wade through anything. You’ve been told explicitly multiple times. He was in iraq working with various terrorist militant groups to attack US and Iraqi interests.

              1. And now Iran and Iraq are allied against the US. Well done!

                1. No they arent. Can you say one true thing? Just one?

                2. And now Iran and Iraq are allied against the US. Well done!

                  “Iraq” isn’t a thing as far as being an actor on the international stage.

                  This is being done in defense of the Gulf Council (i.e. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman).

                  We’ve been tied to Saudi defense since the Nixon administration as part of our global strategy (someone else mentioned the Petrodollars – look it up).

                  The same people had been in charge of US foreign policy from the Nixon administration up through the Obama administration. Trump was the first president in that time to pick foreign policy people from outside that group (i.e. Tillerson, Pompeo).

                  If you don’t think we should be tying our fortunes to the Gulf Council anymore, I agree. The solution to that is to bring all our troops home and let Turkey and the Gulf Council fight off Iran’s expansion in the Gulf, and stop worrying about where all the surplus Gulf oil goes, even if that does mean greater influence for Russia and China.

                  But if you’re going to keep screaming about Russia’s evil plot to take over the world, maybe you should rethink your criticisms here.

                  1. Trump was the first president in that time to pick foreign policy people from outside that group (i.e. Tillerson, Pompeo).

                    The whole crowing about “Iraq voted to kick the US out of the country” is even more amusing in context. Even taking out the fact that the vote was almost all the Shiite members of parliament, and that it was merely a resolution to “ask” the government to do so, ultimately it’s not like the US would be hurt if we had to leave. “Oh no, Br’er Iraq, don’t throw us in that briar patch kick us out of the country!”

                    Most likely scenario is that if we did leave, the country would go back to the massive sectarian infighting that took place between 2012 and 2014 while we were gone, and something similar to ISIS or ISIS itself would probably re-emerge because the Shiite Iraqis are seemingly incapable of going more than a week without dunking on their Kurdish, and Sunni counterparts in particular.

                    1. “Oh no, Br’er Iraq, don’t throw us in that briar patch kick us out of the country!”

                      Srsly.

                      And yeah – once we do leave, the civil war starts before our foot even leaves the door jamb. My money says it ends with parts of Iraq getting incorporated into Iran, Syria and Turkey, respectively, with maybe Baghdad as a semi-independent city-state a la Monaco.

                  2. Nobody thinks this was a good idea except maybe Pompeo and a couple other retarded neocons who just want to bomb bomb Iran. Trump can’t keep his story straight. You can tell he is struggling to justify this. His lieutenants like Pompeo are lying to the camera about what Trump said about destroying cultural sites.

                    I’m against violence that only causes more violence and otherwise solves no problem. You should be too.

                    1. We don’t know if it did or didn’t do any good yet. But stop pretending as if Iran wasn’t already committing violence against Americans and American interests. Did ignoring that violence do any good?

                    2. I’m against violence that only causes more violence and otherwise solves no problem. You should be too.

                      What I said:

                      “If you don’t think we should be tying our fortunes to the Gulf Council anymore, I agree. The solution to that is to bring all our troops home and let Turkey and the Gulf Council fight off Iran’s expansion in the Gulf, and stop worrying about where all the surplus Gulf oil goes, even if that does mean greater influence for Russia and China.”

                      Do you agree?

                    3. We don’t know if it did or didn’t do any good yet.

                      ^ This.

                      It’s a thing that was done. Was it bold? Yes. Possibly reckless? Yes. Causing motion in a heretofore stagnant situation? Yes. Might even turn out for the best. Might.

                      Why the obligation to rush to judgment?

                      I felt the same about Trump finally moving the embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. I don’t really agree with it, but it’s been a “shit or get off the pot” situation for decades. I would have preferred “get off the pot,” but Trump took a shit instead. At least it’s something, and will push the conflict towards actual resolution.

                    4. Dude, you didn’t even know our embassy had been attacked. Within the span of 48 hours, the left went from crowing about “Trump’s Benghazi” to crying like bitches that the paramilitary general who ordered it (and we know this because the attackers literally wrote his name as their commander on the fucking walls) had been sent to Allah. They were genuinely upset that no further loss of life happened during the embassy attack, just because they couldn’t hold it over Trump’s head like a cudgel.

                      There’s nothing sincere about the left’s limpouts over this. None.

                      I’m against violence that only causes more violence

                      Stop. Seriously.

            2. “How is he a legitimate war target when we aren’t at war with his country?”

              He is a legitimate target because he is a military officer ordering attacks on our soldiers and citizens.

              You didn’t have to wade through bullshit. You jumped in asserting everyone else was wrong even though you admit you know nothing about the circumstances. If you were less of an asshole you could have asked this up front.

              But you can’t be less of an asshole any more than a dog can not be a dog.

              1. You can just say “Because he has an (R) after his name.”

                1. Nice deflection. Are you sticking your fingers in your ears to ignore any argument that doesn’t support your preconceptions? Because multiple posters having given you the information you supposedly asked for and your response is to call them liars and partisans.

                2. I’m against violence that only causes more violence and otherwise solves no problem. You should be too.

                  Remind us how you felt about bombing Libya?

