The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Trump Wins?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

Trump Backs Away From Further Military Conflict With Iran

President Trump said no Americans were harmed in missile strikes on U.S. bases, and Iran now “appears to be standing down.”
Analysts cautioned that even if the two sides ease off a further military clash in the short term, the conflict could very well play out in other ways.

My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.

 
Hide 208 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. anon[104] • Disclaimer says:

    It often takes a couple of days to understand what Trump is saying or doing. Waiting at least 48 hours before resorting to panic is prudent.

    • Agree: Coemgen
  2. vhrm says:

    Yes, but funded by eye watering continued and increased deficit spending…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  3. You don’t need to habitually go to the New York Times for this. It’s all over the place, and whatever they are saying at this point really doesn’t matter to most of us Americans.

    We care about the price of gasoline and whether or not our country is going to be in an even higher state of war than it already has been for as long as we can now remember. We want our 4th Amendment back and other things.

    Besides, Trump always wins. Don’t you know that?

  4. My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.

    “Happy Hour in America.”

    Not ideal for a teetotaler, perhaps. But this was effective:

  5. nebulafox says:

    Almost as if Operation IRANIAN FREEDOM isn’t a winning electoral gambit with anybody outside of the Beltway, including with hawks.

    • Agree: TomSchmidt
  6. Kirt says:

    That “peace” in “peace and prosperity” will have to be construed as no new wars, since Trump has not ended any of the ongoing ones. And I think he is as determined as anyone for a new war on Iran as are most of his supporters. (His enemies would prefer a war on Russia without necessarily neglecting Iran.) Once he is re-elected, he’ll have no reason to refrain from an all-out attack on Iran. In the meantime, the Iranians get to cast their vote.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  7. Anon[398] • Disclaimer says:

    Weird how basically one (((group))) is sad about this

  8. Trump must beware of the asset bubble that is growing, and is designed to burst in the last three months of his term.

  9. Now that he has dealt with the Iranians he can go back to tearing the Democrats a new asshole. The Senate is in the process of dismissing Pelosi’s power play and then it is off to FISA declassification and the Durham indictments. After that, all that is left is replacing Ginsburg and building the wall.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    , @MEH 0910
    , @Mr. Anon
  10. Barnard says:

    I agree with Trump running on a peace and prosperity campaign. He needs the economy to stay strong through the election to do that. It would also help if the Democrats chose one of their options black voters have no desire to support.

    • Replies: @Mr McKenna
  11. Lot says:

    Yes, Trump wins.

    After the anti-American/pro-jihadi left and right both had five days of predicting disaster, nothing.

    And predicted by me on January 3:

    “Iran’s getting baited.

    Everyone seems to think they’ll take it and create a pretext for shock-and-awe level heavy bombing.

    I’m not so sure. Sometimes the bully slinks away after getting popped in the nose. My prediction: no escalation, just a lot of hot angry Persian air.”

    This was in response to Phil Giraldi’s blustering article that Trump had “shift the long-simmering conflict between the two nations into high gear” and “ The blood of the Americans, Iranians and Iraqis who will die in the next few weeks is clearly on Donald Trump’s hands.”

    Seems to me that the only Iranian “blood” is not on “Trump’s hands” but on the feet of the funeral stampeders.

    • Replies: @Hypnotoad666
    , @AP
    , @Russ
  12. Peace and prosperity for who? The people who fight the wars and live in unfashionable places don’t deserve it, according to the NYT.

  13. Michael S says:

    I figured that Iran’s “missile strike” was never intended to be more than a face-saving gesture, a way to appease their own radicals and say that they won the exchange. Whereas on the U.S. side, we (or the mil-ind complex, or the neocons, or however you want to frame it) collected our scalp and suffered no real consequences other than letting the mullahs swing their dicks around for a few minutes.

    Trump embarrassed Khameni, the Iranians had to do something to avoid looking weak, and this apparently satisfied both parties, for now at least.

    Yes, war with Iran would be a disaster, but it’s not like Iran wants war with the U.S. either. The missile strike was bound to be a sham, like Trump’s earlier missile strike on some empty buildings in Syria.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
    , @Bliss
  14. Do blackpillers ever get tired of being wrong?

    What’s up with all these America First Nationalists who are hoping for “a vietnam-style military humiliation”?

    And yeah, Imperialism is bad and muh petrodollar allows the corrupt ruling class to function, but what is the plan for when US hegemony runs out and all the same people who hate you are still in power domestically only now the dollar is in freefall so you can’t commute to work or buy groceries?

  15. Rapparee says:

    President Trump has always been fond of the carrot & stick together, never relying on just one or the other- e.g., vindictively sue the pants off a disgruntled business associate, then later invite the guy to the Donald’s private box for a football game, wine and dine him, and offer to bury the hatchet. Having killed General Whatshisname, maybe some sort of magnanimous gesture toward Iran is in the works? It’s worked for him in the past.

    • Agree: jim jones
  16. @Buzz Mohawk

    Yes, and are you tired of winning?

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
  17. That’s unduly optimistic. In reality Trump with his maximum pressure policy (whose aim is nothing less than regime change or total surrender by Iran on issues like its missiles and proxies, it’s in no way limited to just the nuclear issue) has created a crisis that could still easily lead to disaster. He got lucky this time, because the supposedly crazy mullahs apparently are rational enough to limit themselves to a mostly symbolic retaliation, at least for now. But if they hadn’t or had somehow miscalculated and killed Americans with their missile strikes, you’d have full-on war now.
    Trump’s supporters are giving the man far too much credit, as they already did with his missile strikes on Syria. He keeps creating crises which could escalate terribly, if the other side would react as recklessly and irresponsibly as Trump acts. At some point his luck is going to run out, and the consequences won’t be pretty.

    • Agree: Hail
  18. Gdth says:

    Trump should run on having a scandal-free administration and claim that Democrat fanatics going berserk over things that never happened does not a scandal make.

  19. @anon

    Vox Day says always wait three days (although your right, two is usually enough).

    His takes are usually accurate as well, he read this one right IMO:

    I would not advise overreacting to the Iranian response to the recent US missile strikes.

    Iran struck back at the United States for the killing of a top Iranian general early Wednesday, firing a series of ballistic missiles at two Iraqi bases housing U.S. troops in a major escalation that brought the two longtime foes closer to war…. Iran has started its “second round” of attacks against bases holding U.S. troops in Iraq, the Tehran-based Tasnim news agency said on Wednesday. The second round of attacks started an hour after the first phase took place, the agency reported.

    This is not what countries do when they have any intention of engaging in actual war. The Iranian military has more than 500,000 active troops and there are no reports of them being deployed aggressively in the direction of Iraq or Saudi Arabia.

    This is just tit-for-tat. If Iran was serious, they would be deploying divisions and shutting down all naval traffic in the Gulf. Until they start doing that, I wouldn’t even bother paying the whole thing any attention.

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/01/missile-command-is-not-war.html

    • Replies: @Rex Little
  20. J.Ross says:

    Sounds a hell of a lot better than “love wins.”

  21. I think he should run on this platform!

  22. Lagertha says:

    Yes & duh at the same time! I had a nice walk in the woods…is it weird that I like January?

  23. @Inquiring Mind

    I’m exhausted, but that might be the beta blockers my doctor, Dr. Vinnie Boombatz, prescribed for my hypertension. (It’s a symptom of lifelong OCD — i.e. an overactive mind caught in infinite loops.)

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  24. Lagertha says:
    @Prof. Woland

    J’Adore Prof. Woland’s prediction.

  25. @German_reader

    Trump’s supporters are giving the man far too much credit, as they already did with his missile strikes on Syria. He keeps creating crises which could escalate terribly, if the other side would react as recklessly and irresponsibly as Trump acts. At some point his luck is going to run out, and the consequences won’t be pretty.

    Who knew Wile Coyote read German?

  26. Mr. Blank says:

    Watching the obviously-scripted way this has been playing out, I wonder just how far back the script actually goes. What are the odds that the Iranians themselves offered up Soleimani’s head to Trump in some sort of deep-back-channel deal?

    Going further down the rabbit hole: Maybe the mullahs saw Soleimani as a potential threat? Iran has purportedly been suffering quite badly under sanctions. If one wanted to mount a real and credible threat to the Iranian leadership (as opposed to another astroturfed color revolution) — who better to lead it than a nationally beloved war hero with an unimpeachable history of taking on the Great Satan? I’ve read that Soleimani wasn’t terribly religious, at least by Iranian standards, and he was around the age when a lot of blood-spattered old warhorses turn to thinking about their legacy. He would not be the first military hero to look at his country and say, “I bet I could run things around here a lot better than these clowns.” Maybe the mullahs knew he was thinking this, or suspected it, and decided to let Trump do their dirty work for them?

    I’m just pulling this all out of my ass, obviously. But if I’ve learned anything in this century, it’s that screwed-up shit like this happens more frequently than one would expect.

  27. Anybody seen Jack D since this latest development?

    Nevermind, I found him:

    • Replies: @Jack D
  28. @German_reader

    > Trump and his unhinged Mideast policies

    > At some point his luck is going to run out

    Right. So Trump is crazy but lucky.

    Sane but unlucky:

    Truman in Korea
    Kennedy/Johnson in Vietnam
    Bush Sr in Iraq
    Clinton in Serbia
    Bush Jr in Afghanistan, Iraq
    Obama in Libya, Yemen, Syria

    I can’t wait for sanity to return to the presidency. It’s what the world needs! And America…

  29. BB753 says:

    I was right, as always!

    • Replies: @Hail
  30. @European-American

    Carter always seemed like the unluckiest President. But he was so unlucky maybe it wasn’t luck?

  31. @Lot

    Seems to me that the only Iranian “blood” is not on “Trump’s hands” but on the feet of the funeral stampeders.

