MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

What Americans Really Think About ISIS (Reason-Rupe Poll, October 2014)

"There seems to be a sort of collective amnesia problem regarding the Iraq War," says Reason Foundation polling director Emily Ekins.

Ekins is referring to a question contained in the October 2014 Reason-Rupe poll, which found that 51 percent of Americans recall opposing the Iraq invasion in 2003. In reality, Pew found that most Americans—72 percent—supported the war at the time of the invasion. Ekins says its fairly common to find such discrepancies in public opinion polling. People tend to want to say they supported the winner and opposed the loser.

"And this tells us something about how Americans view the Iraq War," says Ekins.

Reason TV questioned a handful of passersby in Venice, California, to illustrate some Americans' attitudes toward the current military intervention against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Here are some key findings from the October poll:

Air strikes are popular.

Some 66 percent of Americans favor airstrikes to combat ISIS in Iraq and Syria. This was a fairly consistent finding across age groups and partisans, with one glaring exception: Young people. Fifty-one percent of respondents younger than 30 oppose airstrikes.

Ground troops are unpopular.

Most Americans oppose sending ground troops to combat ISIS. Only 43 percent favor John McCain and Lindsey Graham's preferred solution.

Congress is shirking its duty when it comes to foreign policy in the minds of most Americans.

A whopping 78 percent of Americans believe Congress should return from recess to vote one way or another on an authorization for the use of military force against ISIS. Most people think Congress hasn't done so because its members don't want to put a vote on the official record. 

Americans are increasingly concerned about the potential unintended consequences of intervention.

Fifty-five percent of Americans oppose the United States arming Syrian rebels, and 78 percent believe there is a chance such weapons would eventually be used against the U.S.

"Americans are going to appreciate politicians who can demonstrate an ability to be deliberative, but also strong, in how they make foreign policy decisions," says Ekins.

Watch the full video above, or click below for downloadable versions. And subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for daily content like this.

Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Camera by Paul Detrick. Music by Chris Zabriskie.

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.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Americans secretly think ISIS is sorta cute, but we'd rather ask our friends if they find out from ISIS if they think we're cute back before saying anything.

  • C. Anacreon||

    I think it would be cute if Obama would sing "We're only making plans for ISIL" to the tune of the old XTC song "Making Plans for Nigel".

  • Sudden||

    Only 55% oppose arming Syrian rebels, while 78% think said arms would be used against the U.S.

    WTF? Good god the American public is stupid. As proven by the elections of George Bush and Barack Obama as well as the Denver Broncos now being America's team.

  • John Galt||

    The "Broncos now being America's team." Has someone been cutting America's breast milk supply with powerful psychotropic ding-dongs..

  • AlmightyJB||

    You're making me thirsty.

  • jmomls||

    *Fifty-one percent of respondents younger than 30 oppose airstrikes.*

    Huh. I thought there'd be a higher percentage of retarded under-30 year olds out there.

  • hrsdty||

    There seems to be collective amnesia at reasontv if they think we first intervened in Iraq in 2003.

    (Also, I'm really glad that footage on Venice Beach didn't catch me walking out of my clinic with, er, medicine.)

  • Rich||

    Americans expect actions against ISIS to last two years

    Why? Because Obama will be out in two years?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I just thought of something - instead of polling Millennials, why doesn't Reason poll SoCons about foreign intervention, economic liberty, national debt, hassling small business, MJ, etc?

    Of course, they'd have to come up with an intelligent definition of SoCon - someone who believes in the traditional family, opposes abortion, etc.

    I bet, for instance, that the proportion of SoCons who support socialism will be *less* that the proportion of Millennials who do so.

    Of course, there are some Millennial SoCons, aren't there? Better get to work polling *them,* at least.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Of course, they'd have to come up with an intelligent definition of SoCon

    SoCon- Someone who thinks with their Bible instead of their brain.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I think I begin to see the problem.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    ...with the definitions used at Reason.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    This is the sort of thinking by which even someone who's dumber as a box of rocks can consider themselves intelligent as long as they make the right noises about "superstition," "sky-fairies," and the "Flying Spaghetti Monster."

