Iran

Trump's Confrontation With Iran Shows Americans Have Learned Not To Rush Into War

Few people are buying the U.S. government's unconvincing explanations about "imminent" threats.

|

After President Trump ordered the extrajudicial killing of Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said publicly that this act of war was justified because of an "imminent" Iranian threat that put "dozens if not hundreds of American lives at risk." He couldn't share the intelligence, of course, given its top-secret nature—and then before you know it Pompeo and Trump had largely dropped that storyline.

When pressed for details, both men said they needed to kill another country's general because Soleimani had been involved in attacks in neighboring Iraq that led to the deaths of Americans. The Iranian general was a loathsome fellow, of course, but a little context seems to be in order.

The George W. Bush administration had declared war on Iraq based on—how do I put this charitably?—claims about the 9/11 attacks that turned out not to be true. Our government's endless meddling hasn't led to a few hundred casualties, but to least 500,000 deaths. Some U.S. troops still are there, albeit with an uncertain future after Iraq's parliament recently gave them the boot as payback for striking the Iranian target while he was in Baghdad.

My favorite recent meme blasts Iran for moving its country so close to dozens of U.S. military installations, thus jokingly getting close to the crux of the issue. Then there was that time the CIA helped overthrow the Iranian government, leading to a revolution that empowered the current imam-ocracy. Before democratic Americans bloviate about the evils of a previously unknown Iranian general, perhaps they should start glaring at their own officials.

"It's a nearly ineffable mystery how it is decided that Saudi Arabia, womb of the 9/11 hijackers, a backwards and oppressive theocracy…gets to be designated as America's great ally in the Muslim Middle East," wrote The American Conservative's Scott McConnell. "And that Iran—with its prickly, hostile, but partially democratic regime, its large and at least latently pro-Western middle class…should be an implacable enemy."

He lamented Trump's Iran decision, even though he voted for this "disrespectful Washington outsider" because he was more likely than anyone else to ask tough questions about who gets to decide such foreign-policy matters. The good-news story is that, like McConnell, few Americans seemed to be getting caught up in the war fever.

Indeed, many Trump supporters (as opposed to his usual partisans and cheerleaders in Congress and the media) opposed the attack. Democrats were aghast at the president's policies, as usual. Even more hawkish publications were unimpressed. "While some vague lip service has been given to the idea that America was acting in self-defense against an imminent threat of attack, no such threat has been identified, and no explanation has been offered as to how killing one man could thwart an imminent military strike," opined The Bulwark's Philip Rotner.

Last month, The Washington Post published the Afghan Papers, an investigation that showed that our nation's military and civilian leadership misrepresented their successes in Afghanistan and had little clue about their goals there. The report was largely ignored against the backdrop of impeachment, but it seems as if many Americans grasped the essential point—that government officials only propagandize about war when their lips are moving.

Fortunately, after threatening on Twitter to attack Iranian cultural sites, Trump decided to back down and move closer to President Barack Obama's Iranian playbook. That's OK, because the previous president's negotiation-oriented policies with Iran—an effort that may even have helped defeat ISIS in the region—is more productive than a policy of bluster and a potential war.

"Donald Trump started with over-the-top, machismo rhetoric toward Iran," Politico reported. "He ended by backing down so far that he sounded more like his predecessor." The unnecessary fracas is particularly bizarre, given those much-circulated Trump tweets from 2011 warning that Obama would start a war with Iran to help get re-elected. Trump threatened war before backing down, so he may be more like Obama on Iran than Obama was himself.

The squabble showcases the best and worst aspects of the Trump presidency wrapped into one package. On the best side, Trump is enough of an outsider—and unconcerned about norms and the political establishment's feelings—to challenge the bipartisan foreign policy status quo that leads from one costly war to another. He hasn't done much to end wars, but he has seemed less likely than others to immerse the country in a new one. On the worst side, he's unpredictable and narcissistic, and could bumble his way into trouble.

As of this writing, the country seems to have dodged a bullet. Few people are buying the U.S. government's unconvincing explanations about "imminent" threats. U.S. troops might finally exit Iraq. A broad-based anti-war movement may be emerging. I never like when governments pound war drums, but Trump's latest misfire is turning out OK.

Advertisement

NEXT: Prosecution for Threatening ACLU Employees May Go Forward

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. I’m not convinced

    1. The correct response to Mr. Greenhut’s article is actually “Piss off with your cheap scare tactics, you demagogic wanker. Nobody went to war.”

  2. Gee, I guess it is a good thing we don’t have a POTUS rushing into war….

    1. Orange man still bad though, apparently.

      1. You have to love how they frame it like Trump was just itching to go to war but suddenly backed off because the public wasn’t for it. Even though he’s consistently been saying the same thing about not getting into new wars for the last three years.

        1. Apparently explicitly stating “we don’t want this to escalate further” is begging to go to war in Reason’s eyes.

    2. Yes, Trump deserves credit for being better on that score than any of his recent predecessors.

  3. Soleimani was openly in Baghdad meeting with Iraqi militia leaders because Iran was quite confident they knew Trump was all bark, no bite. They were wrong, they weren’t actually able to predict with any certainty what Trump would do. Nobody can predict what the hell Trump is going to do or say from minute to minute – I think he does weird shit just for the sake of doing weird shit, it feeds his ego to think that he alone knows what he’s going to do – but being unpredictable is one of the first rules of warfare. Trump sees everybody as an opponent, he’s never going to trust anybody enough to let them become comfortable in thinking they know what he’s going to do next.

    Would you really rather have a President so predictable that even our enemies know exactly what he’s going to do before he himself knows?

    1. Would you really rather have a President so predictable that even our enemies know exactly what he’s going to do before he himself knows?

      Whatever gets the Iranian checks into the multi billion dollar petrochemical supreme godhead of Reason’s accounts.

      1. Obama would go on T.V. and give interviews of what he was going to do including future military plans. ISIS was often well prepared for troop movements.

    2. Trump wouldn’t even bother to know who that guy was or give two shits about him if it was left to Trump. If there was a plan to kill Soleimani it was somebody else’s plan. Trump is complete fucking idiot who absorbs, to the extent he can absorb anything, from watching former construction workers like Sean Hannity on television.

      1. Hi Mikey! It’s cool that you started another sock. Can you retire sqrsly now, or do you wait until you’ve publicly humiliated yourself by losing track of your accounts while handle hopping and replying to yourself in the same thread?

        1. Neutral mikey just spams quora now after he was consistently beat down. He retreated to his bubble.

      2. Okay. This is just Pods new sock. Hes the only one this consistently stupid.

        1. Yes it is.
          The “mfer” can’t help revealing his tics

      3. Poor sad, angry, little man.

      4. from watching former construction workers like Sean Hannity

        Funny how the left looks down on the blue collar working class these days.

        1. I think the parties have switched again. Dems are now the party of the elite and super rich.

        2. The Left has always looked down on the workers and peasants they purport to champion. This has been commented on since Marx was still alive.

