Good on Trump: Iran

 

I have a long history of knocking Trump. However, I want to pause for a minute and praise him for Iran. Trump has greatly exceeded my expectations and even my wilder hopes.

First, an American contractor is killed in Iraq.

Second, Trump hits back at the five militia camps in western Iraq and eastern Syria, killing 19 militia members.

Third, a militia in Iraq overruns the outer portion of our embassy, doing lots of property damage, but not hurting our people who fall back to a defensible location, including a “safe room.” Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei boasts that there is nothing that Trump can do. Someone should have sent him a copy of the 2011 White House Correspondent’s Dinner where Obama taunted Trump. A very, very bad idea.

Fourth, Trump orders the targeted killing of Qasem Soleimani. Soleimani was killed in Iraq, not Iran or Syria. I understand that there had been an order that if any Iraqi government officials had been present, the killing would not have taken place, which is extremely prudent. Shortly after the motorcade starts, Soleimani was killed along with an Iraqi leader with strong ties to the embassy attack. Soleimani is a strategic genius, not unlike George Marshall or Dwight Eisenhower. (After their military service, these two rare “five-star” generals went on to serve in government. Marshall became Secretary of State, Eisenhower became President.)

Fifth, Trump avoids spiking the football in the end zone, based on the Trump curve. (Far too triumphalist for me, but incredibly restrained for Trump.)

Sixth, the Iranians blow their response in three ways. First, 56 die in a stampede at Soleimani’s funeral. How stupid is that? Can’t they even conduct a funeral? Second, Trump has our forces hunker down for the inevitable rocket attack. There is only property damage, no American lives were lost. Third, Iran shoots down a civilian jet, lies about it and then blames us.

Seventh. Trump again is incredibly measured for him. He reaches out to the Iranian people.

Eighth, the strong Republican skeptics of Trump (often called “NeverTrumpers”) praise Trump. See The Bulwark. David French expresses his support for Trump’s deft moves. Jonah Goldberg praises Trump. At the same time, Democrats and the media lose their minds. Damn, this feels like the Kavanaugh hearings, the result of which being that Kavanaugh was confirmed, and the severe Trump Skeptics joining the Republican fold, until Trump, again, was Trump on other issues.

Ninth, Trump tweets in Farsi “Don’t kill your protestors” according to the Three Martini Lunch.

Was Trump perfect? Far from it. He did not consult with Congress in a timely fashion. He did not consult with allies. He provided inadequate briefings to Congress. His explanations about Soleimani are all over the place. He threatened to commit war crimes. What a mess. But still, for Trump, he did very, very well indeed. We are safer today. The world is a better place today with Soleimani dead, and Iran weakened.

I really didn’t think that he had it in him. It is good to have him come through so well. Good on Trump.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 63 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Henry Racette Member
    Henry Racette
    @HenryRacette

    rgbact (View Comment):
    The overall Iran strategy seems like a mess and we’re closer to war than before

    I think whether or not we are at war is, and has been, pretty much our unilateral decision. I see no reason to think we’re closer to deciding to go to war now than we were two weeks ago. I think the likelihood of a conventional war — that is, a ground invasion of Iran — is essentially nil, and will remain so as long as Trump is in office.

    The current strategy seems to be to maintain sanctions until something in Iran breaks, while punishing Iranian overreach abroad. That seems like the most coherent Iranian policy we’ve had in years, and I applaud the administration for it.

    • #31
  2. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):
    The overall Iran strategy seems like a mess and we’re closer to war than before

    I think whether or not we are at war is, and has been, pretty much our unilateral decision. I see no reason to think we’re closer to deciding to go to war now than we were two weeks ago. I think the likelihood of a conventional war — that is, a ground invasion of Iran — is essentially nil, and will remain so as long as Trump is in office.

    The current strategy seems to be to maintain sanctions until something in Iran breaks, while punishing Iranian overreach abroad. That seems like the most coherent Iranian policy we’ve had in years, and I applaud the administration for it.

    President Trump has said we will punish Iran if they kill Americans and they will not get to have nuclear weapons. I don’t think that means war.

    • #32
  3. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Gary!  Have you been sneaking sips of the Trump Kool-Aid?