    This automatically makes even the worst crystal-healing, vaccine-denying ignoramus smarter than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis de Sales, Gregor Mendel, etc., etc.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    "Yeah, I think vaccines cause autism, GMOs make me tremble in knock-kneed terror, I think the socialists have some good points, and anything "organic" makes me swoon in ecstasy, but because I roll my eyes at any mention of God, I'm an instant intellectual!"

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    No, Eddie, it doesn't.

    You and many other SoCons here are fairly libertarian. You follow libertarian principle right up to the point where that principle conflicts with your religion. At that point, you abandon rational thought and follow your superstition. I assume you do this because you value your beliefs more than consistency of principled thought, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I'm glad you don't want to put words in my mouth, otherwise I would think you weren't fairly representing my position!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    It's my theory/observation. I cannot, however, prove it.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Then it would be a hypothesis, not a theory.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Then it would be a hypothesis, not a theory.

    Yes, you are correct and because I used the wrong word, I must be wrong. Thanks Bo, you win.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Come on, may, I'm just yanking your chain!

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    And see below-Bo seems to be on your side.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    come one, *man*

  • VG Zaytsev||

    You follow libertarian principle right up to the point where that principle conflicts with your religion

    SoCons are Christians and a separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of christianity (though frequently ignored). So there isn't as much conflict between libertarianism and christianity as you imagine.

    Hell, the foundational principle of libertarianism - the non-aggression principle is just a rephrasing of Christ's admonition to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    SoCons are Christians and a separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of christianity (though frequently ignored). So there isn't as much conflict between libertarianism and christianity as you imagine.

    If...I repeat, IF they can believe something is morally wrong, yet seek to make no law against it, you are correct, the gap narrows and the tent is big enough for all. This is why I don't begrudge anyone their religion, so long as they don't impose it on others.

    The difference between us is that I, as an atheist (or whatever I am), DEFINE morality as adherence to the NAP. I believe an action to be moral if it adheres to it and immoral if it doesn't. The NAP defines right and wrong as opposed to what is written in some book. My morality is derived from rational thought as opposed to being dictated from some third party.

    So I believe that prostitution, homosexuality, taking drugs, gambling... should not only NOT be legislated, but are actually moral behaviors.

    But we can still live together, despite our differences.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "the foundational principle of libertarianism - the non-aggression principle is just a rephrasing of Christ's admonition to do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

    Not really, since there are people who will, at least in theory, accept that coercion directed at them is ok (the price we pay for civilization etc.), and so they will happily do unto others.

    "a separation of church and state is a fundamental principle of christianity"

    Fundamental?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Mark 12:17

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    A great verse, but fundamental?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Nah, just a throwaway line, pay it no heed.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    This automatically makes even the worst crystal-healing, vaccine-denying ignoramus smarter than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis de Sales, Gregor Mendel, etc., etc.

    That's 70% of the appeal of progressivism.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Oh, and the Christians did yeoman's work in rejecting the old conflation of the secular rulers with the divine order. The Egyptians made Pharaoh into a God, other pagan states made the secular rulers the priests. Christianity contrasted the City of Man with the City of God, and emphasized that while the state was mortal and would eventually die, human beings were immortal with an immortal destiny. Likewise, there was a natural law and a divine law which superseded any merely human decrees.

    This is our Western heritage, and it was very helpful to modern philosophers of liberty. They didn't start from scratch, even if they want to throw away the ladder they climbed up.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    Now, with the idea of government as the outlet of our idealistic and humane impulses, we are reverting to pagan statolatry - with the help of misguided Christians (frequently on the Left) who see the government as perfecting the world to prepare the Reign of Christ.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Huh. That's. . .a really great way to think about that.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I think elements of that heritage you point to are important, but there were also aspects of Christianity that backed absolutism (Paul's direction to obey the temporal rulers as God has given them the power of the sword for good reason). Supposedly it was difficult to find someone willing to be the actual executioner of Charles because they thought they might get struck down for harming the King.