        3. Their messiah would never stoop so low as to work in the trades. His only job prior to politics was a couple of weeks he spent working in a Baskin-Robbins.

  4. 4 blatant lies in the opening sentence. Possibly a new record!

    1. unreason is getting warmed up because the lies from this Propaganda outlet will have to flow during the US Senate portion of the Impeachment process.

      I mean the 116th Congress will go down as the only House Impeachment that was such a joke that the US Senate dismissed the Articles of Impeachment for the joke that they are.

      1. 1789…Do not delude yourself. The Senate will not vote to dismiss.

        1. We’ll see. Either quick dismissal or locking the Bidens into testimony and dragging this out through the Iowa Caucus on February 3, 2020 to mess up Senators: Bernie Sanders (VT), Michael Bennet (CO), Amy Klobuchar (MN), and Elizabeth Warren (MA).

          Either way it’s not going to happen the way Lefties and unreason wants.

          1. You know, “Unreason” doesn’t really land with me. I kind of prefer “(T)reason”

            1. Because they’ve betrayed libertarian ideals all to find ways to bag on the country and the President who is more successful at implementing libertarian-friendly policy than they’ve ever been.

            2. How about T-Reason? Does that work? I use Unreason, but I have to say it is ‘Meh’. I toyed with Anti-Reason (like antifa) but that wasn’t doing it either.

  5. Hey remember when Obama actually did order the extrajudicial assassination of an American citizen and his 16 year old son outside of any active conflict zone with no intelligence rationalization of any kind and Reason sat there with its collective thumb up its ass praising the Obama-Clinton ”””””smart power”””””?

    1. That’s clearly different; Obama could do no wrong.
      How can you possibly believe a Nobel Peace Prize winner could do such a thing? Period.

      1. The Nobel Prize for Being Black.

        1. And remember when the response from Obama’s administration about killing al-Awlaki’s kid (in a separate airstrike, even though he wasn’t even accused of a crime) was that’s what he deserved for having the wrong dad?

          1. UCrawford, I did not have a problem with POTUS Obama doing the drones strikes: both of them. I felt it was squarely in his defined article 2 powers and a valid exercise of war-making authority under the first 2001 AUMF. Both had declared war against the US, but more importantly, took actions of actual war against us.

            In a similar manner, I had no issue with POTUS Trump turning Soleimani into red jello.

            I applauded both for removing bad people from our planet.

    2. Well at least when Obama used drones or whatever to blow up brown bodies, we could be sure he wasn’t motivated by racism. I learned in college POC like Obama literally can’t be racist because they lack institutional power.

      #IMissObama

      1. Yeah, Trump runs the country pretty much like Obama. I thought that would offend GOP partisans like you. {shrugs}. I guess not.

        1. Hes spying on american and putting search warrants on the media? He has the fbi reading congressional emails? Can you also link where trump used the irs to shut down democratic groups or directed DoJ settlements to help fund activist groups. Thanks.

          1. It’s too bad that Trump is so incompetent and is such a shitty boss that he can’t keep enough staff around to investigate Leftists. That’d be a worthwhile goal. I mean, what i’ve Heard is that Bernie’s supporters are looking to put you and me in a Soviet gulag and fucking Dear Leader can’t even hire a deputy to the assistant deputy of the FBI to look into this? All I have to say is W…T…F.

            1. what i’ve Heard is that Bernie’s supporters are looking to put you and me in a Soviet gulag and fucking Dear Leader can’t even hire a deputy to the assistant deputy of the FBI to look into this?

              It’s revealing you pretend the issue is campaign staffer comments rather than the facts actually presented. If people didn’t know better they might conclude you were avoiding the facts to protect your hero.

            2. “It’s too bad that Trump is so incompetent and is such a shitty boss that he can’t keep enough staff around to investigate Leftists.”

              This from some fucking scumbag who couldn’t quite pay his mortgage.
              Get back to us once you grow up, you pathetic piece of shit.

        2. It’s funny (sad funny not haha funny) that you keep arguing with the parody account.

    3. And as I recall, the person Obama killed posed as much of an “imminent threat” as Soleimani did. I don’t recall anyone at Reason except Nick Gillispie being upset about it. We certainly did not see daily stories about Obama’s “imminent threat” argument being further “undermined.”

      Our political system relies to a great extent on precedent. In this case, the Huggable Peace Prize Winning Constitutional Scholar set a precedent that Orange Man followed.

      1. The person obama killed, the us citizen, was on his way to a wedding, not meeting with militia groups who just attacked a us embassy.

        1. The person obama killed, the us citizen, was on his way to a wedding, not meeting with militia groups who just attacked a us embassy.

          Are we talking about Anwar or Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki? Because they were both US citizens dronessassinated by Obama in a country we weren’t nominally occupying or at war with and while it’s arguable that Anwar was an imminent threat*, it becomes less arguable that Abdularahman was.

          *Not connoting that imminent threat confers an extrajudicial death sentence to citizens under US law.

          1. Yeah, but I’m not cannoting being an American citizen confers any special privileges to wage war on the US. Ex Parte Quirin approved the death sentences of about half a dozen Americans along with a few aliens by military tribunal for plotting sabotage against the US in WWII. The sentences were carried out on US soil.

    4. That wasn’t an act of war, it was “kinetic military action”, which is totally different and completely justifiable.

    5. I remember Obama doing that. And I remember Reason publishing many articles about how such action was illegal and unconstitutional.
      Can you find one praising such actions: https://reason.com/search/obama%20drone%20strike/?

  6. Who’s the clown that ok’d a picture of a terrorist murderer at a vigil?

    Are you nitwits for real?

    1. On the plus side, they broadcast a list of everyone who donated in the last donation cycle. So, if you were paying attention, you can personally thank the people who helped make this happen.

  7. The Left are enamored with America’s enemies. They are their heroes, in fact.

    1. LOL

      Russia is clearly our greatest enemy. And these days it’s not “the left” sucking up to Putin.

      #TrumpRussia
      #LibertariansForGettingToughWithRussia

      1. Russia is clearly our greatest enemy.

        Mitt Romney vindicated!

      2. And the left is still repeating the russian talking points and questioning election integrity as russia wanted.

        1. “And the left is still repeating the russian talking points and questioning election integrity as russia wanted.”

          They may be idiots, but at least they are useful…

      3. Russia is clearly our greatest enemy

        Fuck off, McCarthy.

    2. Lefties are the Villains, so it makes sense they love the bad guys.

      1. They always love murdering. Insteps. Look at their love of Che Guevara.

  8. “The American Conservative’s Scott McConnell. “And that Iran—with its prickly, hostile, but partially democratic regime, its large and at least latently pro-Western middle class…should be an implacable enemy.”

    Huh?

    While it’s fair to question about Saudi Arabia (Quebec buys its oil from them but considers Alberta oil ‘dirty’ and refuses to let the pipeline through the province), Iran is a little more than ‘hostile’ and ‘prickly’. It not only tortures murders its own citizens, and is feared by Arab neighbours, it’s a net exporter and funder of terrorist activities on a global scale.