    Hehe . . .

    • #33
  4. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    Valiuth (View Comment):

    Gary, Gary, Gary… he still has plenty of time to botch it up. Taken in context I would say we can’t say much has really changed about the Iranian situation strategically. At best we are back to where we were just after he pulled out of the “Iran Deal”. He’s still sucking up to Kim, has still folded like a cheap lawn chair in Syria, is capitulating in Afghanistan, alienating our allies, except for the worst of them whom he is sucking up to rather obsequiously, and generally making an ass of himself whenever the opportunity presents.

    I give him points though for making the Tucker Carlson’s of the world squirm as they try to square their isolationist circles to the new Trumpist party line on Iran. It fun to watch.

    I agree that Trump has generally been poor on this issues. But I think that he has done well during the last 30 days with Iran, so I wanted to issue praise where praise is due.

    The fact that Trump has been so reluctant up until this point to do anything about Iran and had seemed to have strong convictions about simply withdrawing from the area (i.e., the Syrian pullout) is also what makes the Soleimani take-out so significant. Democrats trying to portray him as a warmonger as of late night on Jan. 2, were taunting him as a wimp prior to that, and it’s also what makes their criticism so lame — as with their trying to label Reagan as evil and an idiot 40 years ago, they have to pick one or the other accusation, but don’t have the self-control to do it.

    As for Tucker Carlson, his concern seems to be that Trump will suddenly turn into a Middle East interventionist. Doubt that’s happening based on his limited response to the missile attack (as for Coulter, she’s still miffed about Trump not being stronger against immigration, and has become a #NeverTrumper from the right instead of from the left).

    • #34
  5. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    From Business Insider:

    Trump tweets predicting Obama would start a war with Iran to get reelected are coming back to haunt him

    From France 24:

    “We need to keep in mind that Trump is running an electoral campaign. He’s not necessarily considering the international consequences of his decision as commander in chief of the US military. He’s thinking in terms of electoral gain.”

    From Aunty:

    Could killing of Iranian general help Trump get re-elected?

    Based on responses here on Ricochet, could it?

     

    • #35
  6. Steve C. Member
    Steve C.
    @user_531302

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From Business Insider:

    Trump tweets predicting Obama would start a war with Iran to get reelected are coming back to haunt him

    From France 24:

    “We need to keep in mind that Trump is running an electoral campaign. He’s not necessarily considering the international consequences of his decision as commander in chief of the US military. He’s thinking in terms of electoral gain.”

    From Aunty:

    Could killing of Iranian general help Trump get re-elected?

    Based on responses here on Ricochet, could it?

     

    Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

    How roughly 50% of voters answer will determine Trump’s fate. Maybe some people will remember and credit him for this action. I imagine some people credited Obama in 2012 for killing Bin Laden. I think the more important question is, are American soldiers deployed in combat and dying. 

    • #36
  7. ToryWarWriter Coolidge
    ToryWarWriter
    @ToryWarWriter

    This is up there with the time Jay and Mona did there one pro Trump podcast.

    I salute you!

    • #37
  8. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Henry Racette (View Comment):

    rgbact (View Comment):
    The overall Iran strategy seems like a mess and we’re closer to war than before

    The current strategy seems to be to maintain sanctions until something in Iran breaks, while punishing Iranian overreach abroad. That seems like the most coherent Iranian policy we’ve had in years, and I applaud the administration for it.

    That sounds a whole lot like where we were back in 2011…..but with way lower prospects for a negotiated deal on nukes and a way more war prone and nuke motivated  Iran and a ticked off iraq. I don’t see what we’ve gained since then.

    • #38
  9. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins: n

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    Mullahs ayatollahs.

    Yes, except “preachers” are not reasonable substitutes for “archbiships.”

    I get it that “mad mullah” rolls off the tongue, but it reflects a willful disregard of Iraq, Iran and the Shia faith. We are not dealing with mere preachers/pastors. We are dealing with senior clerics, acknowledged within their faith as very senior theological experts, whose word has far more weight than a mere village preacher/mullah.