    A similar melee broke out at Khomeni’s funeral in ’89. I guess it’s some kind of Iranian tradition.

  32. Dr. X says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    We want our 4th Amendment back and other things.

    Yeah, like our First Amendment, Second Amendment, Fifth Amendment, and Eighth Amendment…

  33. @Mr. Blank

    I guess fine minds think alike.

    There is something kind of playground quality to the announcements, “We are done with our revenge. Just don’t hit us again” followed by Mr. Trump’s announcement, “They appear to be done with their revenge. Let’s see how this plays out.”

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  34. At the moment, I think Trump finessed this pretty well. He killed someone who deserved to be killed, resulting in Iran shooting a few missiles into the sand, then everyone backed off. The bad guy remains dead. For added laughs, a bunch of hysterical Iranians trampled themselves — Darwin Award winners. He can plausibly declare victory at this point.

  35. J.Ross says:
    @Steve Sailer

    You know about Lee Harvey and Osvaldo?
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Lee_Harvey
    Carter may have been something like a Trumpian outsider, but who couldn’t back his outsiderness up with Trumpian guile.

  36. @Steve Sailer

    Carter was a micro manager. Rumor has it that he insisted on talking to the captain of troops going ashore in landing craft. This was Lebanon, IIRC, and the captain was kinda busy doing more important stuff.

    Carter has never forgiven the USA for his 1980 defeat. His 1990s “diplomacy” to N Korea hamstrung BJC at at a time when things could have been done.

    One of our worst presidents. I regret talking my friend Steve into voting for him.

  37. @European-American

    Trump is more dangerous than all of those imo. Just ask yourself if you would have wanted Trump in power during the Cuban missile crisis.
    imo his supporters are making a big mistake in crediting him with foresight and strategic planning, since his base seems to be content with what he’s doing, there’s no incentive for him to change his dangerous policies…until it ends in disaster.

  38. J.Ross says:
    @Mr. Blank

    >obviously scripted

    How so? The Obama stunt with the kneeling sailors had to be something wierd because none of it makes any sense and its timing was damning, but
    >Iran sending terrorist trainers/agitators into other countries, especially Iraq
    >Trump wanting to avoid war but also to be taken seriously
    >The mullahs valuing Soleimani as a unique asset
    >Both sides seeing the wisdom of calming down
    all sound pretty consistent with non-controversial previously known facts.

  39. nebulafox says:
    @Mr. Blank

    No. Soleimani was a pious, committed Muslim going back to the 1970s. He came from a rural village to the city to pay off his farmer father’s debts and was deeply attracted to the ideology of the revolution, like most men of his generation from his social class.

    His close and apparently genuine personal friendship with Khameini is also noteworthy. In any case, he was as close to an irreplaceable figure as Tehran had.

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  40. Well, yet again he doesn’t lose. Not sure winning is a thing.

    It’s the Karl Popper presidency.

  41. nebulafox says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Carter was both unlucky and a terrible manager. The two are not mutually exclusive.

  42. anon[148] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    Trump is more dangerous than all of those imo.

    • LOL: silviosilver
  43. @German_reader

    This is your brain on CNN.

    • Replies: @European-American
  44. @Inquiring Mind

    It is exactly playground, a playground our ruling class never made it to.

    Anti-bullying is anti-vaxxing for social skills.

  45. istevefan says:
    @Not My Economy

    but what is the plan for when US hegemony runs out and all the same people who hate you are still in power domestically only now the dollar is in freefall so you can’t commute to work or buy groceries?

    They should have thought about that before they green-lighted the immivasion.

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    , @Not My Economy
  46. @Kirt

    This is deluded.

    • Agree: European-American
    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  47. istevefan says:

    My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.

    Your vague impression would be correct in the America that existed when Reagan won overwhelmingly. But the demographic changes that have taken place since then mean that no matter how good a republican president performs, he will go into November’s general election spotting his fill-in-the-blank democrat opponent CA (55), IL (20), MA(11), NY (29), and NJ (14).

    I could throw in some more as well, but just those states alone represent about 47% of the required total to win the election. And the shit-for-brains democrat won’t even have to spend one minute or one dime campaigning in those states to win them. The only reason he will visit those states is to raise money to fight in the battlegrounds.

    Trump might win, but it won’t be easy. He’ll have to fight tooth and nail to keep GOP states like Florida while trying to maintain his gains in the Great Lakes. My concern is that the democrats will not be caught ignoring Michigan and those other states this time. So Trump needs to win convincingly there. He won’t be able to squeak by with a 10K vote margin because Detroit alone can generate 10K extra votes without much effort. Ditto for PA and what the Philly machine could do.

    As for Florida, I am not on the ground so I can only speculate. I’m concerned about the felons getting to vote and about how many Puerto Ricans have relocated there since the hurricane. And I’m always concerned about Broward County and their cheating. I hope Trump has a full time lawyer stationed in Broward right now keeping tabs on the locals.

  48. @Michael S

    Yea it is interesting to compare it with the aftermath of the overthrow of Russia’s man in Ukraine whose name evades me. USA got its scalp and Putin responded with a face saving gesture of seizing Crimea.

  49. J.Ross says:
    @German_reader

    >Just ask yourself what Trump would have done with the Cuban Missile Crisis
    The worst case scenario of which was nuclear holocaust a few minutes sooner than the one we already faced, the groundwork for which was laid by CIA incompetence and our own sneaky missile placement, and the solution to which involved sending a plane right over the site. Trump’s efforts with the DPRK haven’t yielded a clean success, but neither have they gotten our ROI ally fried, and that situation seems very comparable.
    Was the Soviet Union happy with rather Trumpian Krushchev there?

  50. J.Ross says:
    @Steve Sailer

    re Carter unluckiness or lack of guile — Dan Gabriel puts the Desert One disaster down to two avoidable factors: a jarhead colonel who had to open his mouth and insist on marine involvement (since embassy security is a gyrene gridsquare, even if the special long-range helicopters called for were Air Force) and failure to deal with a known mechanical issue. Carter probably allowed both out of an overabundance of trust. The helicopter issue was known to the manufacturer and actually discovered during training by the marine pilots (who, however appropriate or new to this aircraft they were, are credited by their trainers and Gabriel with quickly mastering their role). Would a Trump have told the colonel to shut up or had an angry phone call with the helicopter company?
    Even as a failure, Desert One was an impressive and audacious plan, and had it not been for one factor (the pilots having acquitted themselves), it would have been an amazing success.

  51. J.Ross says:
    @Sam Haysom

    In this case we got a literal kill, in that case Goldman Sachs got a country and still possesses it: plus Crimea is not just a token, it’s important for naval assets.

  52. @Not My Economy

    Exactly. It’s like ok life sucks- you are divorced in a dead end job and your ex is getting split in half by her new husband while your kids call him dad but how does Iran dominating the Middle East or China sinking a couple air craft carriers help your situation. The idea that a reactionary party is going to ride the decline of Pax Americana into office is laughable. The best hope is a reactionary regime coming into power willing to manage the decline of imperial America. If America suffers a humialting defeat abroad things are going to suck awful lot more.

    • Replies: @istevefan
  53. Anonymous[125] • Disclaimer says:
    @James N. Kennett

    But which term?

  54. Whiskey says: • Website
    @istevefan

    Should have thought of that does not put gas in the tank or food on the table.

    Practical people are in favor of paying their bills next week not ideological purity and posturing. This has been the fundamental flaw of the Dissident Right — failure to think practically and demanding a hair shirt, flailing one’s back, and other penitential acts designed to appease God for sinning.

    There is a reason hermits on pillars make very terrible leaders.

    Soleimani aka General Kasey Kasem was the guy behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, among other things. At the time there was a Democrat as President who spent most of his time bombing Iraq. Keeping Iran’s enemy in check. General Kasey Kasem was behind the proxy war in Yemen, the bombing of the House of Saud’s oil facilities, and the Benghazi attack when Obama was sending him pallets of cash on airplanes.

    Iran by definition will be the US’s enemy, the way Russia will be, because the US wants cheap global oil to keep domestic peace and not have swarms of vibrants coming to the suburbs to loot as the police not paid in a month stay home and the two groups shoot it out.

    Iran and Russia being high cost producers need the oil price high to pay off their army of thug enforcers and are dangerously close to getting to the point where they cannot pay off the secret police. This is known as the Reza Pahlavi moment.

    The best that can be done is a muddle through short-term agreement with both not to have conflict further. The Mullahs lived in a bubble, they believed CNN and thought Pelosi and the FBI would frog march Trump out of the White House in days. This is why they staged the Embassy attack and Soleimani was there to oversee the second phase after security was mapped out, take hostages, parade them around and then demand whoever succeeded Trump after impeachment (they figured Pelosi) reinstate the Obama deal and give them even more pallets of cash.

    Trump was not going to be Jimmy Carter, so he waxed the dude. Obama warned him of the attempt the Israelis had on him … and got Benghazi in return. [The gay ambassador was there to oversee an arms for Jihadis in Syria deal, typical of the “Secret Wars” DC is so fond of]

    Trump wants a short term deal to get him through the next election. And probably a series of short term deals after that. I’m OK with that. He’s certainly not fond of the “Secret Wars” strategy pioneered by Obama — fight a whole bunch of Special Forces Olympics engagements in Mali, Chad, Niger, Sudan, Uganda, Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. [I’ve probably missed a few]. Keep them out of the Press with Magic Negro Dust. Engage with the dudes like Solemani who you are also fighting in other fronts.

    DC loved it because it allowed Generals to move up through combat overseeing without any actual risk to their own lives — only special forces and other small groups. No ANSWER or Code Pink weirdos in the streets. Lots of defense spending on spec ops stuff. Putting one over on the rubes which is 90% of the motivation of the Managerial ruling class.