    It’s basically a war-terror state by proxy.

  9. Amazing how many times they dropped Iranian general in the article without mentioning the Quds forces and who they were. Almost like they are pushing a narrative.

    He wasnt some random iranian general on vacation.

    1. “Iraq’s parliament recently gave them the boot as payback for striking the Iranian target while he was in Baghdad.”

      No they didnt. It was a non actionable vote.

      For fuck sakes. Stop getting simple things wrong.

      1. Green hut used the imminent word half a dozen times but somehow barely mentioned the AUMF in passing and only gave brief mention to the american death and embassy attacks. He also failed to mention the 400 americans and tens of thousands killed by Qud backed proxy attacks.

        This is why nobody fucking takes you seriously anymore.

        1. Joe Biden said some similarly stupid stuff recently.

          “No, there was the authorization for the use of military force that was passed by the United States Congress, House, and Senate and signed by the president,” according to Biden. “That was the authority. Does not give authority to go into Iran. It gave authority to deal with these other issues.”

          * The AUMF in Iraq is still an in-place law.
          * The AUMF provides for strikes against terrorists within Iraq.
          * Soleimani was named as a terrorist by several world governments, including the USA, Canada, Egypt, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia.
          * Soleimani was killed by a strike in Iraq (near the Baghdad airport), not in Iran.

          Contrary to Joe’s dissembling, Trump acted within the legal bounds of the current law, duly passed by Congress.

          Unlike a certain other President’s decisions to bomb Syria and Lybia and Yemen and Somilia and Pakistan, where there was zero Congressional approval to do so except under the penumbra of “the war on terror”. In 2010, President Obama directed the CIA to assassinate an American citizen in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki, despite the fact that he had never been charged with (let alone convicted of) any crime, and the agency successfully carried out that order a year later with a September 2011 drone strike.

          Whether one thinks Trump’s actions were right or wrong, Vice President Biden has no leg to stand on in his criticisms of those actions, at least not until he explains that Obama’s administration and the part Biden played in that was at least as wrong as Trump’s.

          1. Sure, but this is Biden, who also thinks that Robert “Beto” O’Rourke is Latino, and Castro was the Secy of the Interior [actually he was HUD]. Biden’s only saving grace is that he gets it so wrong so often that people aren’t astounded by anything anymore, so it gets run over a bit.

            He can’t be expected to know in what country the event he’s talking about took place. I’m still expecting this codger’s campaign to grind to a halt when he forgets himself and sticks his tongue in some girl’s ear before his handlers can spray him down.

  10. Man oh man this piece.

    Fortunately, after threatening on Twitter to attack Iranian cultural sites, Trump decided to back down and move closer to President Barack Obama’s Iranian playbook. That’s OK, because the previous president’s negotiation-oriented policies with Iran—an effort that may even have helped defeat ISIS in the region—is more productive than a policy of bluster and a potential war.

    “Donald Trump started with over-the-top, machismo rhetoric toward Iran,” Politico reported. “He ended by backing down so far that he sounded more like his predecessor.” The unnecessary fracas is particularly bizarre, given those much-circulated Trump tweets from 2011 warning that Obama would start a war with Iran to help get re-elected. Trump threatened war before backing down, so he may be more like Obama on Iran than Obama was himself.

    What were you drinking when you wrote this bull shit to keep you from laughing hard, Mr. Greenhut?

    First, I wouldn’t mind a cite that his posturing with Iran helped ‘defeat’ ISIS. I could have sworn it was asserted ISIS actually got stronger under his watch. Regardless, the claim made in this paragraph is full of shit and ignores, you know, that even if one concedes Obama’s deal worked and it happened as claimed here, it belies the fact the previous administration started a bunch of bad wars itself and was engaged in perpetual war.

    Never mind, Greenhut, Obama took out an actual leader (dictator) of a SOVEREIGN FRICKEN country with ramifications still felt today. Remember, Hilary’s wicked bluff ‘we came, we saw…he’s died?’ Imagine that, a corrupted lunatic war fiend like Hilary mocking such a foolish move.

    Never NEVER mind, that Obama made a delirious mess in Syria.

    1. As for the Iran deal, there have been claims they were asking for – and granted – exemptions which one would have to wonder about the usefulness of the deal:

      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iran-nuclear-exemptions-exclusive-idUSKCN1173LA

      I especially like this part:

      “The deal allowed Iran to meet a 130-tonne limit on heavy water produced at its Arak facility by selling its excess stock on the open market. But with no buyer available, the joint commission helped Tehran meet the sanctions relief deadline by allowing it to send 50 tonnes of the material — which can be used in nuclear weapons production — to Oman, where it was stored under Iranian control, the report said.

      The shipment to Oman of the heavy water that can be used in nuclear weapons production has already been reported. Albright’s report made the new assertion that the joint committee had approved this concession.”

    2. Yeah, Trump runs the country pretty much like Obama. Is that a feature or a bug? Maybe… maybe… Trump should negotiate an Iran nuclear deal so that Iran won’t build a nuclear weapons. I’m sure if he negotiates it that thing will be fucking fantastic as it will have been signed by His Preciousness.

      1. Is this your new talking point?

        1. You mean about negotiating a deal with Iran where they stop enriching uranium and we give them pallets of [their] money? Put me down as a yes. Beats paying for a military occupation or an extrajudicial killing of people who don’t pose a threat to me.

          1. No, that trump is obama. It’s a stupid comparison.

            As for your other idiocy, they never stopped enriching uranium. It is even linked above. You’re just proving you’re gullible.

            1. I pretty much don’t have a problem with Iran building a nuke. That’d keep the US Army out of Teheran. Why do you have a problem with it?

              1. “I pretty much don’t have a problem with Iran building a nuke.”

                That’s because you’re a fucking lefty ignoramus.

              2. I don’t think having a nuke is a problem, per se. It’s the using of nukes that’s a problem. That, and Iran allowing nukes to fall into the hands of terrorists that would use them, but I repeat myself.

              3. So then your cries to return the Iran Deal are basically worthless.

              4. Yeah, paying off terrorists and despots who promise to be good boys if you send them cash…. great idea. Idiot! I’m sure it’s a plan that Yemen, NK, hell… even Russia might get on board. Let’s pay everyone billions every year so they all want to play nice.

                BTW, which threat to you [I note you’re only in this for you and threats to our citizens overseas are irrelevant], was thwarted when Obama bombed Libya?

          2. “extrajudicial killing”

            Oh look, someone learned a new word today!

            1. Yes, much like “emoluments” before MSNBC said it first. Prior to that, all those who use that as a daily reason to impeach thought it was part of Dove cleansing cream.

          3. Soleimani posed a threat to every living American. Let’s not forget that the warrior-poet was the leader of a designated terror group (IRGC). A designation that Congress voted for.