    • #39
  10. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Gary Robbins:

    Was Trump perfect? Far from it. He did not consult with Congress in a timely fashion. He did not consult with allies. He provided inadequate briefings to Congress. His explanations about Soleimani are all over the place. He threatened to commit war crimes. What a mess.

    Nice post, but…

    President Trump most certainly did “consult” in a timely manner. That is, he informed the Democrats after the strike and well within the letter of the possibly unconstitutional War Powers Act. Nancy is upset that she was not able to leak and subvert the strike. That is the plain, ugly, obvious truth. The most senior members of this crew were all upset about American flags on lapels within weeks of September 11, 2001. That is the ground truth.

    Allies. You have no idea, plus this sort of operation fails every time if it gets blabbed about the political leadership of nations that are deeply committed to commercial  contracts with the Iranian regime.

    Mike Lee lied. He postured. We know this from the decades long arrangement of the national security “gang of 8,” comprised of only the 4 most senior and pre-approved members of each chamber of Congress. Secretary of Defense Esper cued the American people to that ground truth the day before the classified brief to the whole herd of Congress critters. Other Republicans, who did not vote for McMuffin in 2016, said the brief was one of/the most comprehensive and professional briefs they had ever received. McMuffin voter Lee lied. Hard. He was the worst sort of drama queen, unlike Rand Paul, who was consistent.

    The media has worked at the willing partner of the DNC through the entire process, creating the false impression of illegitimate goals covered by inconsistent explanations. This is the worst sort of garbage, however it is consistent with Democrats’ behavior during the American Civil War and Reconstruction.

    President Trump has never threatened to “commit war crimes.” Period. He has clearly signaled that the ayatollahs will not be allowed to use the cover of “cultural” sites, any more than Hamas is allowed to use schools and hospitals, or Iraqi extremists are allowed to use mosques as cover for military operations. He was briefed by our military leadership on a plan to strike 52 targets in Iran. They selected the targets. President Trump has never been LBJ and was not sitting at Mar-A-Lago with a tourist guidebook picking famous Persian and early Islamic sites. He was cautioned by his senior military leaders that one or more “cultural sites” are under or within the burst radius of munitions that effectively destroy strategic targets. He publicly gave the American public, the ayatollahs, the Iranian public, and the rest of the world warning that we were on to the Khomenist regime’s game. All other interpretations come from assuming  the worst, again.

    • #40
  11. JosePluma Coolidge
    JosePluma
    @JosePluma

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

     Nancy Pelosi is wrong on this one.

    Just this one?

    • #41
  12. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Steve C. (View Comment):

    Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

    How roughly 50% of voters answer will determine Trump’s fate.

    It’s going to be different based on group.

    Maybe some people will remember and credit him for this action. I imagine some people credited Obama in 2012 for killing Bin Laden. I think the more important question is, are American soldiers deployed in combat and dying.

    They are certainly deployed.  Don’t know about in combat and dying.

    Yes, in Afghanistan, though not huge numbers.

    I guess a question would be: has Trump’s a Iran policy made Americans safer or not, and by how much?

    • #42
  13. Clifford A. Brown Member
    Clifford A. Brown
    @CliffordBrown

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I guess a question would be: has Trump’s a Iran policy made Americans safer or not, and by how much?

    Too soon to tell.

    • #43
  14. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Well, I’m pleasantly shocked.  

    • #44
  15. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    ToryWarWriter (View Comment):
    This is up there with the time Jay and Mona did there one pro Trump podcast.

    I didn’t know they did one.  Must have been after I stopped listening . . .

    • #45
  16. rgbact Inactive
    rgbact
    @romanblichar

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    He has clearly signaled that the ayatollahs will not be allowed to use the cover of “cultural” sites, any more than Hamas is allowed to use schools and hospitals, or Iraqi extremists are allowed to use mosques as cover for military operations. He was briefed by our military leadership on a plan to strike 52 targets in Iran. They selected the targets. President Trump has never been LBJ and was not sitting at Mar-A-Lago with a tourist guidebook picking famous Persian and early Islamic sites. He was cautioned by his senior military leaders that one or more “cultural sites” are under or within the burst radius of munitions that effectively destroy strategic targets. 