    Trump is ending that … and good for him. It will be public or not at all. And the principal weapons will be sanctions. He gave Iraq the bill due if they kick out US troops for real not some meaningless vote to consider it. And promised sanctions palooza if they don’t pay.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @Momus
  55. @Not My Economy

    Whatever the plan is, it certainly shouldn’t include making constant excuses for the destabilizing efforts of the Iranian regime. Americans invaded Iraq, not Iran, and the Islamic Republic has been in existance a lot longer than the Shah rule, so Americans don’t owe Iranians jack shit regarding 1953. And it was Iranians who kept the Iran-Iraq war going long after they recaptured their lands lost in the initial Iraqi invasion. The idea of innocent powers existing in the region is asinine. The quickest way to get American troops out of Iraq is stability, and Iran is not helping that. So their proxies in Iraq will stand down, get hammered, or the Iraqis will ask us to leave. Every scenario works for the US.

    • Agree: XYZ (no Mr.)
    • Replies: @istevefan
  56. @Desiderius

    Good one, except German_reader says he doesn’t watch TV or read newspapers. He does read stuff on the internet though…

    I’m of two minds on this one. The conventional wisdom says Trump is an idiot who will get us into trouble. I’m tempted to ignore the conventional wisdom except… that’s what they said about George W. Bush: he’s an idiot who will get us in trouble… I didn’t believe them then, but they were right.

    I also note that the conventional wisdom said Reagan was an idiot who would get us in trouble. He mostly didn’t, right?

    Anyway, there’s something ugly and scary about Trump that really freaks people out, no matter what he does. It’s visceral, and of course it’s exploited by the media.

    The underlying reasons are probably complicated. Some of it is just that an unhibited, unapologetic old white guy saying old-fashioned stuff is just scary and disgusting to many nowadays. I’m reminded of Franz-Josef Strauss and Jean-Marie Le Pen.

    For some reason someone like Obama is much more soothing to many. Macron and Trudeau too. They look nicer and they are more polite. And they sure don’t seem like they would get us into trouble. It’s safer to be meek.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    , @Desiderius
  57. The line that Maggie Haberman and the like are using is “Trump looking for an off-ramp.”

    But really it’s the hysterics looking for the exit after declaring that WW3 had started. Too bad, what are they going to do with their blackout curtains and hoards of canned food?

  58. Lagertha says:
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Hahhaaaaa, Buzz! Happy New Year to a fellow OCD/ADHD…well, I am both! I was so tired all of December, past New Years, so, the weirdness of Iran sending lame ole’ missiles to the most redundant military bases, was sort of boring – I slept like a baby last night…and my husband is away, so the stuffed animals were clutching my side. Is it weird that I still sleep with stuffed animals when I am alone? I actually have a “body pillow panda,” when I feel particularly down.

    I have full confidence in the Iranian younger generations to bust-out, finally. I had (don’t know if they are alive) many, many good Iranian friends in the 70’s-80’s…the IR was horrible for them- they did not realize it at first, but now, after 40 years, they don’t want that life.
    https://dailymail.co/travel/travel_news/article-4148684/Stunning-photos-reveal-life-Iran-revolution.html

    • Replies: @Lagertha
  59. Exactly. It’s like ok life sucks- you are divorced in a dead end job and your ex is getting split in half by her new husband while your kids call him dad but how does Iran dominating the Middle East or China sinking a couple air craft carriers help your situation.

    Old Yiddish joke; Two fellows are talking and one tells the other he can’t stand this fighting with his wife over every little thing, it’s driving him crazy. So other fellow says you should do as I do, my wife and me have a compromise arrangement -I make the big decisions, she makes the small decisions.
    What are big decisions? Should Russia go to war with Germany, this is a big decision. Small decisions are what we should do , where we live and so on.

  60. MBlanc46 says:
    @German_reader

    I think that I prefer DJT in office during these situations than you.

  61. My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.

    Trump was elected accidentally the first time, and from the very day of his inauguration, he has been taking every possible step to ensure that it never happens again. Nevertheless, the American electorate is very obdurate and the Democratic Party is determined to help get Trump back into the White House if it can, so that they have some kind of a scapegoat.

    • Agree: Paleo Liberal
    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  62. gregor says:

    I guess the question is if we even want him to win at this point. He has totally failed on immigration. On foreign policy he seemed like a marginal improvement initially but at this point he’s an Israel-first neo-con.

    The main downside of him losing would be that the press will spin it as an emphatic rejection of Trump’s racism and xenophobia and one can only imagine how hard the GOP will cuck subsequent to such a loss. Trump is perceived as a fascist immigration hawk, so (whatever the reality) I don’t think it will look good for that perceived version of Trump to crash and burn.

    It’s time to recognize that dependence on the GOP is just not working. That party is a complete fraud. We need to take a page out of the Jew/Zionist playbook: Play both sides and engage in aggressive single issue advocacy. Hit important issues (free speech, immigration, isolationism) and have tailored strategies to influence both parties. On the Democratic side, certain populist economic and trade policies and even some environmental policies might be favorable. The NRA is a good model here in that they’ve been very focused and overall pretty successful. The immigration restriction lobby has done okay at killing a few bills, but that is just status quo and not strong enough to get through any actual cuts. The GOP is happy to use immigration to get votes and then not do anything.

  63. Polynikes says:
    @anon

    You mean all the fretting around here was for naught? Gee… who woulda thunk it?

    I’m sure the arm chair Islamic experts will show up any time now with their mea culpas.

    • Replies: @ThreeCranes
  64. Anonymous[270] • Disclaimer says:

    My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.

    Yes. But it’s not Trump who determines foreign policy. Or any policy, really. Nor he has shown a strong desire to be able to. The swamp is just as swampy, and as long as he gets reelected, all is good.

  65. istevefan says:
    @Whiskey

    Should have thought of that…

    You are the last person to comment on this. When patriots like Patrick Buchanan were trying to warn us about the existential threat that mass immigration posed to us, you challenged his American bona fides. Several of the long time commenters on this blog probably remember how you refused to even spell his name correctly as a gesture of disrespect because of your opposition to his stance on immigration and intervention.

    Whiskey, you were the epitome of the ditto head invade-the-world-invite-the-world crowd then, and I am not sure that you are aren’t a part of it today. To borrow a phrase from Buchanan, while you were out to save Anbar province, you lost us Arizona.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  66. AP says:
    @Lot

    Seems to me that the only Iranian “blood” is not on “Trump’s hands” but on the feet of the funeral stampeders.

    And on the Iranian AA operators who took down a Ukrainian commercial jet packed with Iranians.

  67. Russ says:
    @Lot

    Seems to me that the only Iranian “blood” is not on “Trump’s hands” but on the feet of the funeral stampeders.

    Such tumultuous affairs, those Iranian state funerals. During Khomeini’s, those shuttling the casket lost control at one point and the corpse spilled out. A microcosm of the Iranian existence if you ask me. Almost reminded one of the Monty Python animation wherein a pall bearer keeled over, the five survivors replaced the occupant with the freshly fallen, and the five plus one picked up and carried on.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
  68. istevefan says:
    @Sam Haysom

    The idea that a reactionary party is going to ride the decline of Pax Americana into office is laughable.

    But isn’t that how extreme parties come to power? Extremists aren’t competitive when times are good. They tend to become competitive during bad times and crises.

  69. Jack D says:
    @J.Ross

    They were lucky that they aborted. The plan was lame brained and would never have succeeded anyway and had they gotten further, even more people would have died, including the hostages (maybe that was the plan?). The place that it fell apart in, in the middle of the desert, was only Day 1 – the staging ground. Day 2 was going to be much worse, like a real life version of the plot of some Hollywood WWII thriller. Seize an airbase, land at the soccer stadium, on and on. Every step had to go perfectly or you couldn’t get to the next one. In a Hollywood movie, everything goes perfectly (after 10 takes). In real life you only get 1 take. And Carter had insisted on ridiculous conditions – he didn’t want to kill any civilians so if they were surrounded by a mob and trapped they were supposed to tear gas them, not shoot them.

    Ultimately, Carter did not have the Mandate of Heaven. The Mandate of Heaven has nothing to do with God. It could just as well come from the Devil. When you have the Mandate of Heaven, no harm can befall you – Hitler sat 5 feet from a bomb and emerged without a scratch. If you lack the Mandate of Heaven, then you can’t do anything right. Suddenly there are dust storms and collisions and hydraulic failures and rotor failures and god knows what.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    , @J.Ross
  70. @istevefan

    Hillary Clinton was a hateful, shrewish incompetent, and a failure at every single thing she ever put her hand to — a failure as an unelected assistant president, a failure as a public figure, a failure as a senator, a failure as Secretary of State, a two-time failure as a presidential candidate, a failure as a wife and as a woman.

    This evil, criminal harridan was the most revolting and distasteful presidential candidate I can recall in my lifetime. And on top of everything else, she publicly, and proudly, declared that she openly hated fully half of the American people.

    Or rather, I should say that she hated and condemned the American people, the ones whose ancestors built this place, the ones whose culture and history give the place its identity — and she sided instead with the “American” “people”: the ones who showed up here three weeks ago for the free stuff, the ones with absolutely zero historical, cultural, political, religious, linguistic, ethnic or racial connection to anything whatsoever having to do with real, historical America, but a who,e long list of imaginary grudges.

    Hillary Clinton more or less openly said, Go to hell, Romans, I’m siding with the Huns.

    And she only lost by a sliver. Think of that.

    Meanwhile, as Boomers die off and Whites die of opium poisoning, in the past four years we’ve lost several million Romans and added several million more Huns. And plus, millions more home-grown Hun Juniors have reached voting age. Virginia is the future.