            I was good with killing him, and would do so again without hesitation.

          4. “You mean about negotiating a deal with Iran where they stop enriching uranium and we give them pallets of [their] money?”

            This pile of shit can’t post without including at least one lie.

          5. Bad bargain, since they never stopping enriching uranium and spent the cash Obama handed them on shoring up Quds forces terrorist activities in the region.

  11. “He hasn’t done much to end wars, but he has seemed less likely than others to immerse the country in a new one. On the worst side, he’s unpredictable and narcissistic, and could bumble his way into trouble.

    As of this writing, the country seems to have dodged a bullet. Few people are buying the U.S. government’s unconvincing explanations about “imminent” threats. U.S. troops might finally exit Iraq. A broad-based anti-war movement may be emerging. I never like when governments pound war drums, but Trump’s latest misfire is turning out OK.”

    Phew!

    Talk about a shallow, unoriginal, left-wing piece of smug nonsense.

    What was your stance about Trump wanting to leave Syria? He also hasn’t yet started a single damn war yet you write as if you’re taking a preemptive stance that he will. Sorta like how the Democrats wanted him impeached BEFORE he actually took power.

    Did you consider the taking out of this guy did the Iranians a favor? There was a cult of personality forming around him and he was getting a tad to cocky and hard to control for the Mullahs. He has gone rogue a couple of times and causing problems for the Ayatollah. Which brings me to the head shaking demands for proof of him being an ‘imminent threat’.

    The guys WAS A WALKING IMMINENT THREAT. He’s the guy that caused many of the attacks in the region. The Americans and Israeli had him in their sites and planned to whack him a few times over the last 20 years or so except Obama and Bush nixed it for whatever reasons.

    No, Trump didn’t ‘bumble in and out’ of this. It was a sound move.

    Did you panic like this when Obama whacked high-ranking terrorists? Spare me this one is ‘different’ because it really isn’t.

    1. Greenhhunt’s position is that we didn’t go to war with Iran because the public didn’t believe the claims the general was an iminent threat. According to Greenhunt, Iran backing down and conducting nothing other than a symbolic attack had nothing to do with it.

      Greenhunt is a moron. It is really that simple.

      1. And it presupposes the public stance is a turning point of some kind. ‘THIS TIME!’

        Mind you, the public and Congress did manage to reign Obama in when he wanted to use force in Syria.

        Remember when Obama wanted to do that? I ‘member.

        So does Pepperidge Farm.

  12. When you say ‘few people are buying the U.S. government’s unconvincing explanations about “imminent” threats.” you do realize that ‘few’ means everyone except the Democrats and their leftist allies in and out of the MSM, right?

    1. Progs don’t consider anyone other than themselves to be “people.”

      1. Just another instance of their projection, since its hivemind progs who aren’t people

  13. “WASHINGTON (AP) — Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists’ strike against this country.

    Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”

    —-USA Today, September 6, 2003

    https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-06-poll-iraq_x.htm

    That poll was taken six months after we invaded Iraq. That’s right. Six months after we invaded Iraq, a majority of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. As that realization went away, so did their support for the Iraq War. Many of them found other reasons to support the occupation, but that wasn’t why they supported the initial invasion. They supported the invasion because they believed that Iraq attacked us, particularly with anthrax, and that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11 and collaborated with Al Qaeda.

    The point is that it is wrong to think that Americans have changed significantly in this way since Pearl Harbor, 9/11, the invasion of Iraq, or today. The Americans of 2003 were no more in favor of invading a country for reasons other than self-defense than we are today. They supported the Iraq War because they thought Iraq had perpetrated a Pearl Harbor level attack on the United States. If Iran were to perpetrate such an attack, like Pearl Harbor or 9/11, the American people would rally to support for invading and occupying Iran. Until then, Americans remain largely isolationist–like they always have.

    Incidentally, this is why American wars are typically precipitated by a provocation of some kind. The Chesapeake–Leopard affair, the sinking of the Maine, the sinking of the Lusitania, The Gulf of Tonkin incident, the anthrax attack after 9/11, etc. All of these wars should have been joined or avoided on the basis of whether they were in the best interests of the United States and regardless of the spectacular awfulness of the incidents that preceded them. We remain susceptible to provocation, probably more so than we should be, but those are the exceptions that prove the rule: the American people are generally not interested in foreign adventure unless provoked.

    There is nothing new about that in regards to Iran, and it was the same in Iraq.

  14. Why everyone is confused just join at home online job .This is really good opurtunity for home mom just join this website and Earn money by monthly check .So u cant be miss and join this site as soon as posible .
    Here what i am doo …
    ►►………►► Click For More InFo

  15. What an unbelievably terrible set of arguments.

    The George W. Bush administration had declared war on Iraq based on—how do I put this charitably?—claims about the 9/11 attacks that turned out not to be true. Our government’s endless meddling hasn’t led to a few hundred casualties, but to least 500,000 deaths.

    My favorite recent meme blasts Iran for moving its country so close to dozens of U.S. military installations, thus jokingly getting close to the crux of the issue.

    My favorite element is Greenhut justifying Iran killing our men because our invasion killed Iraqis (he doesn’t even limit himself to the ones we killed, but rather the entire death toll) as if Iran and Iraq are the same country, then invents some other idiotic belief about what others think.

    no explanation has been offered as to how killing one man could thwart an imminent military strike,” opined The Bulwark’s Philip Rotner.

    Further this is a lie. It’s amazing how many Reasoners adopt the far left propaganda techniques the second they become useful despite spending every other second of their lives pretending to oppose them.

    1. The thing that Unreason scribblers (I refuse to call them writers) seem to forget is that POTUS Bush actually went to Congress and got himself a authorization to go to war. You know, that quaint thing that says the Congress has to vote on war? They did.

      We can legitimately argue whether we should have done so, but the facts are the facts: POTUS Bush went about this the right way, in a constitutional sense.

      If I am not mistaken, those right wingers Brain-Damaged Biden and Ketchup King Kerry actually voted for the Iraq war authorization.

      1. 29 (58%) of 50 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Those voting for the resolution were:

        Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

        1. That resolution also began life under the Serial Rapist/Gore administration, both of whom were convinced that Saddam had those WMDs that we know he had, because we sold them to him and watched while he used them on the Kurds.

          This is an inconvenient truth to the Dems, hence the continuance of the, “Bush illegally started the Iraq War all by himself based on a lie just to persecute those poor Baathist saints”.

  16. OMG, I got my draft card in the mail!!!

    1. Well, how you gonna fight WWIII without cannon fodder?

  17. We didn’t go to war with Iran. We killed a terrorist in Iraq, which the president is authorized to do under the AUMF.
    “On the worst side, he’s unpredictable and narcissistic, and could bumble his way into trouble.”
    I keep hearing statements like this concerning Trump whether it’s Iran or “WWIII” with N. Korea. People who continue to make this argument need to explain how Trump supposedly continues to slip on banana peels yet lands perfect back-flips. I’m not saying the guy is Einstein, but give the dude a little credit.