                3. You can just say “Because he has an (R) after his name.”

                  You’re too stupid to participate in adult discussions.

            3. “How is he a legitimate war target when we aren’t at war with his country?”

              He wasn’t in his country. He was in a country that our forces have been charged with keeping secure, and he was coordinating attacks in that country, against our forces, and in other countries. When we actually conduct an attack within Iran’s borders you’ll have a point.

              1. So Iran is justified in killing Pompeo if he happens to set foot in Iraq.

                1. When did Iran get put in charge of Iraqi security? When did Pompeo actively plan attacks against Iran and Iranian embassies troops and civilians?

                2. So Iran is justified in killing Pompeo if he happens to set foot in Iraq.

                  No.

                  If an American military commander is leading clandestine military campaigns in a country he’s not supposed to be in, and he winds up getting killed, that’s not an act of war on the part of the people who killed him.

                3. So Iran is justified in killing Pompeo if he happens to set foot in Iraq.

                  If he had been directing military operations against Iran for most of the last two decades resulting in hundreds of deaths he would be a military target. Are you asserting that?

    4. I know you were too stupid to answer last time… but this argument only works when you can state something you would support from him or you’re as hypocritical as those you attempt to call out.

      But…

      Bump stock ban, any regulation on e cigarettes, not reducing protections and firing career bureaucrats, slow to fill appointed spots, too much twitter (although amusing), budging on the shut down… I can go on of you want. Now you do one.

      1. He seems to have an open mind on criminal justice reform. Unfortunately he’s not passionate enough about it to pressure Mitch McConnell to get off his ass and do anything about it.

        1. Open mind? He did more than Obama did in his entire 8 years. You cant even give him full credit for that. God you’re pathetic.

          1. You’re the one defending war crimes, but only when they’re committed by Republicans.

            1. Except no war crime has been committed idiot. A tweet is not a crime.

              1. They are if you think words = violence.

            2. What war crime?

              1. This was an a military strike against a target that has been perpetuating violence against Americans since at least 2005. He was in the country meeting with those who were carrying out this violence. He is the head of a designated terror group. He was in a country that our military is actively involved in combat operations in and, despite his country of origin never declaring war against the US, one in which his forces have actively supported, trained, armed (and even assisted in carrying out) combat operations against our military and civilians.
                This would be the same as saying that out fighter pilots over Korea in 1952 couldn’t shoot back against MiG 15s piloted by Soviet pilots (which actually occured) that were attacking them.

                1. And before you do the whole why didn’t we bomb the Soviet premier bullshit… He Soleimi entered an active combat zone the same as Soviet pilots entered active combat zones during the Korean War.

            3. We aren’t at war with Syria. We’ve shot down Syrian aircraft in the course of conducting MERV operations against ISIS. Is this going to cause further violence from Syria?

    5. Killing the world’s top terrorist is a bucket of cold water not a flamethrower.

      1. No no. Poet, leader, family man.

    6. Date your Dad?

    7. his outlawing of bump stocks is one and I do not trust him to protect the 2A so we must be vigilant.

  27. At least we didn’t give him the Nobel Peace Prize, right?

  28. Interesting doublethink here. Trump is suddenly anti-war even though he kept talking about bombing the shit out of ISIS? Weird how you forgot about that one. I wonder why you left that out?

    Trump is anti-interventionist, not anti-war. Some people need to be killed, Soleimani was one of them. What we don’t want, and what we elected Trump not to do, and what Trump will not do, is something moronic like Iraq where we occupy a foreign nation with tens of thousands of soldiers and let them slowly get killed and injured while we waste hundreds of billions on absolutely nothing worth saving.

    1. These people are liars and Propaganda is their game.

      Lefties just hate that their Narratives get shot down so fast with the internet.

  29. Kinda funny how the anti-war Left has popped into view again. They were gone for so long; I wonder what changed?

    1. This progressive shill has the mind of a child.

    2. We were always here. We welcomed you fucktards to the party about a decade after your Iraq war boner turned out to be a bit of a fuckup, but better late than never.

      But understand we’re dealing with people who think Benghazi, which wasn’t even perpetrated by America, was a worse war crime than the Iraq occupation, and who now are cheering Trump’s insane decision with an all new war boner. And this is noninterventionist libertarians.

      Clean your own goddamn bed, hypocrites.

      1. Send me even 2 links of large scaled anti war protests for Libya or syria.

        1. America had nary a boot on the ground in Libya and almost none in Syria. The reason you think a few missile strikes is equivalent or worse than occupying Iraq for 20 years based on proven lies is because you are a partisan.

          You are so fucking brain-fried partisan that you think someone else’s civil war is Hillary Clinton’s fault, but Trump starting a war with Iran is no big thing.

          1. no links Tony.

            1. How does it feel for Ann Coulter to have more principles than you tards?

          2. We are talking about an air strike against the leader of a terrorist group here sweetie. Not iraq in general.

            1. A convenient label for someone you want the US to unilaterally assassinate with no declaration of war or, more importantly, strategic purpose.

              1. In the comment Jesse is responding to you are literally saying that Obama’s targeted strikes and assassinations were not war, which is why you didn’t protest them (and in fact lectured us that it was smart power at its best) and you turn around seconds later and declare that this targeted strike is war.