    There isn’t going to be a way to share a country with these people.

  71. @istevefan

    but what is the plan for when US hegemony runs out and all the same people who hate you are still in power domestically only now the dollar is in freefall so you can’t commute to work or buy groceries?

    They should have thought about that before they green-lighted the immivasion.

    My question is for the internet right wingers who are cheering on Iran, China, etc to kick the USA in the teeth. If the USA stops being global hegemon, we lose the ability to print money. I’m asking, how these guys plan to overthrow the ruling class while also dealing with a total meltdown of modern society

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @nebulafox
  72. istevefan says:
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    Americans invaded Iraq, not Iran,

    And in doing so we have seemingly gifted it them. Too bad you guys didn’t connect the dots before you took out Saddam.

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
  73. Anonymous[187] • Disclaimer says:
    @vhrm

    Yes, but funded by eye watering continued and increased deficit spending…

    “funded by eye watering”??

  74. @German_reader

    The eventual resolution to the Cuban Missile Crisis, a secret missile base quid pro quo, strikes me as very Trumpian.

    • Replies: @German_reader
  75. @Mr. Blank

    I wondered the same thing with no evidence.

    Suleimani as an Iranian Julius Caesar that certain Mullahs may have preferred was eliminated so as to not challenge their power domestically.

    • Replies: @Hunsdon
  76. Jack D says:
    @Not My Economy

    What’s up with all these America First Nationalists who are hoping for “a vietnam-style military humiliation”?

    As all good America First Nationalists never tire of telling us, America does all its fighting on behalf of Israel and at the direction of Zionist Neo-Cons. So if America suffers a Vietnam-style military humiliation then Israel and the Neo-Cons will suffer an even greater humilation. That makes the humiliation of America worthwhile even if you have to wait in line to buy gas on alternate Tuesdays.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @gregor
  77. @Sam Haysom

    USA got its scalp and Putin responded with a face saving gesture of seizing Crimea.

    It was more of a base saving gesture than a face saving one.

  78. @Clifford Brown

    I don’t see any foundation for Trump’s image as deal-maker. Maybe his negotiating skills were appropriate for the real estate market in New York, but as president he’s achieved nothing so far (except alienating allies in Europe and elsewhere, though I suppose that’s a plus for many here).
    And he’s given no indication of willingness to cut back on his maximum pressure policy even a little, instead he’s announced there’ll be even more sanctions against Iran. So there’ll be more Iranian provocations and the risk of escalation will remain high.
    This article makes the argument in more detail:
    https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2020/01/08/trump-drives-past-an-off-ramp/

    All the arguments that Trump has some secret 4D chess plan (let alone such bizarre ideas like “Maybe the Iranians wanted Soleimani to be killed and made a deal with Trump about it”) seem an awful lot like wishful thinking to me.

  79. @Anonymous

    Funded by (modifier) (modifier) and (modifier) spending. IOW, “funded by… deficit spending.”

    The only thing funnier than a grammar nazi is a grammar nazi who doesn’t know any grammar.

    See me after class. And learn some manners.

  80. @Anonymous

    “funded by eye watering”??

    Along with powdered rhinoceros horn , it’s considered a great aphrodisiac by the Chinese. It’s worth a mint.

  81. istevefan says:
    @Not My Economy

    My question is for the internet right wingers who are cheering on Iran, China, etc to kick the USA in the teeth. If the USA stops being global hegemon, we lose the ability to print money. I’m asking, how these guys plan to overthrow the ruling class while also dealing with a total meltdown of modern society.

    Quit making a strawman argument. I am not arguing in favor of the Chinese or any flavor of muslim. In fact I and others like me have already been labeled as bad racists since we are vehemently opposed to allowing either Chinese or muslims of any flavor to immigrate en masse to the West. So the suggestion that supposed racists like us would root for China or any flavor of muslims is a non-starter.

    Additionally, I am not the one who advocated that we give China favorable trade agreements that offshored millions of US jobs to make them the world’s dominant economy with the ability to modernize their military into something that will become ever more formidable.

    I did not overthrow Saddam and hand Iraq over to the extremists and Iranians. I did not support doing the same in Syria, Libya and places yet to be determined.

    So let’s get straight on who is really mucking up America’s position in the world. It’s not us. It’s the folks who have screwed the pooch by not being able to think more than one move in advance. It’s the folks complaining that China is a growing threat after they gifted the Chinese economy with most favorable trade status. It’s the folks who gifted Iran Iraq by invading and removing Saddam. Don’t blame us for your screw-ups.

    What I and others with my views are concerned about is whether or not our nation, and our mother continent, will continue to be European. There is a serious concern right now that we are on track to lose all that has been created by the greats who came before us and people like you are worried about who is in charge in Baghdad.

    As the late, great Lawrence Auster once wrote, the traditionalist recognizes a threat to society the moment it arises. The conservative only recognizes it once it is too late to do anything about it. And the liberal only recognizes it, if he does at all, long after the damage has been done.

    It was traditionalists like Pat Buchanan who were warning us about this demographic catastrophe that was well underway in 1992. Yet conservatives would not then, and most still do not now, accept that it is a threat. By time people like you get done messing around like you are playing the board game Risk, it will be too late to save what we have.

  82. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    So if America suffers a Vietnam-style military humiliation then Israel and the Neo-Cons will suffer an even greater humilation.

    That is a low blow even coming from you. I’d venture to say that a significant chunk of us have served in America’s military and would never wish to see any harm come to those who serve. It is really insulting that you would suggest this.

    The last thing we want is for our fellow Americans to have their lives snuffed out for a worthless cause. I would not trade the life of one American soldier for any amount of humiliation it brought to some worthless dual citizen.

    • Replies: @Lot
  83. Lot says:
    @istevefan

    I don’t think Jack D was talking about you. He was referring to:

    “ America First Nationalists who are hoping for “a vietnam-style military humiliation”?”

    That doesn’t describe you, but does seem to be the consensus of the various Russia Today and Saker fans elsewhere on Unz.com

    • Agree: Jack D
  84. MEH 0910 says:
    @Prof. Woland

    After that, all that is left is replacing Ginsburg

    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    , @Pericles
  85. MEH 0910 says:

    Do you think Allah is trying to tell Ayatollah Khamenei something?:

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  86. Mr. Anon says:
    @Prof. Woland

    Trump Wins?

    Trump has to win every time.

    The Neocons only have to win once.

  87. @istevefan

    And cheering Iran, and making excuses for their destabilizing efforts in Iraq, while blanketly criticizing American actions to stop them, will turn back time and make it all better. Sounds like crap.

    • Replies: @Colin Wright
    , @Istevefan
  88. epebble says:
    @Not My Economy

    If USD becomes worthless, why does it affect my commute or groceries? Lot’s of other things will become expensive or unaffordable, but we are self-sufficient in energy and export a lot of agricultural goods. I think the country will become far better when the monkey on the back (reserve currency) gets off, even after a few scratches.

  89. Anonymous[286] • Disclaimer says:

    You know TRUMP WINS, since you played a key role in making it happen.
    “Noticing” is good and all – and crucial – but you gotta trust intuition too…

  90. @istevefan

    As the late, great Lawrence Auster once wrote, the traditionalist recognizes a threat to society the moment it arises. The conservative only recognizes it once it is too late to do anything about it. And the liberal only recognizes it, if he does at all, long after the damage has been done.

    And then there’s the progressive, who recognizes it as a historic force for social justice.

  91. @James N. Kennett

    Trump must beware of the asset bubble that is growing, and is designed to burst in the last three months of his term.

    Sort of what I thought, but keep in mind 1) the last two months of his term are after the election and hence relatively unimportant and 2) with each day that passes, we’re a little bit closer to re-election.

    • Replies: @James N. Kennett
  92. @James N. Kennett

    Trump must beware of the asset bubble that is growing, and is designed to burst in the last three months of his term.

    Sort of what I thought, but keep in mind 1) the last two months of his term are after the election and hence relatively unimportant and 2) with each day that passes, we’re a little bit closer to re-election.

    NOTE: Cloudflare intervention means this may be a double-post

  93. @Barnard

    All he needs to win are 1) the economy not to crash before November 3rd and 2) just one more high-profile negro to come out and admit that Trump isn’t actually Literally Hitler after all.

    Both of these are quite possible. The only downside is that we’re still stuck with Trump. What a state of affairs we have when he’s still better than all the alternatives.

  94. Bliss says:
    @Michael S

    I figured that Iran’s “missile strike” was never intended to be more than a face-saving gesture, a way to appease their own radicals and say that they won the exchange. Whereas on the U.S. side, we (or the mil-ind complex, or the neocons, or however you want to frame it) collected our scalp and suffered no real consequences other than letting the mullahs swing their dicks around for a few minutes.

    You all are too naive. The weak missile strike could not be the “severe revenge” promised by Khamenei. It would be an insult to Iran’s national hero to claim that such a tame response appeased the millions who idolized him.

    Look instead at the crash of the Ukrainian Boeing at Tehran’s International Airport which took place in the same time frame as the missile strike. I am willing to bet it was shot down by Iran. Why? Look at the passenger list: zero americans (too dangerous to kill Americans now) and 63 Canadians (wow).

    Here’s another bet: most if not all those “Canadians” were Israeli James Bonds. Likely some big fishes included. Google “Mossad Canadian Passports” if you doubt this.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
  95. Anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:

    Saileer endorses Trump,

    BALL GAME

  96. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    Hitler survived two bombs, both of which were swaddled in German woodworking and subject to Teutonic scheduling, and at least one shooter, who had not anticipated that, as his target approached, the view would be obscured by thousands of raised arms.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  97. the Islamic Republic has been in existance a lot longer than the Shah rule, so Americans don’t owe Iranians jack shit regarding 1953.