    1. Tim Pool fan, eh?

  18. As usual for Reason, there is a lot of stupid in here.

    Let me start off by saying I don’t think we should be doing SHIT in the ME. It’s a shithole that is all about killing each other, as it has been for thousands of years. Nobody is going to fix it if it isn’t the people there themselves, so we shouldn’t waste our time. If they want to go to war with each other, AWESOME! We should sell arms to both sides!

    That said, the reason we’re friends with the Saudi’s and not Iran is simple: SA isn’t a pain in our ass at the government level. Many SAs are probably fine with America, but they clearly have a lot of jihadi types too, BUT their government doesn’t seem to support that… Even if some individuals in their government do.

    Iran on the other hand is all about being a thorn in our side, on purpose. They would be less of a thorn if we weren’t meddling, but their government is officially anti western. As with SA their populace may have mixed feelings, but the official policy is why we have the relationship situation we do.

    As for the rest… Sometimes when you’re dumb enough to get yourself into a situation, you have to bluff/fight your way out. I think we should pull all troops out, and make an explicit promise we won’t go back for anything.

    The single caveat being that if any nation attacks any of our soldiers or civilians anywhere in the world we will bomb them into the stone age, destroy the entirety of their military infrastructure, and lots of civilian infrastructure to really twist the knife in them… And then not do a damn thing to help that nation, because nation building is for suckers. We’ll just level their nation from the sky and leave them to twist, incurring basically minimal costs for us.

    That leave little upside for a nation to attack us, as they won’t even get the bogged down land war some of them might secretly desire if they’re zealots. I could get behind that foreign policy, especially since I don’t think we’d have to use it. But if Iran wants to invade Iraq, sounds good to me! Sell them both arms! If the Saudis or Israel doesn’t like it, then let them do something about it… We’ll sell them weapons too! Fuck trying to police that disaster.

    1. “They would be less of a thorn if we weren’t meddling”

      Considering most of the meddling the Obama administration spent 8 years conducting was to the direct benefit or Iran and it’s proxy terrorist armies?

      The reason Iran is always so vocal about Israel and US “meddling” in the US is to throw attention away from the fact that they’ve spent the entirety of the Caliphate’s existence trying to take over the rest of the ME.

      1. Sure, they want to extend their influence or maybe even directly take over other countries int he region… The thing is we’ve actively tried to thwart them in that goal… Which is meddling.

        The question is: Why should we give a fuck if Iran takes over Iraq? Most of the Iraqis would probably be totally fine with that happening.

        If we weren’t fucking with them for long enough to where the anti American sentiment died down a bit, a large, powerful, single nation to deal with in the ME would probably be just the ticket for stability. The Ottoman Empire was sure as shit a lot easier to deal with than all the mess there is there now.

        So why should we care? If we weren’t thwarting them I’m sure they’d gladly sell the west oil… And what else do we really need from that backwards ass region? The USA doesn’t even need the oil anymore for that matter.

        So I say let Iran and Saudi Arabia duke it out over who the baddest ass cat in that neck of the woods is, because for us it really doesn’t matter. It’s just control freaks and utopian morons that think it makes shit all of difference for us, and they’re both idiots and assholes.

        1. KSA would be militarily crushed by Iran in less than a month. They (KSA) would resort to using a nuke. And I am certain KSA has access to a nuke.

          1. You talking about the Saudi’s? Their military is kind of a joke training wise from what I know, but they have waaay better kit. If they knew we weren’t going to directly protect them, they’d probably get their training in order.

            One of the newer jets we sell to them can probably take out an infinite number of Iranian planes if it comes to it because of the tech gap. So I think they’d at least be able to hold their own if they were given notice we won’t have their ass anymore.

            Also, I don’t think they can gets nukes from anywhere, unless we just hand them one.

  19. Trump killed a general responsible for murdering a embassy full of people and then backed off.

    The Iranian Islamofascist Caliphate responded by murdering a plane full of innocents, initially denying the act, and then rooting their media and Regressive Left politico puppets to re-brand it an “accidental crash” that was somehow Trump’s fault in that magical, privileged way that Muslims are never to be held accountable for their actions.
    Reason predictably jumped on this bandwagon faster than you can say, “Every time Iran attacks a shipping vessel in international waters, it’s really magically somehow America staging a false flag attack to start a war that never comes”.

    At this rate, the Reason “Libertarian” staff will be demanding we hurl gays from rooftops to buy back the love of dear, sweet, innocent peaceful Iran who never did nothin’ wrong no how. I bet it grates on you that we can’t sacrifice Salman Rushdie on the altar of appeasement,

  20. Hopefully this shows that Americans are developing a new attitude towards war in general. I’m kind of afraid that this new found war skepticism is a result of Trump’s unpopularity, and that as soon as a more popular president is elected it will go away.

    1. It says nothing about the American public’s tolerance for war because the US government never pursued a war in Iran.

      They attacked an embassy, we blew up their boy, they fired a bunch of rockets at nothing and that’s where it ended. At no point did the Trump admin formally seek to start a war in Iran only to be shot down by public opinion.

      I’d be thrilled if there was some story here about Americans learning to be less war hungry, but it just isn’t there.

  21. It’s articles like this that make me glad libertarians don’t run our military. Here’s what President Greenhut would say:

    “Yes general, I know their army has attacked us in the past, and I know we could take out their command structure easily and prevent future attacks, but are they getting ready to attack us now, right this minute? We need to wait until we take casualties before we can start fighting back.”

  22. I feel confident Greenhut was sufficiently spanked here.

    Do better.

    1. Nah, a few more smacks upside his head are appropriate…. 🙂

    2. Does he still have a job?
      Then no, greenhut has not been sufficiently disciplined

  23. >>As of this writing, the country seems to have dodged a bullet.

    over the cliff haughty. you know who didn’t dodge the bullet?

    1. JFK?

    2. Alexander Hamilton?

    3. The Terminator?

  24. This is how I see it. As long as the u.s. has to act as the police nation of the world then there are going to be certain inherent responsibilities. If people are going to step of line and hurt others then someone has to step in and take control. We’ve seen the United Nations is worthless. This shouldn’t be our job though. We should pull all our forces back and let other nations sort their own problems out. We could do alot of work right here in America with the money that’s spent on all of our military endeavors. So just because you and the rest of reason staff have TDS Greenhut doesn’t mean you should be hating on him for something that Trump had to inherit. I’m sure he never wanted this problem but he’s dealing with it probably in the most real way you can.

    1. “something that Trump had to inherit”

      When Trump came to office, he had a deal with the Iranians on nuclear development, and the US was cooperating with Iran military and others in destroying ISIS. If relationships have deteriorated since then, Trump can’t blame his predecessors.

      1. That deal was never formally adopted here, it was toothless. There’s also a lot of evidence the Iranians were violating it and never had any intention of following it anyways.