    So, he kills one Iranian general in Iraq…..and then jumps right into telling Iranian leaders that he’ll kill others if they’re hiding on Iranian soil at a mosque? Or is it just that a mosque is within a “burst radius” of one of the potential bombing sites….and we really needed Trump to brag about this on Twitter? Either way, if this is the way he communicates after one simple drone strike…..then I don’t see him being capable in a long term campaign.

    • #46
  17. Jon1979 Inactive
    Jon1979
    @Jon1979

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    I guess a question would be: has Trump’s a Iran policy made Americans safer or not, and by how much?

    Too soon to tell.

    In the modern, immediate gratification society, if we don’t see results by no later than Ground Hog Day, then Trump’s action was a failure.

    • #47
  18. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    rgbact (View Comment):
    So, he kills one Iranian general in Iraq…..and then jumps right into telling Iranian leaders that he’ll kill others if they’re hiding on Iranian soil at a mosque? Or is it just that a mosque is within a “burst radius” of one of the potential bombing sites….and we really needed Trump to brag about this on Twitter? Either way, if this is the way he communicates after one simple drone strike…..then I don’t see him being capable in a long term campaign.

    Roman, this really isn’t good for you. Trump is living rent free in your heart. Take a break from the Trump threads. Join the music conversations and other conversations that have nothing to do with Trump on Ricochet. There really is quite a bit more to life than the temporary and unimportant executive running a government that controls less than a fifteenth of the Earth’s land surface.

    • #48
  19. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Zafar (View Comment):

    From Business Insider:

    Trump tweets predicting Obama would start a war with Iran to get reelected are coming back to haunt him

    From France 24:

    “We need to keep in mind that Trump is running an electoral campaign. He’s not necessarily considering the international consequences of his decision as commander in chief of the US military. He’s thinking in terms of electoral gain.”

    From Aunty:

    Could killing of Iranian general help Trump get re-elected?

    Based on responses here on Ricochet, could it?

     

    These are pretty silly comments.  I’ll answer in order.

    (1) The President is not starting a war with Iran.  He’s responding to moderate escalation in war and violence on the part of Iran.  The claim that he is starting a war is rather silly.

    (2) The idea that effective foreign policy and electoral success are mutually exclusive is equally silly.  One would generally hope that wise decisions would lead to electoral success.  I certainly recognize that this is not always the case, but it is quite naive to believe that good policy is always at odds with good politics.

    (3) Sure, the killing of an Iranian general could help get the President re-elected, and rightfully so.  Though I would call him a terrorist mastermind, not just a general.  The killing of Osama Bin Laden doubtless helped President Obama get re-elected.  It was the right call, and I was supportive of President Obama on the issue at the time, and it probably helped him politically.

    None of these are valid criticisms.  They are talking points designed to detract attention away from what has been, thus far, a foreign policy success for which the President deserves credit — as Gary’s OP recognizes.

    • #49
  20. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    These are pretty silly comments.

    Oh come on, Jerry, tell me how you really feel!

    (1) The President is not starting a war with Iran. He’s responding to moderate escalation in war and violence on the part of Iran.

    He’s escalating a conflict, is that better?

    He’s done that consistently since withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    The claim that he is starting a war is rather silly.

    Potayto potahto.  Arguing that killing a foreign general is not technically an act of war is (a) arguable and (b) so literal minded as to miss the point.

    (2) The idea that effective foreign policy and electoral success are mutually exclusive is equally silly.

    Indeed, but long term foreign policy failure (both Gulf Wars, imho) can also result in immediate domestic political success.

    It’s human for people to rally round the leader during times of war (even in Iran) and it seems inevitable for politicians to try and use that.

    Which Trump’s tweet re Obama, starting a war with Iran, getting re-elected and smart  Republicans recognises.

    One would generally hope that wise decisions would lead to electoral success.

    One would, yes.

    I certainly recognize that this is not always the case, but it is quite naive to believe that good policy is always at odds with good politics.

    Straw man :-)

    (3) Sure, the killing of an Iranian general could help get the President re-elected, and rightfully so.

    Why?

    Though I would call him a terrorist mastermind, not just a general.