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    (a) Divine Right of Kings was contrary to Catholic, if not Anglican, doctrine. (b) Chopping off Charles' head based on a highly unfair trial was not a righteous act, so I can understand would-be executioners having scruples here.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    They were more worried about the divine right of kings stuff than due process doubts.

    And your doctrine is nice and all, but I was talking about the Scriptures.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Cosmo- someone that thinks with their cocktail instead of their brain.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Ha ha, the epithet which keeps on giving.

    Paleo-conservatives who would like people they are pro-liberty, as long as it doesn't conflict with any of their core conservative beliefs.

  • RussianPrimeMinister||

    Every time someone says "Paleo-Conservative" I imagine a huge neanderthal wearing a tie over his animal furs, beating his chest and screaming about gay marriage.

    "Ugh hate gays! Ugh propose law allowing Ugh to bash gays with club!"

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    "Why Ug have press 1 for proto-Euskara!?"

    "Ug say no to undocumented Indo-European migrations; illegal no just a sick bird!"

  • Ken Shultz||

    "51 percent of Americans recall opposing the Iraq invasion in 2003. In reality, Pew found that most Americans—72 percent—supported the war at the time of the invasion."

    That's a classic symptom of people being sold a bait and switch. No, they don't remember signing onto an occupation to make Iraq an American style Democracy. 72% of Americans never signed on for that.

    You know what 70% of Americans did sign on for?

    Posted 9/6/2003 8:10 AM

    Poll: 70% believe Saddam, 9-11 link

    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."

    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com.....iraq_x.htm

  • Ken Shultz||

    Notice the date?

    That's right! Six months after we invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. That's for a few reasons, mostly because of 1) the anthrax attack 2) Colin Powell showing us pictures of mobile WMD labs that turned out to be bogus and 3) Bush and Colin Powell telling us that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al Qaeda.

    ...none of which was true.

    As it became increasingly clear that the Iraq War was not a war of self-defense, the occupation became increasingly unpopular.

    Occupying Iraq isn't something people will support or not regardless of the justification. Why would 70% of Americans remember supporting a justification they never supported?

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    3) Bush and Colin Powell telling us that Saddam Hussein was collaborating with Al Qaeda.

    I don't recall the Bush administration ever claiming such. They claimed WMD that MIGHT fall into the hands of AQ. The collaboration was assumed by the public and, of course, the administration did nothing to quell such an assumption as they wanted their war for different reasons reasons.

  • Raven Nation||

    This is pretty much what I remember too although I could well be wrong. I do remember the Bush administration arguing for a connection between Hussein and terrorism in general. They cited some of the training bases in Iraq and there was a fairly well established connection between Hussein and some earlier terrorist acts (Achille Lauro?).

    So, once the administration's response became a general WOT rather than a focused response to 9/11, it was easy to wrap Iraq into that.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations were made by U.S. Government officials who claimed that a highly secretive relationship existed between former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the radical Islamist militant organization Al-Qaeda from 1992 to 2003, specifically through a series of meetings reportedly involving the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS).[1] In the lead up to the Iraq War, U.S. President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States,[2] basing the administration's rationale for war, in part, on this allegation and others."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....llegations

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    President George W. Bush alleged that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and militant group al-Qaeda might conspire to launch terrorist attacks on the United States...

    Government officials claimed secretive meetings. Not Bush. Bush claimed they might conspire in the future. He never said There was a connection.

    They wanted there to be a connection, but couldn't make it, and if the GP wrongly drew that conclusion, more the better.

    Bush did lie, however, IMHO. It is my belief that his plan from the beginning was to install a democracy in the region, under the belief that it would spread. The logical place to do so was in the more secular State of Iraq, rather than elsewhere in the region. To get it done, he needed to go to war with Iraq.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Bush did lie, however, IMHO."