        Trump can blame his predecessor for getting the US into a deal that was worthless, which then needed some action to rectify. Trump didn’t inherit a “clean” Iran situation that he then ruined, the deck was stacked against him from day 1.

        1. “That deal was never formally adopted here”

          Formal adoption is not really important. Informal arrangements between potentially hostile parties can keep the peace for years. (see Formosa and China) Intelligence agencies reporting to Trump assure us that Iran was keeping its side of the deal. Trump decided to renege anyway, a move that seems only to have encouraged nuclear development in Iran rather than discouraging it.

          ” Trump didn’t inherit a “clean” Iran situation that he then ruined”

          I’d say since Trump became president the Iran situation has not improved. We’ve gone from an agreement to no agreement, and military cooperation to military confrontation. I know you want to blame Obama for this, but Trump is responible.

          1. What the fuck are even saying. We had deal a deal but it doesn’t matter?
            We shouldn’t even be involved over there, but if they cause problems their gonna have to deal with repercussions.

            1. “We had deal a deal but it doesn’t matter?”

              A formal agreement can work. So can an informal agreement. Such as the one between China (PRC) and Taiwan (ROC) that has kept the peace for decades. You shouldn’t let yourself be spooked by the fact that Obama’s agreement with Iran didn’t have a formal footing.

              “but if they cause problems their gonna have to deal with repercussions.”

              Problem is Americans don’t want repercussions. Repercussions might lead to dead Americans and damaged property. They want the stability of the status quo.

              1. I don’t know why Im responding to you, you probably cried when Castro died.

                1. “I don’t know why Im responding to you”

                  Neither do I. You’ve evidently nothing better than inane taunts.

          2. “Intelligence agencies reporting to Trump assure us that Iran was keeping its side of the deal.”

            Categorically false.
            They tried to hide their prior research on developing nuclear weapons, they ran more advanced centrifuges than stipulated, they enriched uranium to a higher level than stipulated, and they produced more heavy water than stipulated.
            And because of that first item, there at no point in compliance

            1. American intelligence agencies saw no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. You’re problem is you can’t take yes for an answer.

              1. Again, categorically false.

      2. Can’t blame Trump because some camel jockey starts doing bad things dumbass.

        1. You can blame Trump because he’s president and must be held responsible for his actions, or lack of actions. It was Trump who reneged on the Obama deal, and it was under Trump when relationships between Iran and the US deteriorated from military cooperation to military confrontation.

          1. Nope. Solemani being removed is a good thing,. You can prostrate all you want, but making deals with countries that harbor murderers is stupid and pointless, but please tell me where did the orange man touch you.

            1. I still don’t know why you are responding to me.

      3. mtrueman….where to begin.

        When Trump came to office, he had a deal with the Iranians on nuclear development
        A deal the Iranians were serially violating.

        and the US was cooperating with Iran military and others in destroying ISIS.
        A more accurate desription is US/Iran had discrete zones of action, and never the twain met. Is that cooperation? Not to me.

        If relationships have deteriorated since then, Trump can’t blame his predecessors.
        What relationship?

        POTUS Obama made a serious mistake in execution. In his rush to conclude a deal during his presidency, he gave up on closing off permanently a path to a nuke. He did that.

        Until then, I am perfectly content strangling Iran, and killing off their leadership when they happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I ean, it was all just accidental that Soleimani found himself at the Baghdad Airport at 1am with a militia leader who was responsible for an attack on our embassy.

        Dude, mtrueman is a really ironic alias considering the false shit you are putting out for consumption.

  25. Some points;

    1) We have been at wear with Iran for forty years. That was not our decision. There is no question of “pushing into war”; we are AT war, and are likely to remain at war until the passel of psychotics that run Iran decides otherwise. Negotiating with them is futile, as they have demonstrated time and again that they will not honor any terms o they agree to if the whim strikes them.

    2) Killing Soleimani makes us more secure, not less. It was a reaction obviously connected to recent behavior. It reminds the various violent operators out there that every once in a while the United States will swat a bug. It is believable. The ‘We’re better than that’ narrative isn’t especially believable. Presenting the world with a not especially believable narrative causes confusion and encourages mistakes.

    3) The way to end ‘endless war’ is to avoid long term projects like ‘nation building’ in favor of short sharp shocks. If new have invaded Iraq, shattered its government, hunted down Saddam and killed him, and the LEFT, life would be a lot simpler. Nice, simple object lesson; ‘Come to our negative attention and we will invade your country and kill your government. We don’t much care what you do to each–other.”

    1. Pertaining to point three. People always give reasons like well we have to help these people or a new “bad” regime will take over or we can foster positive democracy in other countries. Then there’s also the reason we stay in countries like natural resources, or the conspiracy idea that the military endeavors industrial complex just needs more funding. Fuck all that. Just like your point, get in, drop the hammer and get out. We have more important things to worry about here at home. Hell we might be at the beginning of a new civil war with what Virginia is doing.

      1. “Just like your point, get in, drop the hammer and get out.”

        Works for places like Libya, Panama and Grenada. It certainly won’t work against countries like China or Russia, countries that actually have the capacity to inflict big damage on US and allies.

        1. Well we aren’t in China or Russia so your point fucking moot.

          1. So your strategy only applies to countries that pose no threat. What do you propose when say Russia or China does bad things? It seems to be something other than get in, drop the hammer, and get out. I’d like you to elaborate.

            1. I never said Iran doesn’t pose a threats. But that’s Trump s justification killing solemani because he did and has. And stop acting like a whole country is the problem. Its those in power. If they pose a threats, get rid of them. Id treat China and Russia the same way. If that means a nuclear war fuck it, world needs thinning out anyways.

              1. “If that means a nuclear war fuck it, world needs thinning out anyways.”

                Trouble is, Americans might die or sustain injuries in such a war. Maybe you don’t mind, but Americans prefer the status quo.

            2. The truth is we will never go to war with Russia or China, because we all have shit tons of nukes.

              IF anything important ever comes up where we are diametrically opposed, it will be a Vietnam situation. But the thing is there’s probably almost nothing we should be willing to go to war over anyway. What shit will China do that is worth risking a nuclear war, or even Vietnam 2.0?

              Maybe invading Taiwan or something? That would suck, and I’d really feel for the Taiwanese… But even with that I don’t think it’d be worth sticking our noses into that situation. If we really wanted to fix that shit, we would just sell Taiwan a bunch of nukes. Then mainland China wouldn’t invade them either. Ditto for any nations people are afraid Russia will attack.

        2. There have always been practical limitations to what was called ‘Gunboat Diplomacy’, but where applicable, it worked more often than not.

          1. I think it’s unsound to pursue a strategy of escalation where there’s no resolve to actually go to war. I’m not at sure what Trump’s got in mind as an endgame, but maybe diplomacy is more effective than a half hearted military confrontation which might provoke a damaging whole hearted military response. The Iranians have a lot more at stake than Americans.

