There are 49 comments.

1. Coolidge
   Skyler

   @Skyler

   7:21 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   ctlaw (View Comment):

   Skyler (View Comment):

   ctlaw (View Comment):

   iWe (View Comment):

   I prefer my standby – drop arms. The Iranian people want to rebel, but they lack the means – every time they try to revolt, the armed thugs of the regime gun them down.

   We can airdrop millions of handguns and rounds of ammo, over Iranian cities. Cheap, easy, and it should be oh-so-effective.

   In general, they do not need the arms as much as the courage/confidence.

   For decades we’ve told prospective anti-communist and anti-islamist forces that they had to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules or we’d cut them off.

   As the old saying goes, if you strike at the king, you’d better kill him.

   We have to tell the rebels that we are ok with them doing whatever is required to to permanently end the rule of the Ayatollahs.

   But we have little influence on foreign governments, despite claims to the contrary. Saddam Hussein stayed in power despite furious attempts to get rid of him. Castro and clan are still in Cuba. We wanted the Shah to stay in power in Iran. A people are solely responsible for the people they allow to rule them and only they can fix their problems, except for a massive invasion by us.

   But we did not let the Shah or anti-Castro rebels (or Battista) do what was needed. Castro also had backing of the Soviets. It’s not clear whether Russia or China will similarly back the Ayatollahs.

   We did not “let” the Shah?  He could do as he wished.  The USSR collapsed long ago and the Castro clan is still there.  

2. Inactive
   James Gawron

   @JamesGawron

   7:23 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   Jon,

   I think we should connect the dots here. Trump brought the Chinese to Mar-a-Lago and then he ratcheted up the rhetoric to Kim. I think we are seeing the same thing with the Iranians. Trump went to Putin and wants Putin to come to us. He then ratchets up the rhetoric to the Iranians.

   This is very good strategy. He first undermines their position with their chief ally then he confronts them directly. When their chief ally doesn’t rush to their defense they feel very exposed and they are.

   Regards,

   Jim

3. Coolidge
   ctlaw

   @ctlaw

   7:27 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   Skyler (View Comment):

   ctlaw (View Comment):

   Skyler (View Comment):

   ctlaw (View Comment):

   iWe (View Comment):

   I prefer my standby – drop arms. The Iranian people want to rebel, but they lack the means – every time they try to revolt, the armed thugs of the regime gun them down.

   We can airdrop millions of handguns and rounds of ammo, over Iranian cities. Cheap, easy, and it should be oh-so-effective.

   In general, they do not need the arms as much as the courage/confidence.

   For decades we’ve told prospective anti-communist and anti-islamist forces that they had to fight by the Marquis of Queensbury rules or we’d cut them off.

   As the old saying goes, if you strike at the king, you’d better kill him.

   We have to tell the rebels that we are ok with them doing whatever is required to to permanently end the rule of the Ayatollahs.

   But we have little influence on foreign governments, despite claims to the contrary. Saddam Hussein stayed in power despite furious attempts to get rid of him. Castro and clan are still in Cuba. We wanted the Shah to stay in power in Iran. A people are solely responsible for the people they allow to rule them and only they can fix their problems, except for a massive invasion by us.

   But we did not let the Shah or anti-Castro rebels (or Battista) do what was needed. Castro also had backing of the Soviets. It’s not clear whether Russia or China will similarly back the Ayatollahs.

   We did not “let” the Shah? He could do as he wished. The USSR collapsed long ago and the Castro clan is still there.

   Had the Shah started mowing down the opposition, we would have cut off trade while the Soviets supplied rebels.

   By the time Castro lost the backing of the Soviets, our policies had solidified to those I mentioned.

4. Member
   Franco

   @Franco

   8:10 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   I know this might sound funny, but it’s nice to have someone point out the obvious and start mirroring. It’s an effective psychological tactic. 