    It isn't an humble opinion. It's a fact.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N....._the_Union

    "It is my belief that his plan from the beginning was to install a democracy in the region, under the belief that it would spread."

    Yeah, he was always a necon, and that's Neocon (as most people think of it) 101.

    But the subject of this post is a poll--it's about what the American people believed, not what Bush always believed.

    You know what else is Necon 101?

    Leo Strauss writes that in order to find a substantial answer to the philosophical questions brought up by Nietzsche (as interpreted thought Heidegger), you have to go all the way back to Plato and his Noble Lie.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_lie#Leo_Strauss

    On the other hand, maybe the Lord, God, King Neocon President just used Neocon noble lies by accident--maybe he had no idea how effective they would be! ...and the fact that Strauss wrote all the fuck about them is just a coincidence!

    But that seems unlikely, doesn't it.

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    " "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

    That's the quote that Ken thinks proves his point, that he didn't read, and actually proves Francisco was correct.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The observation that it wasn't Bush that made the connection but his minions in the Bush Administration is a minor one.

    Why don't you go hump somebody else's leg for a while?

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    You're the asshole who chased me around for weeks, and NOW you want me to go away?

    Make up your mind fuckenstein.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Chased you around?!

    I still suspect you're Tulpa if that's what you mean. I mentioned that in, what, a couple of threads?

    I still think you're either Tulpa or someone who acts exactly like Tulpa.

    ...and that's what I used to say to have to say to Tulpa when he brought up meaningless objections to get attention--go hump somebody else's leg for a while.

    Has anyone else ever told you, you act exactly like Tulpa?

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    "Chased you around?!"

    Sure you stupid fuck, act surprised.

    The we'll get all those posts of yours chasing me in dead threads, and asking about me when I'm not around.

    Why do you insist on lying all the time you stupid bloviating fuck?

  • Ken Shultz||

    Has anyone ever told you that you act a lot like Tulpa?

  • fuck you Belinda Carlisle||

    Also, I wouldn't have had to post if your dishonest ass hadn't intentionally left out the quote you were referencing, because it didn't say what you were claiming.

    Had you included the actual quote instead of a stupid fucking wikipedia link, correcting you wouldn't have been necessary.

    Blame yourself.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints."

    ----George W. Bush

    http://georgewbush-whitehouse......007-8.html

    You quoting George W. Bush associating Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda in the minds of the American people--ultimately feeding into their misconceptions about Saddam Hussein being personally complicit in 9/11?

    Is not evidence that the American people thought Hussein was complicit in 9/11 for reasons that had nothing to do with what George W. Bush told them.

    And you would know that--if you weren't being willfully obtuse.

    You're just raising empty objections.

    Just like Tulpa.

    If you don't want people to think you're Tulpa, stop acting like Tulpa.

  • Redmanfms||

    fyBC, it's best to understand that Ken is very, very stupid and will respond to anybody who points out logical inconsistencies in his posts as being Tulpa (or Mary).

    A few months ago Ken spent an entire evening arguing that making a qualitative judgement that slavery and tribal warfare are bad things is really just a defense of colonialism. He spent that evening defending slavery. That's right, Ken is on the record as a defender of slavery and tribal warfare.

    Again, Ken is very, very stupid and frequently posts shit that makes no sense whatsoever. When he is called on it he digs in and doubles down on the stupid. He is exactly what you get when you overeducate a moron.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    They claimed WMD that MIGHT fall into the hands of AQ. The collaboration was assumed by the public and, of course, the administration did nothing to quell such an assumption...

    That assumption was not as crazy as the left would have us believe. Yes Saddam was a standard issue atheist national fascist and therefor fundamentally different than Islamic Jihadists.

    He also hated both Iran and the Saudis with a burning passion. As did OBL. And in the middle east the enemy of my enemy is an ally has been an operational principle for millenia.

    So it's not far fetched at all that Saddam would give WMD to OBL with the understanding that he'd use them against their shared enemies.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I was as surprised as anyone.

    But just because Bush's lies were plausible or compelling doesn't mean they weren't lies.