            1. Nobody wants to NATION BUILD.

              If Iran really did start a proper war with us, I’d be okay with using the US airforce and missiles to destroy every single military installation, ever military factory, and fuck up their civilian infrastructure to teach them a lesson. Then GTFO. Not ONE single boot on the ground. Well, maybe a Seal Team 6 to whack the Ayatollah, but nothing beyond that.

              The cost to us would actually be very minimal, and the utter chaos would potentially lead to a domestic revolution that might go in a better direction… If the regime remained in power after that devastation we’d still be no worse off.

              But nation building is for idiots.

              1. “The cost to us would actually be very minimal”

                The cost would increase if the Iranians decided to fight back.

                1. No it wouldn’t.

                  We shouldn’t have shit in the ME for them to attack, and the have ZERO projection power.

                  Their equipment is so inferior that I doubt we’d lose a half dozen planes in taking out their entire military. We lost basically nothing in taking out Afghanistan and Iraq, and it would be the same with them.

                  What killed us in our other adventures was trying to fight a ground war. If we just missile and bomb the shit out of them, we will have very little loss of life, while completely crippling them in a matter of a couple weeks. They’d lose most of their capacity to respond within 24-48 hours. THAT is the level of air power the USA has.

                  As long as we never put boots on the ground we’d only be dealing with political ramifications, which would probably not be much since everybody thinks they’re dicks (including Russia and China that only back them to spite us), and potentially terrorist attacks in the future. If we had enough of a reason to bomb them into the stone age, even a lot of the Iranians that don’t like their government might not mind much if we’re targeting mostly military facilities. As I said it could cause a revolution and a shift to a saner government. Probably not though.

            2. Who is doing the escalating? That question is moot.

              Diplomacy, backed by a credible military deterrent and the demonstrated will to use it, is more effective than what we had under POTUS Obama.

              Yes, Iran has much more to lose. POTUS Trump intends to make them lose more and more until they actually change their behavior. Seems pretty simple. Iran’s behavior directly affects the degree of strangulation and military deterrence it receives. How quaint, right? In the old days, we used to call that owning the consequence of your malign behavior.

    2. “1) We have been at wear with Iran for forty years. ”

      Not true. During Trump’s first years in office the US and Iran were not at war, they were collaborating in the liberation of Mosul and defeating ISIS.

      2) Killing Soleimani makes us more secure

      That feeling of security is illusory. Whether Soleimani is living or dead, gay or straight. married or single doesn’t affect Iran’s capacity to inflict damage on US and partners.

      “3) The way to end ‘endless war’ is to avoid long term projects like ‘nation building’ in favor of short sharp shocks. ”

      This may work for the weak and powerless countries. But it won’t work for countries like China and Russia which would probably require nuclear strikes kill their governments. If you haven’t the stomach for nuclear conflagration, be prepared to settle for endless economic sanctions.

      1. Actually, I think it might be salutary if a nuke or three were used across the world, and it didn’t bring about the end of the world. The bombs dropped on Japan didn’t even keep the Japanese out of the two cities involved for as long as a decade, and (contrary to anti-nuke hysteria) this didn’t result in massive e spikes in cancer deaths.

        *shrug*

        However, taking down a major country and schooling a small one on the unwisdom of attacking the West are two very different propositions. In the aftermath of WWII (and to some degree stemming from decisions reaching back to WWI) the West has been absurdly tentative about dealing with Their World (and even Second World) kleptocracies…and this hasn’t been much good for anyone other than the actual kleptocrats.

        1. “However, taking down a major country and schooling a small one on the unwisdom of attacking the West are two very different propositions.”

          Would you advise Iran to form an alliance with a major country to shield them from the consequences of attacking the West? Or is it enough for them to have their own nuclear arsenal?

          1. The question you have to ask yourself is would Russia or China REALLY do shit if we fucked up Iran?

            The answer is NO. They will bluff all they want about it, just like we bluff about Taiwan. But I bet if China invaded Taiwan, or we obliterated Iran, neither of us would do shit. Maybe some symbolic stuff, or Vietnam style proxy war, but no direct involvement. Nobody wants a nuclear holocaust, not even the Communist Chinese.

            1. If Iran can’t trust China, then maybe they will develop their own nuclear weapons.

              1. And that’s exactly what they want to do.

                The fact is if you’re a country that doesn’t want to suck US/European/Russian/Chinese dick… You HAVE to have nukes.

                There’s a reason nobody will ever invade North Korea, and it’s nuclear fucking weapons.

                So while I can’t blame them for wanting them, I obviously am not keen on as crazy a nation as them having them.

                Personally I think we should have a lot more nuclear powers. It would probably reduce war. If the Ukraine still had a large nuclear arsenal, I don’t think they’d be very worried about Russia doing shit to them. They could have a public standing policy that if they’re ever invaded they will launch a single nuke at some mid level target to show they’re serious, and if shit doesn’t chill out from there then more will be used.

                Nukes are a HELL of a deterrent, and if the right nations had them, I think the world would be a lot more polite place. Taiwan should get some, as should Japan, and a shit ton of eastern European nations.

      2. Peace-loving Muslims have been an “imminent” threat to all non-Muslims since its creation in the mid 600s.

    3. The Bush Administration intended to leave Iraq just as soon as we got Hussein. Thus (for example) the decision to disband the Iraqi Army rather than using it as a tool of administration. We were going to shatter the Iraqi regime, recognize a transitional government, and be gone before the civil war started in the power vacuum we created.

      The problem is that Hussein managed to hide in the spider hole until December, and the insurgency/civil war began in October. If Saddam Hussein had died with his sons in July 2003, we’d have been largely out of Iraq over the next few weeks, and clucked some words of sympathy when the Iraqi civil war started in the fall. Instead, we were delayed long enough that everybody started talking about a “Pottery Barn rule”.

      1. Which was Saddam’s plan.
        He never really prepared a defense, he prepared an insurgency.
        And we walked right into it.
        Taking out Saddam was unnecessary.

  26. A broad-based anti-war movement may be emerging.

    You’re reading way too much into this. If the President were a Democrat, the left-liberal anti-war movement would still be in hibernation, and Democrat partisans would be praising the assassination of Soleimani. This emerging “anti-war movement” is just a tactic of the continuing anti-Trump movement.

    1. Man, back in ’05 I watched full-grown adults doing the “Hokey-Pokey” over how much they hated Bush due to his invasion of Iraq. As in, legit doing the dance and singing about it in tune.

      Then, magically, liberals forgot we were at war as soon as January 2009 rolled around. Now they’re anti-war again, only this time it comes with forcing themselves to support a regime that throws gay men from rooftops.

      Absolutely pathetic.

      1. Gay men are no longer considered a marginalized identity unless they’re colored. Try to keep up.

        1. Well, some Iranians are kind of colored. So there’s that…

          Side Note: Interestingly “proper” Persians, who tend to be whiter, more likely to have light eyes, etc tend to look down on the other ethnic groups in Iran. Hence some Iranians practically look Italian or Spanish, and others look like a stereotypical Middles Easterner.