                1. Yes, dear, one has to evaluate these actions individually. You still haven’t explained how this advances the interests of the United States. This was literally the option offered to Trump as the dumbass outlandish option meant to make him comfortable with a more limited one. But then he had to have that extra Big Mac the night before, and he has a sad because of impeachment.

                  I’m not the pacifist or noninterventionist here. That’s supposed to be all the rest of you guys. Obama didn’t do this specific action because he and his advisers judged it to be a fucking dumb move, and Obama had the good sense not to be a big fat fucking orange retard.

                  1. Yes, dear, one has to evaluate these actions individually

                    “If a Democrat does it, it’s okay. If a Republican does it, it’s not.”

                    Hence the reappearance of the “anti-war left,” noticeably silent for 8 years of a Democratic presidency.

                  2. You still haven’t explained how this advances the interests of the United States.

                    Yes, I exactly have. It’s about our relationship with the Gulf Council and our sense that we need to control the flow of their surplus oil and keep them using US dollars to sell it. You’re only pretending I didn’t explain that.

                    What I said:

                    “If you don’t think we should be tying our fortunes to the Gulf Council anymore, I agree. The solution to that is to bring all our troops home and let Turkey and the Gulf Council fight off Iran’s expansion in the Gulf, and stop worrying about where all the surplus Gulf oil goes, even if that does mean greater influence for Russia and China.”

                    This was literally the option offered to Trump as the dumbass outlandish option meant to make him comfortable with a more limited one.

                    So you believe that his advisers are presenting him outlandishly dumb and dangerous scenarios in order to manipulate him into doing the things they want him to do?

                    If you believe this is the case, do you believe it’s a problem?

                    Obama didn’t do this specific action because he and his advisers judged it to be a fucking dumb move, and Obama had the good sense not to be a big fat fucking orange retard.

                    Yet he bombed Libya and sparked a civil war that continues to this day. You haven’t explained yet why that doesn’t count as war but killing Suleimani does?

          3. America had nary a boot on the ground in Libya and almost none in Syria.

            It’s revealing Tony only opposes killing civilians when boots are on the ground. Any distinction which protects Team Blue magically becomes inviolate. Again we see his hate reveal his priorities.

            A more serious analysis would note the mass and continuing death count after the government collapsed along with the massive refugee crisis triggered.

            1. Actually I care about human life equally whether it’s taken by Republicans or Democrats. It’s just that Republicans kill so many more people.

              1. Actually I care about human life equally whether it’s taken by Republicans or Democrats.

                If that were true you wouldn’t minimize the mass deaths in Libya and during the refugee crisis by acting as if not having boots on the ground mattered. You’re nothing but a Team Blue rimmer.

                1. Pretty sure I’ve never had a kind word for Gaddafi, unlike you guys when it was convenient to attack Hillary Clinton for some hilariously tangential bullshit. America started the war in Iraq. It may have led to Libya’s civil war eventually, but that would still be on fucking George W. Bush wouldn’t it? There’s a reason I’m partisan, and that’s it. I’m asking why you fuckers aren’t even pretending that you aren’t anymore.

                  And it’s just a little bit odd about how Trump fucktards suddenly care about refugees on the other side of the world but not in our own country.

                  1. It may have led to Libya’s civil war eventually, but that would still be on fucking George W. Bush wouldn’t it?

                    Huh?

                    1. Bush actually ratcheting down tension with Libya obviously is responsible for Obama fucking it up. Don’t you know?

                  2. Pretty sure I’ve never had a kind word for Gaddafi, unlike you guys

                    It may have led to Libya’s civil war eventually, but that would still be on fucking George W. Bush wouldn’t it?

                    This is “debate reality” where participants assert whatever helps their argument regardless of the fact that it never actually happened. It’s a failing fostered by far left control of academia where the drum circle prioritizes the narrative over reality which is why it’s predominantly a left wing phenomenon.

                    There’s a reason I’m partisan,

                    Right, you’re dumber than two bags of shit and are incapable of dealing with reality.

      2. Strange I didn’t see you when Obama was Obombing Libya and running guns to Al Qaida in Syria.

        1. Whatabout OBama!!!!!2DWERP!!

          1. Yeah, what about him? You really think if a Republican President bombed Libya, whose leader had willingly given up his WMDs when told to do so, only for that country to become a literal failed state that saw the re-emergence of the Barbary slave trade within its borders due to well-meaning people telling every third-world resident in Africa “refugees welcome!’ and causing a migration crisis, that the Democrats would be willing to overlook all that because there were no boots on the ground and no Americans were killed?

            Get the fuck out of here.

            1. A Republican bombed a Middle Eastern country and overthrew its government, destabilizing the entire Middle East, including Libya.

              A Democrat who won office by opposing that effort did limited action in the ensuing chaos in an attempt to stop mass carnage, which seemed to have worked more or less.

              Of course he could have fucked Satan and Saddam Hussein in a three-way and it still wouldn’t absolve Trump of what he’s doing just now.

              Hence the whatabousim accusation. Let’s Say Obama is literally satan. Okay. Let’s stick to the now and the actual story.