   Learned it from my wife psychotherapist for 25 years with an average patient load of 40 per week from schizophrenics, bipolar, criminals sex offenders, people who’ve been abused in every possible way, all ages, races ethnicities and socioeconomic backgrounds. 

   We’ve been allowing them to rant and rave and act crazy, and the preferred response has been to keep above the fray and act reasonable, but the patient doesn’t understand that language. If you mirror ( the wife says this should not be used casually) often the patient is startled into something closer to reality.

   They call us Satan, we’ve called them evil (Bush) but no one on our side has ever rattled his saber, and no country should think they can unleash unanswered threats.

    

5. Coolidge
   jeffreykohagen

   @jeffreykohagen

   8:30 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   James Gawron (View Comment):

   Jon,

   I think we should connect the dots here. Trump brought the Chinese to Mar-a-Lago and then he ratcheted up the rhetoric to Kim. I think we are seeing the same thing with the Iranians. Trump went to Putin and wants Putin to come to us. He then ratchets up the rhetoric to the Iranians.

   This is very good strategy. He first undermines their position with their chief ally then he confronts them directly. When their chief ally doesn’t rush to their defense they feel very exposed and they are.

   Regards,

   Jim

   My take is similar.   President Trump is ‘Setting the tone from the top’.   letting everyone know that we are serious about the sanctions being imposed,  and that actions by Iran will be responded to.  

6. Inactive
   Columbo

   @Columbo

   8:32 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   James Gawron (View Comment):

   Jon,

   I think we should connect the dots here. Trump brought the Chinese to Mar-a-Lago and then he ratcheted up the rhetoric to Kim. I think we are seeing the same thing with the Iranians. Trump went to Putin and wants Putin to come to us. He then ratchets up the rhetoric to the Iranians.

   This is very good strategy. He first undermines their position with their chief ally then he confronts them directly. When their chief ally doesn’t rush to their defense they feel very exposed and they are.

   Regards,

   Jim

   

7. Coolidge
   Gumby Mark

   @GumbyMark

   8:50 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   I feel like I am living inside a Reality TV Show.  This week’s episode: Iran – The Death Star!

8. Inactive
   James Gawron

   @JamesGawron

   8:54 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   Columbo (View Comment):

   James Gawron (View Comment):

   Jon,

   I think we should connect the dots here. Trump brought the Chinese to Mar-a-Lago and then he ratcheted up the rhetoric to Kim. I think we are seeing the same thing with the Iranians. Trump went to Putin and wants Putin to come to us. He then ratchets up the rhetoric to the Iranians.

   This is very good strategy. He first undermines their position with their chief ally then he confronts them directly. When their chief ally doesn’t rush to their defense they feel very exposed and they are.

   Regards,

   Jim

   

   Columbo,

   Through my special sources, I’ve learned the President has hired this former Star Fleet officer as a consultant.

   Fascinating!

   Regards,

   Jim

9. Member
   Front Seat Cat

   @FrontSeatCat

   9:05 AM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

   Israel supposedly discovered a plot by an Iranian cell in Austria to attack some event in Paris – the Iranians fuel much of the Middle East unrest – they are the head. I agree with Gary Robbins – I don’t have a good feeling either, but not about what Trump said – long overdue. But they are lining up on the chessboard – the world’s thugs – 

10. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    12:43 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    But but . . . I thought Trump was Putin’s puppet! So why would he antagonize Russia’s client state? Did Putin give him permission?

     

11. Member
    DrewInWisconsin

    @DrewInWisconsin

    12:48 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    Max Boot siding with the Iranian regime, that didn’t take long. https://t.co/aoSBINOnAd

    — Nick Short 🇺🇸 (@PoliticalShort) July 23, 2018

12. Inactive
    Columbo

    @Columbo

    12:53 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The hypocrisy reeks. Folks like Max Boot are insufferable.