          1. Some Iranians are more than “kind of colored”. There are still communities descended from African slaves there.

            1. How many black people are there that REALLY are black though? Not many I’d wager. Maybe a few Corey Bookers running around, but probably not too many Snoop Doggs!

          2. Persians are Aryan
            Arabs are Semitic

            1. Depends on which Klan you belong to. They all seem to have different rules.

            2. Well that was my whole point. The “proper” Persians think of themselves as being superior to a lot of the other ethnicities that are within the modern day borders of Iran, because they’re Aryan.

              In all honesty a lot of this stuff does get a bit silly… Everything from Scotland to India is Caucasian, but I don’t think any sensible person would consider a Saudi or Indian to be “white” per se.

              Once you get to slicing and dicing the difference between an Arab and a Persian it’s cutting it pretty thin. Persians do look a little more like Europeans than some other Caucasians (like Indians or Arabs), although obviously they’re not. But all that stuff is a gradient transition zone and whatnot anyway.

              But everybody’s got to have somebody to bitch about I guess, and those other ethnicities give Persians their folks to bitch about.

              1. I don’t think any sensible person would consider a Saudi or Indian to be “white”

                Sensible people don’t think about such things at all. Only racist whackos like you are bothered about who is or isn’t “white”.

                1. LOL

                  Except THE ENTIRE WORLD thinks about it.

                  Go ask a Persian if he’s an Arab and see what he has to say about that shit!

                  Not to mention that ALL the leftists do is harp on about race, who falls into what category, is somebody white enough/black enough blah blah blah to have a “valid” opinion on a given racial issue, etc.

                  And I’m not really racist in the real and original sense of the word. I don’t hate any group, I just accept the reality that there is variation between groups, and that cultural issues matter too. I live in reality instead of a utopian la la land like morons like you.

                  1. Yeah, those are the racists’ two greatest hits—”I’m just a realist” and “everybody does it.”

    2. “This emerging “anti-war movement” is just a tactic of the continuing anti-Trump movement.”

      How do you take Pat Buchanan? Has he suddenly succumbed to TDS or become an unwitting stooge of the liberal elite? He thinks our problems with Iran would best be ironed out with diplomacy, appeasement essentially. Haven’t checked but I figure the Stalinist ANSWER is calling for the same thing. That’s about as broad a base you could hope for. That’s good for the anti war movement because with numbers it could swing voting across the nation, rather than only in states where one party dominates.

      “This emerging “anti-war movement” is just a tactic of the continuing anti-Trump movement.”

      The corollary: pro Trump is pro War

      1. Please try to follow the conversation if you’re going to comment.

        1. Pat Buchanan is not anti-Trump. Yet he is against the war. You might even say part of the anti war movement.

          1. Please read my posts before responding to them.

            1. I did. And I pointed out that your notion of anti-war sentiment as being anti Trump is claptrap. Twice.

              1. Because you didn’t respond to what I actually wrote.

                1. You wrote that the anti war movement was anti Trump. It’s idiotic. Trump came to office on an anti war platform. It seems to be about the only thing he’s sincerely believed in over the decades.

                  1. I’ll just let you go on talking to yourself. Have fun.

  27. The Pentagon has not backed up Trump’s claims of exigency, so I don’t think this is really about the claims of ‘government officials’ as a group. It’s really the favorite ‘non-interventionist’ President of Rand Paul, Peter Thiel, and Justin Raimondo. Libertarians have to be as critical of themselves as they are ruthlessly critical of everyone else.

  28. I’m convinced a terrorist that everyone wanted dead is in fact now dead. Mission accomplished. Everything else is blather. We’ve done this for decades. Get over it.

  29. A broad-based anti-war movement may be emerging.

    And you may get your free pony any day now.

    No US teenagers coming home in body bags, no broad-based anti-war movement. See:

    We came.

    We saw.

    He died.

  30. Our concerns have several metrics: the market dipped/petroleum jumped, normal knee-jerk and media sound bite. The fraction of the population that votes continues to shrink, in support of what does it matter? Polls tell us what a thousand people think about loaded questions, and like FDR, we will/have let our defenses go to sleep so an attack will come, excusing more empire building!
    Fun times for all!
    And still, we have yet to whack Saudi’s.

  31. Wishful thinking at best. After Vietnam, we activists thought there was a collective lesson well learned by American public, long before WMD became the next Tonkin attack.
    Why does the author repet Trump’s false claim that USA had a role in defeat of ISIS. ISIS was manufactured by Hillary’s Dept. of State and ISIS enjoyed uninhibited expansion. By the time Trump came to power, Russia and Turkey to smaller degree, has ISIS fully engaged and on the run. Russiphobia limited the propaganda in corporate news, but Trump dragged his feet in cooperating with Russia so that USA lost credibility in the rest of the world to Russian airpower. Trump failed to repudiate the war against Assad; the war that gave rise to the ISIS mercenaries hired by Hillary. He didn’t follow Hillary’s “civil war” characterizations closely, but he didn’t repudiate it either. The only collective lesson that is positive is the unprecedented distrust of MSM propaganda regime.

    1. The truth is Vietnam had a lot more valid arguments going for it than Iraq ever did.

      I used to think Vietnam was just obviously dumb… But after learning more history, at the time, I can understand how the domino theory made sense. Nobody knew the USSR would collapse in 1969 or whatever. Communist China never DID collapse, and is on its way to being the most powerful country in the world.

      Also, don’t forget we had more or less just “won” a seemingly identical war in Korea. We at least saved half the country, which we considered good enough for a win.

      In all truth, if we hadn’t sapped communist resources fighting those wars and others, there really is no way to know what might have happened. If the west had simply allowed Russia and the Chinese to topple any government in the world without resistance, it is entirely possible they may have toppled enough nations to have remained a real threat. Who knows.

      Either way, there was NEVER any chance of Afghanistan or Iraq becoming major problems.

  32. The simplest , and most likely true explanation, is that Trump wanted to send a strong message to Iran but that he was not interested in war. In that, he was very successful. It was a risky move. Iran could have retaliated in a way that demanded a bigger response. But Trump called their bluff and luckily their “response” did not lead to US casualties. And then Trump got a lucky break that Iran was incompetent enough to shoot one of their own civilian planes.

    If there was any doubt about who is top dog in mid east, it has been erased. US cleanly took out Iran’s top military strategist. They accidentally shot down one of their own planes in response. Score so far Trump 1 Iran 0.

    1. Certainly the deaths of those civilians in the passenger plane is nothing to celebrate. Call it war, armed conflict or whatever it sucks. This is what always happens. Yippee we win. Game over.

  33. There were injured troops it turns out but Trump nor anybody could have known at the time because they have symptoms of concussive brain injury which can take days to become apparent.

    I do not believe that anyone can predict the long term consequences there. We are doing more harm than good and have been for more than a decade.

    My only criticism is that we should not have a military presence there in the first place. It is over as is Afghanistan.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.