              1. “limited action in the ensuing chaos in an attempt to stop mass carnage, which seemed to have worked more or less.”

                Maybe except for the slave markets coming back

              2. A Republican bombed a Middle Eastern country and overthrew its government, destabilizing the entire Middle East, including Libya.

                You dumbass. Have you literally forgotten the entire Arab Spring?

                The Iraq invasion had fuck-all to do with Libya.

                A Democrat who won office by opposing that effort did limited action in the ensuing chaos in an attempt to stop mass carnage, which seemed to have worked more or less.

                So you’re literally okay with slave markets reemerging in Libya, based off of a passive-voiced assertion that “mass carnage” was averted. Again, get the fuck out of here.

                Okay. Let’s stick to the now and the actual story.

                The actual story? You can’t even acknowledge that our embassy was attacked. Yes, let’s stick to the now and the actual story.

                The embassy was attacked and the left was happy because it was “Trump’s Benghazi.” The actual result was far different from Benghazi, and the left claimed that Trump had no effective response. Trump bombed the shit out of the general who ordered the attack, with NO civilian casualties, and the left went into hysterics that he was starting World War 3.

                Is there anything in here that’s inaccurate?

              3. Okay, I’m going to need you to explain this “GWB attacking Iraq caused the Arab Spring” thing. Because it sounds like an idiotic partisan talking point coming from someone who knows fuck-all about Middle Eastern history, but I’m gonna let you explain how that’s not the case.

              4. A Democrat who won office by opposing that effort did limited action in the ensuing chaos in an attempt to stop mass carnage, which seemed to have worked more or less.

                This is nonsense. The Democrat turned Libya into a failed state triggering a massive refugee crisis. But Tony can’t help minimizing Team Blue impacts, which makes sense since supporting Team Blue is impossible if you understand what they actually do.

                1. And Syria. But it’s all Bush’s fault, just how all of Obama’s administration the slow economy was Bush’s fault (despite Bush wanting reform mortgage laws in 2005 to end sub-prime mortgages and the Democrats opposing him) and the good economy is all Obama’s doing and Trump deserves no credit.

  30. I recently started reading Reason, then quickly realized that its just another far left cesspool. I will not be back.

    1. sorry. you were a good Genesis album.

      1. Decent fighter pilot too. Shitty Congressman though.

      2. you were a good Genesis album

        Best of the Phil Collins era, anyway.

    2. I would let you know its just some unreason sock trolls that are sent in to boost web traffic.

      That still doesnt cover the Lefty unreason staff writers though.

  31. I’m not digging this narrative man.

    Did people not notice the reaction when Trump tried to pull out of Syria? Now he takes out some clown and he’s for endless war?

    I can’t follow these goal posts anymore.

    1. Let me help you… libertarians normally aren’t for decade-long occupations of foreign countries. The fact that you guys have become so debased by your God-worship of Trump is your problem— not mine.

      1. That, like, didn’t help at all.

        It’s amazing how merely asking questions and being skeptical and pushing back against TDS means ‘God-worship of Trump’. Pretty retarded how the left functions.

        They don’t like decades long occupation but when a President wants out of Syria, it was treated as if it was wrong.

        THAT was my point.

        Pay closer attention.

        1. Tell me why your for an extrajudicial killing of a person we’d never heard of before 5 days ago? Surely there’s some libertarian principle.

          I was for the withdrawal of US troops from Syria as I am for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq and Kuwait. Tell me why you are not and, second question, how are you going to pay for it if you want that so much? Fuck off, slaver.

          1. Well, at least the left remains okey-dokey with our embassies being attacked, so you’re definitely sticking to that principal.

      2. Let me help you… libertarians normally aren’t for decade-long occupations of foreign countries.

        It’s revealing you have to pretend killing one guy is a decades long occupation in order to make your point. A smarter person would realize the fact that you have to pretend this proves the actual facts don’t support your conclusion.

  32. Who claims Trump is antiwar? Did Obama and Clinton claim anti-war? On the bright side, Trump and Republicans have stated that they are anti-green new deal capitalists. The opposite of the Democrats.. global climate jihad redistributionist and rationing authoritarians.

  33. Trump threatened to commit war crimes again and they supported that so I’m pretty sure I got my answer to a question I posed long ago. If you remember, during the campaign Trump said he would bring back waterboarding “and a lot worse” and that a good way to discourage terrorists would be to go after their families. When reporters pointed out these would be war crimes and the military would refuse to follow such unlawful orders,dr zodiak carts Trump just shrugged and averred that the military would do what he told them to do. I asked at the time, which is scarier? That Trump believes the US military would commit war crimes if he told them to or that Trump was correct to believe such a thing?

    1. Is this spam? It’s the same think ‘skids just posted above, but with an embedded link in the middle.

      1. Were you paying attention when Trump proposed to commit war crimes when in office?

        1. Did you care when liberals tore down cultural statues in america? If not indont think you actually give a fuck. You’ve been more derogatory towards religious and cultural symbols in America than almost anybody else on this site. Iran is the culture that still throws gays off roof tops, so keep defending them more than Americans.

          1. So are you endorsing destroying Iran’s cultural treasures or no? I can’t figure out what you’re arguing. That you’re bringing up confederate statues, if I presume correctly, just makes you into a fucking parody.