    Sure, and Iranians just like you might at some level think of America as the Great Satan.

    Who controls language to some extent defines reality – a point that hasn’t been lost on Governments, or lobbyists, or even just ordinary people like you and me.

    • #50
  21. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    These are pretty silly comments.

    Oh come on, Jerry, tell me how you really feel!

    Zafar, I should have made it clear that I meant that the authors of the quotes were making silly comments, not necessarily you.  Though if you adopt them as your own, I think that you share in the silliness.  :)

    (1) The President is not starting a war with Iran. He’s responding to moderate escalation in war and violence on the part of Iran.

    He’s escalating a conflict, is that better?

    He’s done that consistently since withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    No, he hasn’t.  He’s actually shown great restraint in the face of fairly substantial provocations, such as the shooting down of a US drone and the attack on a Saudi oil facility. 

    The claim that he is starting a war is rather silly.

    Potayto potahto. Arguing that killing a foreign general is not technically an act of war is (a) arguable and (b) so literal minded as to miss the point.

    (2) The idea that effective foreign policy and electoral success are mutually exclusive is equally silly.

    Indeed, but long term foreign policy failure (both Gulf Wars, imho) can also result in immediate domestic political success.

    It’s human for people to rally round the leader during times of war (even in Iran) and it seems inevitable for politicians to try and use that.

    Which Trump’s tweet re Obama, starting a war with Iran, getting re-elected and smart Republicans recognises.

    One would generally hope that wise decisions would lead to electoral success.

    One would, yes.

    I certainly recognize that this is not always the case, but it is quite naive to believe that good policy is always at odds with good politics.

    Straw man :-)

    (3) Sure, the killing of an Iranian general could help get the President re-elected, and rightfully so.

    Why?

    Though I would call him a terrorist mastermind, not just a general.

    I thought that I covered this with the Osama Bin Laden analogy.  Soleimani was apparently meeting in Iraq with a militia leader who had recently bombed various bases and orchestrated an attack on the US embassy.  Soleimani was evidently a really, really bad guy — as documented in an article here by former US Gen. McChrystal, written many months before his killing.  Taking out a leading terrorist strikes me as a reasonable measure, and if it leads to electoral advantage also, so much the better.

    Sure, and Iranians just like you might at some level think of America as the Great Satan.

    Well, an Iranian who was just like me would agree with me.  A patriotic Iranian would disagree, and they’re an evil regime, so they’re wrong.

    Who controls language to some extent defines reality – a point that hasn’t been lost on Governments, or lobbyists, or even just ordinary people like you and me.

     

    • #51
  22. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Well, you’ve create quite a stir, haven’t you Mr. Robbins!

    • #52
  23. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Well, you’ve create quite a stir, haven’t you Mr. Robbins!

    Perhaps you have not seen my negative posts about Trump?

    • #53
  24. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    (1) The President is not starting a war with Iran. He’s responding to moderate escalation in war and violence on the part of Iran.

    He’s escalating a conflict, is that better?

    He’s done that consistently since withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    No, he hasn’t. He’s actually shown great restraint in the face of fairly substantial provocations, such as the shooting down of a US drone and the attack on a Saudi oil facility.

    Withdrawing from the nuclear deal and instituting a series of sanctions on Iran seems like escalation.  How is it not?

    Soleimani was evidently a really, really bad guy — as documented in an article here by former US Gen. McChrystal, written many months before his killing. Taking out a leading terrorist strikes me as a reasonable measure, and if it leads to electoral advantage also, so much the better.

    Everybody who fights American soldiers is not a terrorist.  Or are they?  When are they not?  Are they always?

    This is what I meant when talking about language defining reality…I don’t even know if it’s conscious.

    Well, an Iranian who was just like me would agree with me. A patriotic Iranian would disagree, and they’re an evil regime, so they’re wrong.

    In reality it isn’t Minas Tirith vs Minas Morgul.

    • #54
  25. BastiatJunior Member
    BastiatJunior
    @BastiatJunior

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Well, you’ve create quite a stir, haven’t you Mr. Robbins!

    Perhaps you have not seen my negative posts about Trump?

