Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander, veteran government figure, and war hero all rolled into one. This is big.

It feels like an escalation far out of proportion to the events that preceded it. If Washington thinks it'll make Iran fold or beg they're crazy. If they think it'll force Iran into events leading to war, they're evil and have learned nothing.

Meanwhile China laughs.

if you are making an argument for proportionate, then you ignore history...this is a confrontation that cannot be avoided and hiding under our desks will not save us...we do not have to invade, only use the options we possess without restraint and fight total war...we would have peace for a hundred years...

I believe that your attitude was most succinctly put by the WWII-era Nazi leadership.

That didn't work out so well for them, once they met the Soviet Union.

Sir, the neurons in your brain are all firing the same way they did at the start of the Iraq war (you know, when WMD's were so existantial a threat to the US that appeasement was suicide and war would guve the US peace and security and a new world for 100 years and more).

Please tell your brain it is IRAN 2020 now, not IRAQ 2003. Then tell yourself to wise up, get another brain or go find a Brooklyn bridge to buy.

You're assuming he has a brain.

As Trump so succinctly put it, "wrong."

"Kill them all, God will know his own", isn't generally considered fruitful advice in these parts.

Why can this conflict "not be avoided"? If the USA stopped being involved in these never-ending Middle-Eastern tribal-conflicts entirely, why would Iran, or any other group/faction from that region, wish us harm?

Why do we keep getting sucked-in to wars with, "They attacked our guys," when the solution is "our guys" Not Being In Their Homelands in the first place? What do regular American folks have to gain by our involvement in the Middle East? We don't get the money from the arms-sales, contracting-gigs, big-oil profits.

I don't want Middle Easterners involved in our Homeland affairs - lobbying our Congress comes to mind - or mass-immigrating here. But I offer them the same respect I demand - us getting the heck out of their homelands, as well.

The quotes from Trump above, and in his 2016 campaign prior, are what I agree with - enough waste of American lives and treasure in the Middle East.

The most difficult type of enemy to go to war against is the one that fights for it's very life, homeland and existence. You would think the numscull neocons would have figured this out after Viet Nam. Or at the very least, Afganistan. Truth be told, the only thing a lot of the chicken hawk, draft dodging neocons know about war is what they hear on Fox, CNN and the war institute news briefs.

I don't think China is too thrilled to see oil prices jump, but otherwise, you are accurate.

Explain something to me please. China needs Iran as a central trade/commercial hub in it's new silk route, the One Belt One Road project. As long Iran is an international outcast due to US sanctions and hostility, it cannot function as such for the Chinese. So what advantage does China get from renewed or escalting American-Iranian hostility?

Iran is an "international outcast" only in the fantasies of Warshington warmongers and their media stooges.

"Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander, veteran government figure, and war hero all rolled into one."

Here, let me fix that for you:

"Soleimani is the equivalent of Iran killing a top American regional commander *who is in Iran blowing up their stuff*."

If we have forces in Iran committing acts of war against them, and they hit us back, well, good for them.

Iraq isn't either Iran or the US, we are in Iraq with Iraqi government permission (not to mention the attack on our embassy that Soleimani led... which is an act of war directly against the US), while Soleimani was not. If Soleimani was sitting in Iran not bothering the rest of the world, you might have a point.

Wrong. Soleimani had Iraqi government permission. There were no attacks on the US Embassy until the United States attacked the PMU militias.

But since an "attack on an Embassy is an act of war", how do you feel about Trump's act of war against the Venezuelan Embassy?

And when the Iraqi government tells the United States to leave, will we do so?

For that matter, if Trump is in Canada "bothering the rest of the world", surely you will be cool with it if Iran assassinates him since he's not on US soil, right?

I would be cool with it. Anywhere.

It wasn't just the U.S. attacks on the Shia PMUs. It was Israeli airstrikes on Shia PMUs...that began in July of last year...attacks that both Israel and the U.S. denied initially but later admitted. This embassy revolt didn't come out of nowhere. CENTCOM warned that those airstrikes could have blow-back and consequences for american forces in the region. That assessment turned out to be prescient. And what do you NOT see covered by the american press? Those Israeli airstrikes of last summer...something that fomented and facilitated later events. Our government and press repeatedly omit information that would paint the United States or Israel in a negative light. Instead...in the absence of ALL of the facts...we are duped into believing that the embassy attacks "just happened" for no reasons.

What has happened is that the Shia PMUs, having become an official part of the Iraqi military apparatus, have grown too big for their britches after the beating of ISIS. During that time the US coordinated with the same Shia PMUs they now want removed because they have amassed too much power inside Iraq...power backed by Iran. But, it is a fool's errand with 60 - 65% of the population being Shia. The United States must now wrestle with a beast of its own creation...something that many warned against in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq war.

The best thing going forward is for the Iraqi parliament to vote for the complete withdrawal of american forces from Iraq. Is it likely to happen? I'm not terribly inclined to believe it just because the Iraqi government wants that crutch of military support...but what it is now going to cost (following the Soleiami killing) might be more than it is worth...or what is politically tolerable in the aftermath of the drone strike in Baghdad.

I personally think that any resurgence of ISIS can be adequately handled by the Shia PMFs. 5,000 americans in Iraq are not worth the risks and costs at this point. It's only a money hole for defense contractors, private security contractors and others who derive pecuniary benefit from a continued occupation inside Iraq. That racket should end immediately, and put troops in places where they can be more useful from a cost-benefit standpoint.

Assassinating basically the second most powerful man in Iran is a major escalation. Imagine Russia offing our top commander in Syria for "sponsorship of terrorism" and for entering without permission of the Syrian government, after we kill a Russian military contractor. Its still not as provocative as killing Soleimani, but the circumstance would be similar.