13. Member
    Clifford A. Brown

    @CliffordBrown

    3:21 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    ctlaw (View Comment):

    OkieSailor (View Comment):

    Rouhani is flirting with learning what smoking ruins of his nuclear facilities look like IMHO. So we’ll see just how reasonable he really is I think.

    The Dems killed our robust nuclear earth penetrator. We can’t touch their underground facilities.

    The problem isn’t nuclear weapons, else we’d freak out about Great Britain, France, Russia, and China. The problem is the people controlling nuclear weapons. So, the solution in Iran is to ensure that the government and military are led by people who do not see nucs as tools for aggression or as tools to shield other forms of aggression.

    As it happens, the Khomeinist regime, and their praetorian guard, can be addressed with about a one salvo solution.

14. Inactive
    James Gawron

    @JamesGawron

    4:54 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Drew,

    Remember when Thomas L. Friedman and Paul Krugman took turns at who could bloviate the most ridiculous idea as a print journalist. Now it’s a toss-up between Max Boot and Rick Wilson for who can be the smarmiest most loathsome pundit on the internet.

    Regards,

    Jim

15. Member
    Clifford A. Brown

    @CliffordBrown

    5:41 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    Drew,

    Remember when Thomas L. Friedman and Paul Krugman took turns at who could bloviate the most ridiculous idea as a print journalist. Now it’s a toss-up between Max Boot and Rick Wilson for who can be the smarmiest most loathsome pundit on the internet.

    Regards,

    Jim

    Not at all the same man as wrote The Savage Wars of Peace before 9/11. Trump Derangement Syndrome is real. The first [Republican President] Derangement Syndrome victim I recall was Garry Trudeau. He was truly funny, effective, and inciteful … until President Reagan was elected. That just broke the man’s funny bone, turning him into a bitter-flinger.

16. Member
    Boss Mongo

    @BossMongo

    7:39 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Not at all the same man as wrote The Savage Wars of Peace before 9/11.

    Concur.  There are no bounds to the respect I have for the mind that created that work.  There are no bounds to the derision I have of today’s Max Boot.

    If there’s a silver lining, it’s that his ackjassery has attuned me to the flaws of the intellect.  If I ever pull his kind of self-impressed, megalomaniacal intellectual 180-degree-out hissy fit, I do hereby authorize any and every active Ricochetti to  recalibrate my brainstuffs with a 2×4.

17. Member
    Clifford A. Brown

    @CliffordBrown

    7:44 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Not at all the same man as wrote The Savage Wars of Peace before 9/11.

    Concur. There are no bounds to the respect I have for the mind that created that work. There are no bounds to the derision I have of today’s Max Boot.

    If there’s a silver lining, it’s that his ackjassery has attuned me to the flaws of the intellect. If I ever pull his kind of self-impressed, megalomaniacal intellectual 180-degree-out hissy fit, I do hereby authorize any and every active Ricochetti to recalibrate my brainstuffs with a 2×4.

    Hmm. Might need a 4X4 for the job.

18. Member
    Boss Mongo

    @BossMongo

    7:46 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Boss Mongo (View Comment):

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    Not at all the same man as wrote The Savage Wars of Peace before 9/11.

    Concur. There are no bounds to the respect I have for the mind that created that work. There are no bounds to the derision I have of today’s Max Boot.

    If there’s a silver lining, it’s that his ackjassery has attuned me to the flaws of the intellect. If I ever pull his kind of self-impressed, megalomaniacal intellectual 180-degree-out hissy fit, I do hereby authorize any and every active Ricochetti to recalibrate my brainstuffs with a 2×4.

    Hmm. Might need a 4X4 for the job.

    Whatever you need to do, sir.  Pick the right tool for the task.

19. Inactive
    Mike LaRoche

    @MikeLaRoche

    8:12 PM EDT ⋅ Jul 23, 2018

    Columbo (View Comment):

    DrewInWisconsin (View Comment):

    The hypocrisy reeks. Folks like Max Boot are insufferable.

    Max Boot is a clown who should no longer be taken seriously by anyone.