            Guess how many fucks I give about confederate statues. Do I think Reconstruction was incomplete and resulted in a lot of lingering racial resentments that could have been dealt with better? Yes, along with every historian. Perhaps we should have Dresdened the South, and they wouldn’t be so useless and whiny today.

            What the fuck does that have to do with anything anyway? Because the only consistent line of thought that is coming through your comments is that you don’t give a shit what happens to brown people.

            1. Tony…I don’t think anyone is lusting to destroy Iran’s cultural sites. Not even POTUS Trump. It is an option, among an array of options available. That aside, how do you define cultural site? Is that a UN designation? An Iranian designation? Your designation?

              The bigger point POTUS Trump was making. Iran has acted with impunity for decades. And getting away with it. That isn’t happening with POTUS Trump. If they want to kill and maim our people, then there will be a price to pay for that. If that means destroying a so-called cultural site is the way to go…so be it.

              All that aside. Isn’t it better from a moral perspective to nail the leader making these decisions (Soleimani), rather than killing the poor, dumb private sitting in the wrong place at the wrong time (and who had no say in the leaders decision)?

              1. Trump literally said cultural sites were fair targets in a tweet. His people walked it back, pretending he didn’t say it in plain English (well, as good as he can muster anyway).

                There are reasons we haven’t gone to war with Iran despite the war boners of Bolton and his cohort. I’ll leave you to ponder those reasons. Even more of a head-scratcher, we haven’t gone to war with Saudi, despite their people actually being the perpetrators of 9/11.

                What good does going to war with Iran cause? From a libertarian perspective, if you can.

                1. Even more of a head-scratcher, we haven’t gone to war with Saudi, despite their people actually being the perpetrators of 9/11.

                  Some of us actually know why.

                2. Tony….whoa there Sparky. We aren’t going to war with Iran (as in, invade and conquer them) anytime soon. Iran does not want a war with the US that they have no chance of winning.

                  What we are doing, currently, is ‘tit for tat’. They kill and American with an Iranian sponsored militia group. We kill 25 militia members. They attack and ransack our embassy. We kill the Iranian militia leader, and the Iranian responsible for making the decision to escalate (along with some of his flunkies).

                  Iran would be well-advised to choose wisely now. They have far more to lose.

                  1. Tony thinks he’s gonna get drafted.

                  2. But let’s be honest. The only thing you or I care about are Trump’s ensuing poll numbers.

                    1. The only thing you or I care about are Trump’s ensuing poll numbers.

                      We get that that’s the only thing you care about, yes.

                    2. Tony, I’ll be totally honest. No bullshit.

                      One, I am not one bit sorry we turned Soleimani into red jello. He was a bad man who had American blood on his hands. He deserved to die. Two, an attack on our embassy absolutely requires a very severe response. That means people will die Tony, because it is an appropriate response to an act of war. Three, I do not want a war with Iran. I really don’t.

            2. I have not endorsed anything. I’m saying I will focus my outrage on things actually concurrently occurring, not tweets.

              When trump actually orders a stroke on civilians or objects, let me know.

              1. Um Trump has already killed more civilians than Obama did in 2 terms. Just as he promised during his campaign.

                Educate yourself before you speak.

                1. Lol.
                  Gonna need to see a link for that.

                  And note: Obama reclassified “enemy combatant/terrorist” to mean “any adult male present in a large group with other adult msles”
                  Then bombed the shit out of soccer games

                  1. Trump stopped keeping stats.

                    1. So you have no proof for your claim.

                    2. So you have no proof for your claim.

                      It’s a red letter day for Tony. He’s already admitted he had no idea what had happened but still concluded everyone he hates was wrong. There can never be a clearer proof that facts and evidence are irrelevant to him making this the perfect summation of Tony philosophy.

            3. So are you endorsing destroying Iran’s cultural treasures or no?

              Personally, no. My sense is that Jesse doesn’t believe he’s actually going to do that. I tend to agree.

              1. What would Jesse think if Obama had tweeted that?

                I just miss when people were pretending to be libertarians here, that’s all.

                1. What would Jesse think if Obama had tweeted that?

                  I really don’t know. I personally have a hard time imagining Obama tweeting that. Not his style.

                  I just miss when people were pretending to be libertarians here, that’s all.

                  Concern noted.

                  1. He wouldn’t tweet it, he’d just do it and the media would polish his knob afterwards. That was his style.

                    1. ^ Exactly this.

              2. Personally I think Trump was saying pretty much what Ken described the other day – Qoms and related places.

                Meaning, that just because the Mullahs declare it sacred does not obligate us to avoid hitting it.

                To the Tonys, and Shikas, and Welchs of the world, where every utterance of Trump, or about Trump must be viewed in the worst possible light, his threat will mean something else. But that won’t make it a war crime, no matter how wishful their thinking.

            4. “So are you endorsing destroying Iran’s cultural treasures or no?”

              Alexander of Macedonia did it first

              1. “Alexander of Macedonia did it first”

                Whataboutism goes WAAAAY back, then!