    Plausible bullshit is still bullshit.

    I was as surprised that we didn't find an active WMD program in Iraq as anyone.

    I was warning my fellow Reasonoids here at the time to be careful not to center their opposition to the Iraq War on the failure of them finding WMD--because I assumed they'd find it eventually.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    I was as surprised that we didn't find an active WMD program in Iraq as anyone.

    This is the real issue. The justification for going to war was faulty to begin with. A rogue nation having WMD is not provocation for war. It was a lame excuse that sheep bit off on because they were in a vengeful mood after 9/11.

    If it was legitimate, we would have invaded Iraq when they were gassing the Kurds, Libya, North Korea, Iran...

    Now, I'm afraid, because it was wrongly used as justification in the past, it will be used again in the future (Iran).

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'd like to think we learn at least one important thing from at least one big mistake we make in a war.

    In World War II, we learned that internment camps were a mistake.

    In Vietnam, we learned not to have a draft.

    We might have had internment camps for Muslims and a draft during the War on Terror otherwise.

    If Leo Strauss were still alive today, I suspect he might write something about how the internet + the digitization of information might ultimately prove to be the answer to Plato's Noble Lie.

    Be sure your sins will find you out! I'm not sure the government can keep secrets like it used to--for 2,500 years. Maybe things are different now that any government employee can share everything he knows with the whole world. Maybe next time, it'll be different.

    We can only hope.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That's right! Six months after we invaded Iraq, 70% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11. That's for a few reasons, mostly because of ...

    Nah, everyone's forgotten that Saddam was the prince of evil in most peoples minds throughout the 90s (including the Clintons). So it was natural for people to assume a link between him and 911. Especially since not one person in 10,000 had ever heard of OBL before that attack.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Seriously? You're gonna claim that 70% of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was personally complicit in 9/11, and you're gonna claim that had nothing to do with their support for invading Iraq?

    It was primarily about the anthrax attack, with various Bush Administration officials piling on the bullshit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Everyone that I knew was convinced that Saddam had some part in 911 right after it happened. And sure, that's part of the reason why there was general support for Bush's invasion.

    And I'm not disagreeing with the Bush administration piling on bullshit to build support for it.

    I'm just saying that Saddam hatred was well advanced by the time that 911 happened. Everyone knew who he was, thought he was evil, the next hitler yada yada yada.

    Because that narrative had been pushed since Dessert Shield. Hell, large numbers of people were pissed that Poppa Bush didn't go to Baghdad in 91.

  • Raven Nation||

    Mmmm, Dessert Shield.

    /Homer Simpson

  • Ken Shultz||

    People should keep this stuff in mind in regards to ISIS, as well.

    I suspect the reason so many people support action against ISIS is because they've come to believe that ISIS, somehow, represents a substantial threat to American security.

    If and when that narrative gets exposed, you can expect support for whatever we're doing against ISIS to dwindle. Sure the Bush Obama Administration may claim it was all about the benefit to the Iraqis all along, and maybe to them it was!

    ...but the American people are primarily concerned with their own best interests--at least I hope so! Because I'd hate to think we've become so naive and complacent that we do stupid things like fight wars for the benefit of Iraqis or risk epidemics here to try to stop epidemics in West Africa.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    ISIS has killed US citizens and threatened to conquer and enslave Americans during a declaration of war.

    Top Men™ poo-poo such proclamations but normal people take them at face value and are fine with pre emptively killing the people making the threats.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "ISIS has killed US citizens and threatened to conquer and enslave Americans during a declaration of war."

    Who cares about what big mouths say? They either represent a substantial threat to American security or they don't--regardless of whether they sound like a prize fighter at a weigh in their YouTube videos.

    And there's still the cost/benefit analysis to do--even if they were a substantial threat. How much is avenging the beheading of a couple of journalists worth? We've had more and worse things happen to Americans at the hands of Mexican drug lords. You don't want to invade Mexico, too, do you?