    There’s also the fact that the Shah allied with the mullahs against Mossadegh, who might have had non-tame clerics shot, had he taken power*, just like his Soviet counterparts and sponsors. Khomeini was forced into exile only after he made a play for the throne. For the mullahs to give Uncle Sam a hard time would be like the Soviets blaming the Germans for sending Lenin on a sealed train to Russia. And it was the US (thanks to the peanut brain) who persuaded the Shah to abdicate instead of putting his opponents to the sword, as pretty much every Persian ruler before him had done in response to internal unrest.

    It’s pretty amazing how Soviet disinformation has pervaded thinking on both the left and right regarding this incident. Doesn’t anyone read history any more? The Russians detached chunks of the Persian empire. As did the Turks. Why aren’t the Iranians going after either country?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Zuhab
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Turkmenchay

    The real bottom line is that Iran has gone after the US because of its perceived weakness. They killed 200 Marines in Lebanon. Uncle Sam has yet to even the score, even after the attack on Solaimani. Between Operation Praying Mantis and Solaimani’s death, less than 100 Iranians have died as a result of American attacks since the Marine barracks bombing. It shouldn’t be a big surprise that the mullahs feel that Uncle Sam doesn’t have the heart to go after them.

    * Mossadegh was the Shah’s Prime Minister. In an earlier era, he might have been the Grand Vizier. Fact is, he served at the Shah’s pleasure, like people in similar posts in the Gulf kingdoms.

    • Replies: @Istevefan
  98. ‘My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.’

    Yeah. He may just have appeased his Jewish handlers, too — at any rate, left them with no way to maneuver him into attacking Iran again.

    Iran’s pissed — but just so long as that chicken doesn’t come home to roost until after the second Tuesday in November…

  99. @Russ

    ‘Such tumultuous affairs, those Iranian state funerals. During Khomeini’s, those shuttling the casket lost control at one point and the corpse spilled out. A microcosm of the Iranian existence if you ask me. Almost reminded one of the Monty Python animation wherein a pall bearer keeled over, the five survivors replaced the occupant with the freshly fallen, and the five plus one picked up and carried on.’

    They have their shortcomings; but you’ll note that they did have hostile Sunni neighbors on either flank, and they’ve gotten rid of both of them.

    Or to be precise, somehow we wound up doing it for them. I think it’s a bad idea to underestimate Iran.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  100. @XYZ (no Mr.)

    ‘And cheering Iran, and making excuses for their destabilizing efforts in Iraq…’

    Iran’s destabilizing efforts in Iraq? How would you describe what we’ve done over the last seventeen years?

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
  101. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    Is there a correlation between micromanagers and stupidly complex, contingency-dependent plans?

    • Replies: @Alan Mercer
  102. LondonBob says:
    @European-American

    Col Pat Lang told Bush senior Saddam only invaded Kuwait because he thought he got the green light from his administration and that if he offered Saddam a facing saving option to withdraw he would, he didn’t take the advice offered. A lot of people praise GHWB but he really set the ball rolling with Gulf War I.

    • Agree: BB753
  103. LondonBob says:
    @nebulafox

    Soleimani’s deputy, the new boss, is meant to be even more competent. He just doesn’t look like Gianni Versace, or have as good PR.

  104. Hunsdon says:
    @Sam Haysom

    You are so right, Sam. Kirt is a fool.

  105. Hunsdon says:
    @Sam Haysom

    Sam, here I must agree with J. Ross and Clifford Brown; the importance of Crimea is something that the Western press often glosses right over, but it is the home of the Russian Black Sea Fleet. No Russian government would allow it to be taken by hostile actors. I generally analogize it to San Diego for the US.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  106. Hunsdon says:
    @Clifford Brown

    I’ve been thinking the same thing for the last couple of days. (Maybe bunches of people have been suggesting this, but if so I haven’t seen it, and you are the first person I’ve run across who also had that take.) The more I looked at pictures of Suleimani, the more I thought, “He looks like a guy who wouldn’t entirely mind if he ended up as El Supremo.”

  107. @J.Ross

    Being J over P in Myers-Briggs?

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  108. @European-American

    The conventional wisdom says Trump is an idiot who will get us into trouble.

    No, it really doesn’t.

    You’re stuck at the wrong convention.

  109. @Alan Mercer

    That’s called maturity.

    “If a person is not a liberal when he is twenty, he has no heart; if he is not a conservative when he is forty, he has no head.’

    – Adams

  110. gregor says:
    @Jack D

    “America does all its fighting on behalf of Israel and at the direction of Zionist Neo-Cons”

    Yeah, pretty much.

    “ then Israel and the Neo-Cons will suffer an even greater humilation”

    No they won’t because the public is oblivious. Bush gets the blame for Iraq and Trump will get the blame for Iran. That is their trick: get a dumb goy like Trump to do what you want, keep that influence concealed, and leave dumb goy holding the bag.

  111. @European-American

    No one at that level is an idiot. Bush got us into trouble because his dad ran with a bad crowd and they got to him, then his wife got embarassed by Katrina and he’s a simp.

    In general, you’re too obsessed with the narrow prejudices of your class. Either get out more or pay less attention to prejudices. They loathe Trump because he shames their feckless inaction.

  112. @J.Ross

    Even as a failure, Desert One was an impressive and audacious plan, and had it not been for one factor (the pilots having acquitted themselves), it would have been an amazing success.

    Desert One’s failure prompted the creation of the US Army’s 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/160th_Special_Operations_Aviation_Regiment_(Airborne)#History

    After the 1980 Operation Eagle Claw attempt to rescue American hostages held in Tehran, Iran, failed, President Jimmy Carter ordered former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. James L. Holloway III to figure out how the U.S. military could best mount another attempt. At the time there were no U.S. helicopter units trained in this kind of stealthy, short-notice Special Operations mission.

    Except that:

    Until 2013, only men were allowed to be pilots in the 160th.

    Poz….I see poz….everywhere….

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
  113. Completely OT, but there are times when I am very happy my ancestors got out their muskets and drove out the British.

    The problems of the UK royal family are NOT our problems.

    And if a prince would be happier in Canada …

  114. @LondonBob

    “Soleimani’s deputy, the new boss, is meant to be even more competent.”

    Lol, Baghdad Bob is now London Bob.

  115. @Jonathan Mason

    Trump was elected accidentally the first time, and from the very day of his inauguration, he has been taking every possible step to ensure that it never happens again. Nevertheless, the American electorate is very obdurate and the Democratic Party is determined to help get Trump back into the White House if it can, so that they have some kind of a scapegoat.

    There have been many times when Trump seemed to be as confused as a dog that actually caught a car.

    I am a Democrat, and my family has been Democrats since Andrew Jackson. At times I am amazed at how accurately the modern Democrats shoot themselves in the foot. For example, Ms. Warren looked like she had a great chance of winning, A PLAN for everything, until people actually looked at her plans.

    Biden, a nightmare of a candidate, may find himself with the nomination by simply not being a complete lunatic. A confused old man is more popular than socialists, it appears.

    At this point, it seems far too likely we will soon find ourselves with a president with senile dementia, if we don’t have one already. What I can’t tell you is the name or party of that president.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  116. @Hunsdon

    My point wasn’t that Crimea was inconsequential only that it didn’t involve escalating tensions and allowed Putin to save face from an embarrassing reversal. And let’s be clear over throwing Moscow’s man in the Ukraine is a lot bigger set back for the Russians than some spook getting killed was for Iran.

    • Replies: @Istevefan
  117. Istevefan says:
    @Johann Ricke

    . They killed 200 Marines in Lebanon. Uncle Sam has yet to even the score,

    What about their airliner we downed with 290 aboard?

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
    , @Svigor
    , @Jack D
  118. @MEH 0910

    She will be 99 at the end of President Pence’s second term

    • LOL: TomSchmidt
  119. Istevefan says:
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    So you fucked up Saddam’s Iraq that was a counter to Iran, squandered thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars in the process, and accuse the people pointing this out as being pro-Iran.

    You sound like a Bolshevik blaming the failure of a 5 year plan on the wreckers.

    All the while you continue to support mass immigration of Arabs, Iranians, Martians, it doesn’t matter, into our lands. And you have the gall to claim we’re anti-American?

    • Replies: @XYZ (no Mr.)
  120. Pericles says:
    @MEH 0910

    Big if true, but when was RBG last seen in the flesh?

    Things would get really exciting if, say, Breyer (merely age 81) retired for health reasons. At his age, Scalia had already been dead for two years.

    You know what, on further consideration Trump should visit RBG and have a chat, see how she’s holding up, poor old bird. Bring a TV team.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  121. Istevefan says:
    @Sam Haysom

    I can’t tell the difference between a Ukrainian and a Russian. It matters not to me whether one or the other rules Crimea so long as both are Christian and are no longer godless Bolsheviks.

    Of more immediate concern is the nearly 3000 legal immigrants each day, 365 days per year, who continue to enter and replace the European people of this nation at an alarming rate.

    Do you have any plans to address this, or do you consider it a feature, not a bug, of your world order?

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  122. What about their airliner we downed with 290 aboard?

    That was a mistake, just like the shooting down of the Ukrainian airliner by the Iranians was a mistake, and we paid them $130m. Did we receive a thin dime for the Marine barracks bombing?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655#Aftermath

    There’s something really warped about the alt-right’s adoption of the left’s narrative. The left-wing view is that the US is the locus of evil in the modern world, and it’s the fault of capitalists and right wingers. The alt-right view is that the US is evil incarnate abroad, sowing chaos everywhere it acts, and it’s the fault of the Jews.

    It took a subhuman (to coin a word) like Hitler for the Germans to become apologetic about their foreign policy, and even that was limited to what the Nazis did. You ever hear Germans being apologetic about starting WWI in order to expand their territory at the expense of their neighbors? You want to talk about a war that seriously damaged Europe – that would be WWI.