    Oh, I’ve seen lots of them.  That’s why this post is a “Man Bites Dog” story.

    • #55
  26. Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… Member
    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio…
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    (1) The President is not starting a war with Iran. He’s responding to moderate escalation in war and violence on the part of Iran.

    He’s escalating a conflict, is that better?

    He’s done that consistently since withdrawing the US from the nuclear deal with Iran.

    No, he hasn’t. He’s actually shown great restraint in the face of fairly substantial provocations, such as the shooting down of a US drone and the attack on a Saudi oil facility.

    Withdrawing from the nuclear deal and instituting a series of sanctions on Iran seems like escalation. How is it not?

    Soleimani was evidently a really, really bad guy — as documented in an article here by former US Gen. McChrystal, written many months before his killing. Taking out a leading terrorist strikes me as a reasonable measure, and if it leads to electoral advantage also, so much the better.

    Everybody who fights American soldiers is not a terrorist. Or are they? When are they not? Are they always?

    This is what I meant when talking about language defining reality…I don’t even know if it’s conscious.

    Well, an Iranian who was just like me would agree with me. A patriotic Iranian would disagree, and they’re an evil regime, so they’re wrong.

    In reality it isn’t Minas Tirith vs Minas Morgul.

    How very post-modern of you.

    Of course everyone who fights American soldiers are not terrorists.  This particular guy is a terrorist because he has plotted and carried out terrorist attacks.  Zafar, I think that you are refusing to face the facts of the present situation and creating a straw-man argument.

    He’s also done things that are bad, and justify killing him, but which are not terrorism.  I think that I’ve commented on this previously.  I don’t think that providing IEDs to be used against US military forces is terrorism.  It is support of unlawful enemy combatants.  Both are justifications for violent retaliation, but they are different.

    • #56
  27. Zafar Member
    Zafar
    @Zafar

    Jerry Giordano (Arizona Patrio… (View Comment):

    How very post-modern of you.

    My bad, I do try not to be.

    Of course everyone who fights American soldiers are not terrorists. This particular guy is a terrorist because he has plotted and carried out terrorist attacks.

    Which ones?

    Are they materially different from what our own security agencies undertake or support?  If not so different, would Iran be justified in killing the head of (for eg) the CIA?

    The language being used about Soleimani (and Iran) carries the implication that of course we kill terrorists, hence legitimate action, hence to question it is unpatriotic – but in fact our actions are not so morally clear cut, and designating this or that a terrorist group, or a ’bad guy’, seems as much a matter of political expediency as anything else.

    Wrt Iran – its regime is arguably less evil to its own people than Saudi Arabia’s is – and yet Iran is okay to target because it run by bad people while Saudi is an ally.  Is the real issue not whether a regime is made up of good or bad people, but rather whether it is defiant and not compliant?

     

    • #57
  28. Gary Robbins Member
    Gary Robbins
    @GaryRobbins

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Well, you’ve create quite a stir, haven’t you Mr. Robbins!

    Perhaps you have not seen my negative posts about Trump?

    Oh, I’ve seen lots of them. That’s why this post is a “Man Bites Dog” story.

    Trump has done well with Iran in the last month.  Of note, I am joined in my praise of Trump by Jonah Goldberg and David French, who are also Severe Trump Skeptics.  Good on Trump on this one.

    • #58
  29. Manny Coolidge
    Manny
    @Manny

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Gary Robbins (View Comment):

    BastiatJunior (View Comment):

    Well, you’ve create quite a stir, haven’t you Mr. Robbins!

    Perhaps you have not seen my negative posts about Trump?

    Oh, I’ve seen lots of them. That’s why this post is a “Man Bites Dog” story.

    Trump has done well with Iran in the last month. Of note, I am joined in my praise of Trump by Jonah Goldberg and David French, who are also Severe Trump Skeptics. Good on Trump on this one.

    Are you now going to vote for him? ;)

    • #59
  30. DrewInWisconsin, Oaf Member
    DrewInWisconsin, Oaf
    @DrewInWisconsin

    Manny (View Comment):

    Well, I’m pleasantly shocked.

    Don’t worry. Didn’t last.

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.