    If not, I hope it has something to do with it not being in America's interests. Really, if we ever invade Mexico--primarily for the benefit of Mexicans? I'd like to the think the American people would oppose that.

    You want the American people to support that, you're going to have to convince them that Mexico is a substantial threat to American security first. Invade Mexico for the benefit of the Mexicans? With my tax money?!

    Fuck that noise.

    If it's different with ISIS, why is it different with ISIS? Is it because they're Muslims? Is it because you're afraid of Muslims?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Awesome, this post explains a bit.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    People tend to want to say they supported the winner and opposed the loser.

    That's sad. More important to have been right than to have learned from your mistakes.

    I was in favor of the Iraq war in 2003. After being there, it didn't take long to realize it was an exercise in futility. You cannot beat an opponent willing to fight a total war if you are only willing to fight a limited war. They will simply hide and wait you out. If you don't have the will to wage total war, war is probably NOT your best option.

    So...I WAS WRONG.

    Why is that so fucking hard? I was wrong and I learned from my mistake and I won't make it again. Are egos so fragile today that people will lie rather than admit their errors?

  • Notorious G.K.C.||

    I wouldn't know, I've never made any errors.

    /sarc

  • sarcasmic||

    We're talking about a generation that has been taught that everyone is a winner and that being disappointed isn't fair. So yeah, their egos are fragile.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I don't think it's that people like supporting the winner. The "winner" in this case was Bush for 1) getting his way and 2) for defeating Saddam Hussein.

    If anything, I think this is about people not liking to admit they're played for fools--and willingly went along. ...and they're wrong about that.

    Being defrauded isn't anything to be ashamed of--continuing to support the Bush Administration even after they defrauded you WAS something to be ashamed of. So many people did that, and when you point it out, they take it as a personal attack.

    Because it is a personal attack. It's a fucking character flaw. If they continued to support the Bush Administration even after their lies were exposed, even after they used the Constitution for toilet paper over and over again, then there's something terribly wrong with them as people.

    They're moral invalids. They're the reason we ended up with Obama.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    I was in favor of the Iraq war in 2003. After being there, it didn't take long to realize it was an exercise in futility. You cannot beat an opponent willing to fight a total war if you are only willing to fight a limited war. They will simply hide and wait you out. If you don't have the will to wage total war, war is probably NOT your best option.

    Nah, the problem was the foolish notion of building a peace loving democracy in Iraq.

    We should have gone in, fucked the place up, killed Saddam, installed a puppet dictator and then left.

    That would send the message that it doesn't pay to fuck with the US and put a dictator in that wouldn't stick us in the eye every chance he got.

    Which is probably the best acheivable outcome for us and for the Iraqis.

  • Slammer||

  • Paul.||

    I see that stuff every day. There was a time when daytime tv featured ads which said stuff like, "Want to drive a truck? Want to be a legal secretary? Go to our school, and we'll get you earning within six months!"

    Now it's all, "Been discriminated against at work, been injured on the job? Been prescribed this medicine? Just remain on your couch and call this 1-800 number, and we'll get you money!"

  • Paul.||

    Our only hope in 2016 is that Hillary doesn't (for some unexplained reason) resonate with young people.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "Americans are going to appreciate politicians who can demonstrate an ability to be deliberative, but also strong, in how they make foreign policy decisions"

    What Americans say and what they do at the polls are two totally separate things. Politicians know this. Which is why they wil continue being weaselie and avoiding any responsibility for anything. Taking stands only lose votes.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This is how we get Obamas and Romneys as frontrunners. I have never see either take a strong decisive stance on foreign policy and yet there they are.

  • Paul.||

    Actually, the only time I defended Romney was when he made a rather strong decisive stand on the Benghazi situation, at which point the Media collectively nodded to each other and called it a "gaffe".

  • SydnieDoranass||

    my friend's mother makes $69 /hour on the laptop . She has been laid off for nine months but last month her paycheck was $21013 just working on the laptop for a few hours. look at here now.............

    http://www.Works6.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online