                There is clear evidence that, in times of desperation, Neanderthals engaged in cannibalism. Human bones cracked open with stone tools, so as to get after the marrow. If the Trumptatorship calls for cannibalism, so as to intimidate the mullahs, Nardless the Nadless will be the first to step up and endorse the BRILLIANT new idea, conceived by Dear Leading Draft Dodger!

          2. JesseAz

            “Did you care when liberals tore down cultural statues in america?”

            JesseAZ implies comparable status between bombing Iranian cultural treasures (and bystanders) with democratic-process-decided decisions in the USA. So if full-scale war breaks out, Trump follows through on his barbaric threats… “All’s fair in love and war”… I suppose Jesse will NOT bitch up a storm, when Iraq or its allies bomb his Precious Civil War Southern Generals Statues in the public park!

            Or does Jesse simply say, “muh country, right or wrong”, and to hell with ALL international conventions of “semi-civilized” war? Allies no longer matter, now that we (according to Jesse) should aspire to Evil-Empire status? Piss off allies world-wide with barbaric actions just no longer matter, I guess…

            1. Just keep scrolling

              1. Just keep on justifying a Trumptatorship which is ABOVE ALL THE RULES, just like the Ubermenschen of the NAZI regime! And pretend that this will end well!

        2. “Were you….”

          You are a sad, and not very bright person, Tony.

    2. Iran commits crimes against humanity and its own people. Trump is saying he doesn’t give a shit about the UN and he will deal with these people in a language they understand. And honestly, we need to rebuke the UN as much as possible. They’re an unholy alliance of Western European cucks and Islamic extremists. Is he really going to do it? Probably not. Hopefully there are enough sane people in Iran’s government and they’ll reform their terrorist ways. But part of flexing on inferior shitholes like Iran involves not taking options off the table. This is nothing new for US foreign policy. For instance, did you know that throughout multiple administrations, we kept nuclear weapons in Japan as a deterrent against China, the Soviet Union, and North Korea? Nobody would ever dare use nuclear weapons again, but what if we signed an anti-proliferation treaty and then stated outright “we won’t do this to you?” It’s really not that different in principle.

      Not only does Iran fund terrorist groups that have destroyed cultural sites themselves, but they’re also guilty of doing so (and far worse) in Syria.

      1. Hey, on the off chance that you care about facts, the trashing of ancient Syrian cultural treasures (Assyrian ancient buildings) was done by ISIS, which are Sunni shit-heads, not Shiite shit-heads!!! Keep your shit-heads straight! Ancient Buddhist giant cliff carvings blown away in Afghanistan? Mostly Sunni shit-heads as I recall!

        For folks who give a shit about FACTS… After Iran fell as one of the “Twin pillars” of ME USA policy under Carter (Shah of Iran dethroned), we have basically sided, for the most part, with the Sunnis, against the Shiites, in the ME. Here are the Saudis, who forbid women to drive (starting to change lately), and forbid ANY religious buildings to be built, except friggin’ SUNNI Islam mosques, on THEIR turf… Opposed to Iran, which isn’t nearly as shit-headed on these issues… WHO do we side with? Sunnis! Saudis have the oil!

        We have frickin’ frackin’, these days, and our own oil… High time to BUTT THE FUCK OUT of picking sides in some stupid ME religious wars!!! Our domestic religious wars between demoncrats and rethugglicans is enough to keep us busy!

  34. Since when does finally hitting them back when they attack a U.S. Embassy amount to “escalation”?? But hey, cub reporters have to fill a blank page with something! She’s under a deadline. Maybe that can be her excuse for this kind of inane reporting. Better perspective by someone who knows what he’s talking about:
    https://www.arabnews.com/node/1609196

    1. What embassy was attacked?

      “Libertarians for trusting everything the government says, even about the future!”

        1. It was a protest in which nobody was harmed. Anyone with a scintilla of non-flag-waving sentiment or empathy might actually appreciate why the protest happened in the first place (the United States continuing to kill people in places it doesn’t belong). Iran didn’t take responsibility for orchestrating the protestors’ actions. We sure did take responsibility for our assassination in response, in which we by definition actually did harm people.

          1. Anyone with a scintilla of non-flag-waving sentiment or empathy might actually appreciate why the protest happened in the first place

            That a bunch of Iranian sympathizers were mourning the deaths of their fellow militia members who were killed in a retaliatory strike following their attack of a American military base?

      1. Tony, I know progressives are ill-informed and low information but even by your standards this demands a serious ‘wtf’?

      2. The US Embassy, in Baghdad, was attacked, by an Iranian-backed militia on December 31st, 2019.

        But keep pretending that didn’t happen; it discredits you more effectively than any of the rest of the nonsense you spew.

        1. Okay we’ll agree for the sake of argument that this was an “attack.”

          So the question remains whether the response was wise. Is Trump wise? Most of the people who work for him were horrified by this decision.

          1. “So the question remains whether the response was wise”

            That’s what the rest of us have been discussing since Thursday

  35. Iranian MP threatens to ‘attack the White House’: report

    Well Iran… {pointing at watch} We’re waaiting!

  36. A nation that shows weakness is a nation that is more likely to be attacked and dragged into a war. Obama showed weakness to our enemies and Trump has held his breath as Iran has continued to kill and maim US citizens and allies. Trump finally fired a big shot across Iran’s bow…letting them know not to poke the bear. If Iran responds too strongly, Trump will do something similar to what Reagan did…destroy half of Iran’s navy. Trump is trying to avoid a war, not cause one….