Terrorist leaders are not “military” leaders.

I am sure the United States has numerous military officers performing much the same jobs as Soleimani did. Not to mention the "intelligence" officers straining and supporting modern-day death squads.

Would you like to clarify?
Soleimani was a military leader and government official.

Trump has named Iran's entire military as "terrorist." That's simply beyond ridiculous.

No President ever lost an election by getting into a way. The destruction of Iran would not annoy the electorate one little bit.

So Obama didn't get elected over McCain?

Dude, it was John McCain. Frau Rodham-Clinton could have beat John McCain.

(Hillary, if you're reading this, never forget that if Barack Obama hadn't seized the Democrat nomination from you, you would have been President.)

There's not a President in our history that would have won 2008 on the Republican ticket. And that is due in large part to a war sold on lies that killed thousands of young Americans.

Clinton is basically John McCain in drag, so my guess is that the electorate would have preferred the genuine article.

Bush did not lose a presidential election, but the GOP suffered huge losses in the 2006 midterms mainly over public frustration with the Iraq fiasco.

For a year or so, sure. But people will be quick to start asking why once American kids start coming home in body bags.

The media was sycophantic with Iraq for a time. With Iran there will be no such grace period.

"The media was sycophantic with Iraq for a time. With Iran there will be no such grace period" Especially with Trump at the helm. Perhaps the Trump-hating media can stop obsessing about misspelled words in his tweets, and confront him on actual relevant issues.

Sure didn't help Poppy Bush, though.

I'm surprised it took him this long to make a war. Next he'll call for everyone to rally behind him. Those who don't he'll call traitors. It's the oldest trick of authoritarianism.

your response is silly as trump has shown more respect for constitutional limits and the rule of law than any of his predecessors...

Sarcasm, right?

Please provide concrete and specific examples comparing Trump's alleged "respect for constitutional limits and the rule of law" and how his predecessors violated the same limits and the rule of law.

https://uploads.disquscdn.c...

He also said it works the same whatever the government, dictatorship, democracy or anything in between.

He's been busy calling the political opposition "traitors" for his entire administration.

Of course, it's not the Democrats whose standard bearer is openly proclaimed to be a puppet of a rival power on that power's state television, and has been bankrolled by that power's organized crime syndicates for a while.

Russiagate, scotty? Please tell me you're not a believer in that fantasy? There are so many real reasons to loathe Trump, instead.

That Russian state TV likes to boast about Trump being a Russian puppet is not in dispute. And just recently more evidence was released explaining why Deutsche Bank was willing to loan Trump money when nobody else would: Russian oligarchs were guaranteeing the loans.

Exactly how deep this rabbit hole goes remains to be seen.

Good point.

I voted for the president, but I don't get this at all. For what? I hope he comes to his senses, but it's probably already too late to prevent some bad consequences.

The man is a compulsive liar. A man who is unashamedly unfaithful to his wife is not going to be faithful about anything he has ever said to you. Every MAGA hat wearing devotee knew this before the election. I still can't figure out what kind of self deception led so many of them to believe that he would act differently once in office?

And no matter how much you go on, it's clear that the economy is still really President Obama's economy. I've seen a lot of graphs on a lot of stats, and the deviations from President Obama to Trump are mostly negative.

That's not policy. The current economy is not deriving benefit from tax cuts, which is the only thing he has done legislatively to push it. Manufacturing experienced a slump over the last few months of 2019. The stimulus from the cuts was shortlived and didn't result in the economy surpassing 3% growth for any year (NOT QUARTERS) under Trump so far. Instead, it is being stoked by a reversal of interest rates by the Fed, along with the surreptitious expansion of its balance sheet once again. IOW, the Fed has returned somewhat to its Obama era policy of buying debt and lowering rates. Salaries were rising as Obama left office and unemployment was falling as well. Trump has actively tried to sabotage his own good economy by erecting vacuous tariffs and now seems hellbent on starting a conflagration that could result in consequences in the Strait of Hormuz.

That said, he gets to take credit for the good times. Comes with the territory but any moderate candidate of either party would probably be experiencing the same type of success under the circumstances. Maybe not so robust a stock market but unemployment and rising salaries would probably track similarly. Since 1996 all presidents have presided over around a 4% rise in salaries over their respective terms (Clinton reached 6%). So salaries are up nearly 20% since 1996.

Right. Obama didn't do much. UE hit 10% in 2010. The country was losing 750k jobs per month for the first six months or so of his presidency...and all that republicans could think about was austerity. The stock market saw new records under Obama and UE dropped to about 4.5% by the end of his second term. What part of "That said, he gets to take credit for the good times." did you overlook in my previous post? Do you even understand WHY it is that a stock market and unemployment would be horrible in a recession like the one in 2008-2009? Or maybe you think that on January 20th or 21st in 2009 he should have been able to wave a magic wand and make a nationwide financial collapse disappear overnight. Mr. Trump gets to take credit for the good times...AGAIN...I relent, but to say Obama didn't do much is just uniformed bunk.

So to summarize...Obama was handed a collapsing economy, job market and stock market, with UE reaching 10% by 2010. Trump was handed an economy that had experienced 75 or so consecutive months of job growth and 4.5% UE...AND a stock market at record heights compared to the previous administration. To VERY different inheritances.

I believe psychological research has shown that people compartmentalize their lives, and while they may lie in one area of their life, they can be generally truthful in most other areas, and vice versa. Trump lies about pretty much everything, but a lack of faithfulness in one's marriages doesn't necessarily indicate faithfulness across the board.

If every man who cheated on his wife can't be trusted, who do we trust?

I didn't cheat on mine. I miss her...