    Alt-righters in Germany aren’t even apologetic about Hitler. Why are alt-righters stateside apologetic about a really tame version of what just about every great power in the world has done since the beginning of time? Especially when the historical record shows that the so-called victims have both suffered far greater outrages at the hands of others and inflicted major atrocities on lesser powers when they were in ascendance?

    The idea that Uncle Sam was committing this great sin in helping the Shah against his treacherous courtiers is laughable in view of Persia’s long history of conquests and the imposition of tribute levies on the conquered lands. And the idea that the Persian empire took a hands-off view vis-a-vis the leadership of the neighboring lands it hadn’t already conquered, doesn’t pass even the most cursory examination.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
  123. @Polynikes

    I’m one of the non-fretters but I’m not as optimistic as those who believe that the danger is over. The counterstrike may have appeared to have been a largely symbolic gesture designed to appease the wrath of the Iranian street mobs, but it has also lulled many of the American commentariat into believing that that’s all the impotent Iranians are capable of.

    I don’t see the other shoe as having dropped. Somewhere in the flurry of responses, the Iranians vowed a tit for tat type targeted assassination. We’re not out of the woods yet.

  124. @Istevefan

    You’re rants are getting increasingly bizarre, and yep, you and lots of commenters here are definitely pro-Iran in an America vs Iran situation, and since Iran is not in the right, that does make you anti-American. And my comment history of course shows how much I love mass immigration. Btw, aren’t you an American veteran? Wouldn’t you actually be we?

    • Replies: @istevefan
  125. @Colin Wright

    Fixing a mistake made in 2003. What excuse do the Iranians have again? Most countries want neighbors with stable governments. Unless, of course, they want to exert their own influence.

  126. @Istevefan

    Yep, more false equivalency. A ruinous mistake involving civilian airliner traffic in the middle of a combat zone — a war not started by America, and kept going by the desire of the Iranian regime long after Iranian lands were regained, and human wave attacks used in an attempt to gain Iraqi territory — is exactly the same as truck bombs used to kill peacekeepers. Sure, sure.

  127. Flip says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    As I said at the time, I’d rather elect a random person off the street than HRC.

  128. Svigor says:

    This thing is playing out as if the neocons hooked electrodes up to the joint chiefs and forced their comatose bodies to assassinate Soleimani, and Trump has been doing damage control since.

    So you fucked up Saddam’s Iraq that was a counter to Iran, squandered thousands of US lives and trillions of dollars in the process, and accuse the people pointing this out as being pro-Iran.

    The “you’re pro-Iran” thing is the province of 1. dumb, low-info boomers 2. Zionists trying to sound like and appeal to dumb, low-info boomers.

    Now that he has dealt with the Iranians he can go back to tearing the Democrats a new asshole.

    Do people actually think that’s what’s been going on for the last 3 years?

    My God, the levels of cope required…

  129. Svigor says:

    Lot says:
    January 9, 2020 at 12:49 am GMT • 100 Words
    Yes, Trump wins.

    After the anti-American/pro-jihadi left and right both had five days of predicting disaster, nothing.

    When a jew starts talking about who’s “anti-American” or “pro-jihadi,” you’re about to receive a large ration of BS. Their notion of each is so entangled with “pro-jewish,” it’s impossible to make a distinction. Something similar holds for all related terms, like “pro-American,” “patriotism,” “who we are,” “the American way,” “American values,” etc. They literally have no clue. They are incapable of doing anything but substituting in their own values for x. Their being very recent arrivals doesn’t help, either; they and their ancestors had no role in taming this wild continent, defeating its natives, or forging the United States (and in the cases of mixed jews, it’s only the very exceptional ones like Syon who take any cues from their non-jewish forbears).

  130. Goddard says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Hillary Clinton was a hateful, shrewish incompetent, and a failure at every single thing she ever put her hand to …

    Very, very well said.

  131. Svigor says:
    @Istevefan

    Not to mention the fact that no, the Iranians didn’t perpetrate the attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut. There’s no evidence that they did. It’s entirely speculation on zionists’ part (nothing new about jews presenting their flights of fancy as fact) that they asked Hezbollah to do it.

    In fact, IIRC, there isn’t even any proof that Hezbollah carried out the attack. They’ve never taken credit, and there’s never been any evidence, IIRC.

    What’s more, automatically blaming Iran for everything Hezbollah ever supposedly did is a lot like blaming America for everything the mujahideen or the Kurds ever did.

    P.S., dying is what soldiers do in warzones. How about we stop sending them to these shitholes? Believe me, Ricke and his fellow-traveling zionists couldn’t give less of a fuck about our dead Marines from 1980. They just want the stupid goyim to care. And only in a specific way; via belligerence against Iran, and whoever else the zionists have a hate-on for in the current year.

    If these people actually gave a fuck about American lives, they’d be preaching 1 complete withdrawal of all American military from Muslim countries, 2 completely closed borders with all Muslim countries, and to all Muslims, and 3 repatriation/expulsion of all Muslim populations in American territory. These three measures would end all American casualties at the hands of Muslims.

    Is that what they preach? No, it is not. Why? Because it wouldn’t serve jewish or Israeli or zionist interests. They need us to fight their wars for them.

    • Replies: @istevefan
    , @Lot
  132. nebulafox says:
    @Not My Economy

    I am not “cheering on” Iran: I am recognizing reality. It’ll have an ugly way of impressing itself on you if you don’t.

  133. nebulafox says:
    @J.Ross

    He survived a lot more than that, going back to the early Munich days. Even in 1914: his company suffered 50% casualty rates during First Ypres. It’s not hard to see how Hitler could have gotten the impression that he had fate on his side.

  134. Jack D says:
    @The Germ Theory of Disease

    There isn’t going to be a way to share a country with these people.

    What are you advocating – civil war? We had one of those already – very bloody affair. The losing side in that war didn’t recover for a century.

    In places where “these people” already rule, life is not perfect but it’s tolerable. The commissars don’t arrest you at night. “These people” don’t evict you from your home. Our dear host lives in such a place. He can tell you. There’s a lot of litter but the tacos are great. It’s not worth fighting a war to make a bad but tolerable situation slightly better. Move to Hungary if you don’t like it but don’t throw our country into war.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
  135. @Bliss

    Look instead at the crash of the Ukrainian Boeing at Tehran’s International Airport which took place in the same time frame as the missile strike. I am willing to bet it was shot down by Iran. Why? Look at the passenger list: zero americans (too dangerous to kill Americans now) and 63 Canadians (wow).
    Here’s another bet: most if not all those “Canadians” were Israeli James Bonds. Likely some big fishes included. Google “Mossad Canadian Passports” if you doubt this.

    The sheer demented zaniness of this thesis is refreshing. The idea that the Mossad would send 63 agents on the same flight into Ukraine beggars belief. That that flight would be routed through Tehran is just icing on the cake ( admittedly a particularly creamy and delicious icing). You know the old saw about ‘If you hear hoof beats, think horses not zebras? This is like hearing hoof beats and saying “Ha , I knew Pliohippus was not really extinct!”

    • Replies: @Jack D
  136. Jack D says:
    @Istevefan

    That wasn’t evening the score, it was an accidental fuck-up, just like the accidental fuck-up that Iran made yesterday with the Ukrainian jet with mostly Iranians and Canadian-Iranians on it. They weren’t trying to even the score with Ukraine, it’s just fog of war. In the fog of war, civilians die.

    The consequences for a false negative in a conflict zone can be very high – if the enemy plane gets thru, your aircraft carrier gets sunk, your capital is destroyed and your leaders killed, etc. Therefore the burden of proof is lowered, so you get false positives instead (you mistake a civilian jet for an enemy war plane). The guys manning the anti-aircraft defense are under a lot of pressure (if they let the enemy bomber thru maybe they will get court martialed or even come under suspicion as enemy agents) and get itchy trigger fingers and they start seeing things that aren’t there – doesn’t that 737 look like a bomber to you?

    If you are a civilian and you don’t want to die, stay out of conflict zones and especially stay out of the sky in a conflict zone. That’s just how it is.

    • Replies: @istevefan
  137. Jack D says:
    @kaganovitch

    There is a large Iranian immigrant community in Canada, esp. Toronto (Tehranto). Many of them are Iranian college students whose parents or grandparents still live in Iran. Most colleges are on winter break and they went home to see grandma over the holidays and were on their way back. There are no direct flights between Canada and Iran. The Ukrainian airline filled this niche, selling tickets thru travel agents located in Canadian-Iranian areas (and the prices were not bad). The kids knew that the situation was tense but they had to get back to college or their jobs and the tickets, like most modern airline tickets, were non-refundable. So maybe they were a little unsure about whether to get on that plane yesterday, but they let these other considerations outweigh their fears.

    Number of Mossad agents on that jet : zero.

    Even if the Iranians thought that there were one or more, why not arrest them at the airport instead of shooting down the whole plane? Iran is not shy about arresting foreign “spies”.

    The level of dementia here is sometimes off the charts and Joos seem to feature prominently in the imagination of the tinfoil hat brigade.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  138. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    If you are a civilian and you don’t want to die, stay out of conflict zones and especially stay out of the sky in a conflict zone. That’s just how it is.

    Those civilians in 1989 were taking off on a flight from their own nation.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  139. @Istevefan

    I’ve found it best to ignore black pilled boomers. Toodles.

  140. @Jack D

    Yep a lot of single boomers who aren’t around people who care about them enough to notice the signs of dementia. You know that guys that make you physically cringe when standing in line behind them. Thats 75 percent of Unz regulars.

    even compared to your ethnically motivated resentments and jealousies this crew is pathetic.