  37. “a war that Trump himself started”

    The war started in 1979 and Iran has been playing it in the background against the United States and the west for decades using their proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. You can be against war in general when it serves no national purpose, but use force when necessary to address a violent and belligerent hostile entity like Iran. If a real shooting war is going to start, it will be Iran who starts it.

    1. What city in the United States did Iran attack, again? I get it… Libertarians like you aren’t for A chicken in every pot. You just want to have an aircraft carrier in every port. Fuck that, slaver. You pay for it.

      1. Iran attacked our embassy in Tehran and held our citizens hostage for more than a year. I don’t know how you understand it, but commonly an embassy is the soil of the country that uses it. I don’t want the US to attack Iran, far from it. I’d like us to be completely out of the Middle East and let those people hash it out for themselves. But the fact is what happens in the ME rarely stays in the ME and Iran has ambitions of both dominating the region and continuing to confront the West in an aggressive manner. Slaver?

        1. Jesus Christ! Yeah… in 1979. Fuck, man, you TrumpianS have worms in your brains.

          1. He says “the war started in 1979” and has lasted “for decades”, and your response is . . . to find it astonishing that the attack he cites as the start of the war happened in 1979?

            And you think it’s his brain that has worms?

            1. Gee, I didn’t know we were at war with Iran for like 40 years. Was there some “Day of Infamy” speech given by Jimmy Carter or something? How did I miss this?

              1. The Iranians have been conducting aggressive, military action against the US for 40byeaes. Just because we chose to ignore this doesn’t mean it hasn’t been occuring.

                1. And BTW, ignoring hasn’t seemed to stop this activity, weird, isn’t that?

          2. And in 2019.

      2. What city in the United States did Iran attack, again?

        Iran attacked the US embassy (=US territory), US aircraft, and US shipping vessels. Does that answer your question?

        1. So you agree to take responsibility for whatever repercussions result from this assassination, yes?

          1. Killing a military target involved in aggressive actions against you isn’t an assassination.

  38. Amazing how many pussies have an internet connection and blather on about shit they know nothing about.

    Sorry princess(s), there is no war.

    One terrorist is dead, the king of terrorists, and lots of panties are unfurling.

    No war. Stupid article.

  39. Depending on what happens, may cost him his election. I strongly disagree with him not getting tropps out of everywhere…

  40. After the assassination of the Iranian generalkilling of an Iranian terrorist in a third country, Trump’s supporters should admit they were wrong that he was anti-war.

    I’m not a Trump supporter. However, I don’t see how the killing of an Iranian terrorist in a third country makes Trump “pro-war”.

    I mean, you may erroneously believe that this action makes war more likely, but your beliefs are pretty much irrelevant.

  41. ARRRGGGHHHH! OBAMA LET TWO FRENCH GUYS AND A CROAT FLY A HANGGLIDER OVER TRIPOLI BACK IN 2012 AND NOW ALL THESE LIBS ARE CRITICIZING DEAR LEADER FOR EXECUTING SOME GUY NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF. SO UNFAIR!! LIBERAL SUCK!!!

    1. oRAnGe MaN BAd he KillED OuR BEStest BuDDy

  42. Why did anyone ever believe that Donald J. “Bomb the Shit out of them, and take their oil” Drumpf was ever anti-war?

    1. It’s a desperate search for narrative

  43. Iran continued their proxy wars well after the Iran deal was signed, a deal which was never approved by congress and had no safeguards against Iran going back on their words. It’s disappointing that an usually astute writer would parrot uninformed leftist talking point.

    There is as much war (in the traditional sense) under Trump as there is a wave of hate crime or a reefer madness from legalized pot. There isn’t one. The last serious regime change mission came from Obama. Increasing troop presence abroad might be foolish policy but it’s not war. Airstrikes kill targets without getting ground forces involved. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump continued to use secret kill lists, but to suggest that a president cannot be “antiwar” if he orders drone strikes on terrorists is disingenuous.

    Stop saying “Soleimani was a bad guy but……” Just take off the mask. For the pitiful TDS crowd Soleimani is just some guy who robbed a town liquor store. He’s bad in a academic sense, but not as bad as Donald Trump or some guy who makes trans jokes on twitter. They have bigger fish to fry. More importantly, we’re supposed to mourn for theoretical victims while expressing hallmark sentiments for actual victims. Every time we nail terrorists who killed hundreds people in one setting, our mission is to stop the upcoming rightwing dysotia where muslim scapegoats are herded to concentration camps.

    It’s astounding, this notion that we can’t confront evil ever if the a theoretical cost is further escalation and slippery slope. Obama kept Pakistan in the dark while we hunted Bin Laden, did that lead us to ignoring sovereignty everywhere? Did Trump target members of the Kim regime, who doesn’t target American citizens?

    Faux outrages and false choices, they rule today’s discourse.

  44. Trump is anti-war to the extent that he can blame previous military conflict and the aftermath on someone else, which pretty much sums up his policy parameters across the board.

    I actually like his assassination move. If he’s earned the respect of only one world leader, it’s the Ayatollah. On a less sarcastic note, I don’t know where we go from here.