  141. @istevefan

    the America first battalion seems awful concerned about the fates of Iranians three decades ago. Why keep pretending? Just openly embrace that you are rooting against america- whats the point in pretending?

  142. istevefan says:
    @XYZ (no Mr.)

    You’re rants are getting increasingly bizarre,

    Only if you find facts bizarre. It is a fact that removing Saddam helped Iran. It is a fact that we have squandered trillions in helping to bolster Iran’s position in the region. And it’s a fact that the number of muslims in America has drastically increased since 9-11 due to immigration.

    How much more damage does you side intend to do to America? At what point will you acknowledge you are either utterly incompetent, or deliberately intent on our destruction?

    Of course you can explain to us how all of that is really beneficial to core Americans. Otherwise your arguments are empty and reveal just how anti-American you truly are.

    yep, you and lots of commenters here are definitely pro-Iran in an America vs Iran situation

    I believe I recall David Frum calling Patrick Buchanan and a host of others unpatriotic conservatives because they did not support the 2003 Iraq invasion. Of course we know that Frum was never really an American to begin with, and history has shown who was correct. So don’t expect us to be swayed by your accusations that we are somehow anti-American. My guess is, like Frum, you are not even an American in the first place.

  143. @Paleo Liberal

    At this point, it seems far too likely we will soon find ourselves with a president with senile dementia, if we don’t have one already.

    We do, we do. The latest Trumpism is a claim that Suleimani was plotting to blow up a US embassy. Aside from questioning the tactical purpose of this, I wonder why Pompeo & Co. did not think to explain this basic and verifiable fact to Congress when they had the chance.

    Or could Trump be telling porkie-pies? After all, after 15,000 lies, what harm could one more possibly do?

    Trump today: “I have had calls from numerous senators and numerous congressmen and women, saying that this was the greatest presentation they ever had.”

    Yeah, right!

    But how many calls did he get from those who thought it was dreadful, including two Republican senators, or did they just not call him for some reason? Or is he just making it up as he goes along?

    At the best, this just shows that numerous senators and congressfolk are such pussified sycophants that they will bite their tongues and tell Trump whatever they think he wants to hear for a quiet life, like nursing staff dealing with a cantankerous grand-dad in a nursing home who is raging over minority thieves allegedly stealing his dentures, his toilet paper, and his remote control.

    At worst, it shows that Trump has completely lost the plot and needs to retire to spend more time with his family–something his family must truly dread.

    • Replies: @Paleo Liberal
  144. @Jonathan Mason

    How far are we from a Woodrow Wilson scenario?

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  145. istevefan says:
    @Svigor

    2 completely closed borders with all Muslim countries, and to all Muslims, and 3 repatriation/expulsion of all Muslim populations in American territory.

    Yeah, I never could understand their position that muslims are dangerous and we need to intervene in their nations, but at the same time we also need to take in vast quantities of muslims into the United States and Europe. I doubt we took any new Japanese immigrants during WW2. And though we didn’t deport those who were here, we took measures to contain the threat.

  146. @Pericles

    You know what, on further consideration Trump should visit RBG and have a chat, see how she’s holding up, poor old bird.

    If he thinks he has limited time left and he mentions her name in his ramblings, it might pop up on his daily assassination checklist prepared for him by his secretarial staff.

    • Replies: @Pericles
  147. @Paleo Liberal

    How far are we from a Woodrow Wilson scenario?

    I don’t know, but I saw that Melania was reading a biography of Edith Wilson.

    To be serious for a moment, I have been saying for some time that I do not believe Trump will be able to run in November, due to the fact that his dementia is rapidly overtaking whatever is left of his ability to function. I suppose it is possible that he will be propped up and operated by a glove puppet artist, but I suspect that even though you can fool most of the American people most of the time, you can’t fool them for ever.

    I think he will retire within the next 10 months.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    , @Anonymous
  148. Jack D says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Offering a psychiatric diagnosis of a patient you have not examined is against medical ethics, for good reason. Six of the last 4 Republican Presidents have been remotely diagnosed as stupid to begin with, mentally ill, demented, alcoholic, etc. and there was nothing clinically wrong with any of them while they were still in office – it was just politics. While for some reason, Democrats always offer candidates that are as sharp as tacks and free from all illness, physical or mental. If for some reason, like RBG, they do come down with some minor bug like lung cancer, the doctors fix them right up, no problem. It’s really remarkably how they find such fit and resilient men and women while the Republicans keep giving us mental defectives.

    10 months takes us almost to the election. If he makes it that far (and loses) then he would probably serve out his term even if he has lost the thread. Putting Pence in the Oval Office for 2 months would be more bother than it is worth.

  149. Jack D says:
    @istevefan

    Some people here have gone far beyond just not supporting an invasion of Iran (BTW, I don’t think ANYONE has actually spoken in favor invading Iran – “invading Iran” is a boogey man that people hold up, not an actual Administration plan). They speak about Soleimani as if he was a great and noble general and wonder why we would be so low as to knock off such a fine man who was on a diplomatic mission, etc. There come a point in every conflict where being “anti-war” is effectively the same thing as being for the other side. See Jane Fonda in Vietnam. It’s easy to cross the line and some people here have.

    • Replies: @kaganovitch
    , @istevefan
  150. Dumbo says:

    As a character in an old Woody Allen movie (one of the old, funny ones) asks a General: “Win? What do we win?”

    Trump may win reelection and/or neocon approval, but American citizens win very little with this piss contests with Iran. They are pointless and dangerous.

    Also it seems to me that Iranians are not as dumb as they seem to be to the average poster here; obviously they are taking their time.

    America would do well to remember that it has existed as a superpower for much less time than most empires. Iran/Persia is older than America. It may still last longer too.

  151. @Jack D

    “Our country – In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right, and always successful, right or wrong.” Commodore Stephen Decatur

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  152. J.Ross says:
    @Jack D

    You sound like John MacAfee just before the local police department decided that he needed to donate to their shoe fund: and as always, with holocausts targeting gentiles, it is necessary to wait until millions are dead, then aggressively deny that anything is happening, and then wait a bit more just to be sure. The model of Mexicanization isn’t a better suburb, it’s the burnt-out communitues far from California where the cartels can surface with impunity and return to Atzlan at their leisure, while the police rigorously investigate dangerous pieces of paper.

  153. Hail says: • Website
    @BB753

    I was right, as always!

    How do you do it?

    • Replies: @BB753
  154. istevefan says:
    @Jack D

    “invading Iran” is a boogey man that people hold up, not an actual Administration plan).

    If we don’t have to invade Iran to meet our policy goals, then doesn’t this show that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were unnecessary? Couldn’t we have accomplished our goals without the costly invasion and occupations? If not, why is Iran different?

    There come a point in every conflict where being “anti-war” is effectively the same thing as being for the other side.

    I think you could use this advice for yourself. You have sometimes responded to immigration hawks on this site by suggesting that we should give it up because there is no going back. You tell us the old America is gone, and the best we can do is to just manage our descent into Brazil North or something along those lines.

    Why? Isn’t giving up and accepting our demographic replacement akin to your complaint about others being ‘anti-war’?

    Also, your side was given the green light to mess around in the middle east for the past two decades, yet gave nothing in return. While your side got tremendous military budgets, we got next to nothing for a decent border wall. We got next to nothing for immigration enforcement. We got nothing for a reduction in legal immigration. And given that 9-11 was kicked off by those who violated our immigration law, shouldn’t we have gotten something along those lines as part of the war on terror?

    How about going forward you hawks give us something in return for your mid east adventures. How about stopping all muslim immigration to our nation in exchange for bombing the crap out of Iran, Syria, and wherever else you find misbehaving muslims?

    If you could arrange that, I’d reenlist. But why should we continue to follow the hawks who have given us next to nothing on defending the homeland for the past 20 years while they have squandered so much in a foolish way that by their own admission made their enemy stronger?

    We’ve spent $6 trillion post 9-11 on our various military operations. Our national debt is now $24 trillion. It seems more than reasonable that your side should have to account for what you have blown and give us more than “trust the plan”.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  155. @kaganovitch

    Yep Stephen had it right. It funny steve coined that leap frogging loyalties idea but the people it best describes are you snooze inducing black pilled boomers. At least the cosmos have a separate tribe they are loyal to you guys are just bitter and want to see things burn.

  156. @istevefan

    Damn every once a spark ignites in the boomer brain and they make a good point. Jack D is absolutely guilty of precisely the legerdemain you accuse him of. Of course that insight was buried in a bunch of rambling ( no one on this site supports the Iraq war or the afghan war bringing it up is pure straw manning.) someone of us manage to oppose open borders and the empire without siding with America’s enemies. You can’t- likely because you don’t have the patience or self disciple to actively work for solutions and you are praying for some foolish miracle to fix things or even more likely you hate your ex-wife and how things worked out so you want America to burn.

  157. Jack D says:

    If we don’t have to invade Iran to meet our policy goals, then doesn’t this show that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were a mistake?

    No, not necessarily. Every situation is different – just because it is inadvisable to invade country A in year X it does not follow that it is (or was) inadvisable to invade country B in year Y. We met our policy goals in the Cold War without invading Russia – this does not mean that it is ALWAYs advisable not to invade in order to meet your policy goals. Sometimes it is and sometimes it ain’t. We invaded Panama and Grenada and our policy goals were met quite well.

    Now in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq, I think the invasions were advisable but that we fucked up the occupations, badly. We no longer have the civilizational confidence or military manpower to do a proper occupation but we should have known that and not started what we could not finish. Both countries also had extensive borders with hostile or unhelpful powers (putting aside that the Pakistanis are our “allies”) which made occupation difficult and we should have dealt with that appropriately as part of the invasion plan (or not invaded to begin with). In Afghanistan, we had spent years building up an anti-modern religious cult in order to stick it to the Russians. These folks were not going to shift gears and love modernity just because it came in American form. Would our occupation of Germany have been successful if we had allowed a Nazi state to remain in power in Austria that would offer weapons and refuge to German Nazi resistance guerrillas?