  45. Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson are on my side on this.

    It’s not a case of strange bedfellows, as strange as that would be. It’s a case of you guys being worse Trump cumguzzlers than those two idiots. Sad.

    1. Ann Coulter and Tucker Carlson are on my side on this.

      And yet this does not give you pause.

      1. LOL, no shit. This is like liberals saying we should give a damn what John Bolton thinks after he got fired.

        Funny how appeals to authority are all these people have.

  46. Iran has now started attacking American assets.

    All the more reason we should’ve assassinated that guy! We totally predicted they’d have a bad reaction, and we were right. Ipso facto!

    Yay war with Iran. Just what John Bolton and all libertarians always wanted.

    1. Iran has now started attacking American assets

      So do the Chinese, and we’re not only NOT at war with them, they’re a major trading partner.

    2. Iran has now started attacking American assets.

      Are you seriously asserting that Iran has only just now started attacking American assets?

    3. Yay war with Iran. Just what John Bolton and all libertarians always wanted.

      Personally, I want our troops withdrawn from the Middle East completely. Even if it means a stronger Russia. What do you want?

  47. Oh, how I long for the days when a US president could just bomb the daylights out of a North African/Middle Eastern Muslim country, engineer the gruesome murder of its top guy, and gleefully exclaim:

    We came.

    We saw.

    He died!

    …on national television. Sigh…

    1. Hillary did not Kill Gaddafi. I realize it’s hard to see facts while existing as a polyp on Hannity’s nutsack.

      1. Also, G.W. Bush did not kill Saddam Hussein.

  48. Three things:

    1) There’s just no point in critiquing this article since it’s a mindless screed and riddled with nonsense from A-Z.

    2) On the matter of vaporizing another terrorist, well, that’s always positive; but the central issue is what will Trump do after the Iranian’s serve up their obligatory ( face-saving) response, one that will appease the internal radicals, shut them up, but still be constrained enough to not cross the rubicon.
    3) Trump will honor his campaign promise ( par for the course), which was to effect his long-held dislike for protracted Mideast wars or regime changes. That means, I don’t anticipate anything approaching full-blown war at his behest but do anticipate Trump flexing sufficient muscle to remind Iran who’s in charge.

  49. Trump IS antiwar, you silly gurl!!!!

    That Dirtbag In Chief that got his just desserts in getting vapourised has been THE mastermind behind wars in Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia AND in Iran itself for over twenty years. Now he’s gone the brains and connexions behind much of that warmongering is broken. You just watch,.. Iran will realise they’ve just been neutered, =and their future plans to dominate at least the Middle East (they’d planned on bothering with the rest of the planet after they;ve got the Middle East wrapped up and tied tight) are now in the crapper, the chain having been pulled, and all is circling downward toward the four inch vertical black pipe. Taking this guy out of action permanently will result in far LESS conflict over there. Perhaps Iran will be sufficiently broken as to completely break and finally set at liberty her millions of abused disenfranchised people, and get that nation back on her feet. With the =Dirtbag In Chief working his mayhem, the entire country has suffered, as well as his target countries.
    Cut off the head, the snake is gone

  50. Again, what has happened to the commentors here at Reason.com? This thread is filled with sophomoric, low IQ Trumptards and collectivist / authoritarian Leftists writing hateful comments to one another not Libertarians discussing and debating the issues. This is an excellent article. Thanks for posting it. Real Libertarians want the US to stop intervening in foreign wars that benefit only the US corporatocracy. For instance, actual Libertarians want the pointless war in Afghanistan ended and for the US to stop cooperating with Saudi Arabia and Israel.

  51. PLEASE! Doesn’t Reason have someone with the moral weight of Edith Efron (RIP)???? This article shows absolutely no moral strength exists at Reason today.

  52. When read the line “Shikha Dalmia” I roll my fucking eyes. She is leftard in libertarian sheep clothing. Trump has been more restrained than any of his predecessors and nobody will admit. Nobama and Bush fucking got us in land wars, and killed more people. Trump has yet to get us in a ground war, possible, but so far he hasn’t. I find it funny all the pundits on “Reason” ignore Trump not wanting to bomb a certain area because there was civilians there, you guys don’t ever talk about that. Again, the left is never going to like you “Reason” at their cocktail parties their laughing behind your back. Quit trying to appeal to snowflakes and anti-fa-g.

  53. Pacifism is effectively pro-war because war (and the losing end of that war) is exactly what it leads to. Pacifists are forever self-deluded into thinking if you’re just nice to others they’ll be nice to you. The peaceful environment in which a pacifist grew up to form their views is, ironically, provided by a few brave souls who won it by force. The strong prey on the weak. It’s always been this way and it always will. Peace is only maintained through strength. The real world isn’t a Disney movie.

    1. The best reference of the 20th century for just this sort of thing was Neville Chamberlain’s breathless classic: “I have signed a pact with Herr Hitler!” How’d THAT work out? Two weeks later, tanks rolled across the Polish border.

  54. How many brain cells had to die — never to be replaced — before one is stupid enough to believe that a person can’t be anti-war yet still see the need to remove a clear and active threat to the safety of innocents?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.