    Why? Isn’t giving up and accepting our demographic replacement akin to your complaint about others being ‘anti-war’?

    I said it’s OK to be anti-war but not OK to support the other side. I don’t support El Plan Espiritual de Aztlán. Nicolás Maduro is not my hero. If the USG put a hit on him, I’d be fine with it.

    I am not the spokesman for the “other side” . I am in no position to trade anything for anything. The defense of the United States has to take place both abroad and at home – you can’t trade one for the other – you need both. I’m fine with stopping Muslim immigration and in fact all immigration of low IQ people. We have a enough stupid people in America to last 10 lifetimes and we don’t need any more.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  158. @Jack D

    Offering a psychiatric diagnosis of a patient you have not examined is against medical ethics, for good reason.

    Principally because insurance companies will not reimburse for diagnosis in absentia.

    However even psychiatrists make most of their assessments on the behavior and progress of patients based on assessments and evaluations carried out by clinical psychologists, nurses, family members, laboratory reports, and so on.

    In the case of Epstein, his psychiatrist will probably also have considered verbal reports from his jailers and other staff in the custodial setting. Psychiatry is not rocket science, though a formal diagnosis does require an orderly process to rule out other possible causes of abnormal behavior like a brain tumor or drug toxicity.

    Mr. Trump is a public employee who receives regular evaluations via elections, opinion polls, State of the Union speeches, press conferences, completion of Twitter tests, and other public demonstrations of his sanity and cognitive function, so as his employer (or one of his employers) I am entitled to demand that he undergoes a psychiatric evaluation by a government psychiatrist, or at least his coworkers in government who work with him face to face, such as Nancy Pelosi are, and there is a prima facie case for him to be evaluated for mental incompetency to do his job as leader of the free world.

    My opinion is offered as a public service without any request for remuneration.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  159. @The Wild Geese Howard

    I worked with a helo pilot from that regiment. He said he’d seen a great deal of the world, but it was always at night through night vision goggles. He said his scariest time was attempting to land on a ship when the ship suddenly turned all the landing lights on blinding him in his NVGs. Not too much bothered him.

  160. @Steve Sailer

    Carter always seemed like the unluckiest President. But he was so unlucky maybe it wasn’t luck?

    It often seems to me as if the USA has had two series of Presidents ie., the “real” Presidents, and the fake, committee frontman Presidents. Carter is the first of the 2nd group. Trump seems to be attempting to make the Presidency a genuine office-held-by-one-man again, but based on the fates of JFK and Nixon, my guess is he will not generally succeed in that endeavor. But he may be just crazy enough to pull it off….

  161. @Jack D

    Six of the last 4 Republican Presidents have been remotely diagnosed as stupid to begin with, mentally ill, demented, alcoholic, etc. and there was nothing clinically wrong with any of them while they were still in office

    LOL. That is 150%, so I am not sure which ones you were referring to. Reagan was clearly suffering from dementia in the latter days of his presidency and couldn’t remember a thing about Iran-Contra.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    , @JMcG
  162. @Johann Ricke

    The action on the alt-right, 2CB and BAP and the like, are hardly talking about this at all, and they talk about the Jews even less. It’s weak.

  163. @Jack D

    Don’t feed the troll.

    • Troll: German_reader
  164. Corvinus says:

    “My vague impression is that Donald Trump’s best chance for re-election is running on a record of four years of peace and prosperity.”

    Perhaps Mr. Sailer can expound on this “vague impression” rather than remain cagey on Trump. Furthermore, I thought the past four years has been one of continual overt conflict and fake prosperity (see dc.sunsets for his spergy diatribes on this topic). I’m surprised you haven’t NOTICED…

  165. Corvinus says:
    @istevefan

    “As for Florida, I am not on the ground so I can only speculate. I’m concerned about the felons getting to vote and about how many Puerto Ricans have relocated there since the hurricane. And I’m always concerned about Broward County and their cheating. I hope Trump has a full time lawyer stationed in Broward right now keeping tabs on the locals.”

    Sources?

  166. nebulafox says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Hard to tell with Reagan because playing the slow old man and gulling people into underestimating or dismissing him was one of his favorite political tactics. And he’d have had every incentive to do so when Iran-Contra exploded. (Reagan didn’t invent that trick: Eisenhower and FDR loved to do it, too. But Reagan was the best at it.)

    I’m not necessarily saying he didn’t suffer from early-stage dementia, but it isn’t conclusive that he wasn’t feigning ignorance, either. It helped that Reagan had a very hands-off management style, and of course, there was the whole Teflon political image. Apparently Nixon watched the whole thing on TV and commented that Reagan would get away with it because if all else failed, he could claim that he just didn’t know what was going on, and people would believe it, whereas he-talk about damning Reagan with faint praise-never had that option because no one would buy he didn’t know what was going on his own house.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  167. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    >Would our occupation of Germany have been successful if we had allowed a Nazi state to remain in power in Austria that would offer weapons and refuge to German Nazi resistance guerrillas?

    It wouldn’t have had any popular basis for support following Hitler’s suicide.

    • Replies: @Jack D
  168. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @istevefan

    Thanks. I had no idea whiskey is pro non White immigration. Or that he’s interested in foreign affairs.

    Here’s my personal views on Trump

    What’s great is that liberals hate him passionately as much as they hate us, the White goyim.

    What’s bad is that he’s insanely pro Israel in foreign affairs. He’s also anti White domestically pro affirmative action pro unchecked non White immigration etc.

    But, every president since Johnson has been insanely pro Israel. Every President since Eisenhower has been anti White.

    The only good thing about Trump is the insane angst and fury liberals felt when Trump was elected. So let’s elect him again. Whites won’t gain anything. But we can enjoy the absolute fury of our enemies.

  169. @Buzz Mohawk

    “We care about the price of gasoline…”.

    Which was why Nixon had to walk.

  170. Anonymous[322] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    If you don’t mind my asking, what makes you think Trump has dementia?

  171. @istevefan

    And as you pointedly failed to acknowledge — no surprise there — in a prior comment of mine: it took many months of public build up before the Iraq invasion force was ready. There was nothing hidden there. Half the commenters on this site are rather asisine, you very much included: yesterday morning the fucking pathetic panic of an invasion, and war with innocent Iran, was quite the rage here. A few sober commenters — I among them — pointed out killing an Iranian military commander causing instability in Iraq was not going to cause a damn war. I stand by my statement, because it is correct.

  172. @Anonymous

    Think?

    There’s no thought involved.

    • Replies: @anon
  173. @Anonymous

    If you don’t mind my asking, what makes you think Trump has dementia?

    His speech is slurred and deteriorated with loss of vocabulary, and this can be seen very clearly when comparing old videos of him talking with how he speaks now.

    His loss of memory leads him to tell many “lies”. In medical terminology ‘confabulation’ is used to fill in gaps of memory. Trump will appear to flip-flop on various issues and contradict himself because he does not remember what he said before.

    For example, he said that his wife had got to know the Korean leader Kim Jung Un and liked him but in fact it was confirmed that she had never met him.

    You can also see at summit meetings like G7 that he is unable to communicate with his peer group on equal terms or take a leadership role.

    He is physically deteriorating too. When the G7 leaders went for a few hundred yards uphill walk for a photo op, Trump followed behind in a golf cart.

    People who deal with him in negotiations find it impossible to know what he wants and he lacks understanding of the subject matter. He blusters and speaks in vague terms to give the impression that he knows what he is talking about and agreeing to, but in fact he does not, and for this reason often walks back on what he has seemed to agree on a short while later.

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/09/politics/donald-trump-immigration-contradictions/index.html

    This latest episode over the killing of General Soleimani appears to be a good example of impulsive, impaired judgement as there was no considered evaluation of why this was necessary and what the outcome might be in terms of international relations–which is the core job of the president and his advisors.

    In addition, there is a family history of dementia, which his father also had. Although that is not in itself diagnostic of dementia, it certainly makes it more likely, and should be taken into consideration.

    Hope that helps. These are just a few simple illustrative examples, but there is much, much more.

    • Replies: @JMcG
  174. anon[120] • Disclaimer says:
    @Desiderius

    What evidence can you offer in support of your opinion?

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  175. @istevefan

    David Frum was Canadian when he got the job as speech writer for GWB. Similarly Dinesh DSouza wasn’t a citizen when he started working for the Reagan administration. Which I find to be odd.

  176. @Jonathan Mason

    “My opinion is offered as a public service without any request for remuneration.”

    You don’t have to worry about anyone paying you for writing such drivel.

  177. @anon

    There is zero evidence Mason offers for his position. Desiderius doesn’t have to prove a negative I e Trump isn’t suffering from dementia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mason offers opinion which he attempts to pass off as evidence.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  178. @Ash Williams

    Vox Day says always wait three days

    Vox usually says two days, just like the post you replied to. In fact, that poster may well have been Vox himself; he’s posted here before under an “anon” screen name.

  179. @anon

    It often takes years to understand what the powers that be were really doing — on those rare occasions when one does find out what they were up to. Waiting a lifetime without resorting to certainty is prudent.

  180. @LondonBob

    Soleimani had decades of operational success in conventional and non conventional (I.e terrorism) military missions with limited resources. He almost single handedly snatched Iraq from the greatest superpower in the world which spent considerable human and financial capital in it. He also build the only effective militia far away from home territory which was able to stand up to Israel and ended up controlling a good chunk of Lebanon apart from considerable soft power over Syria. That’s how he built his mystique. Grudging respect is due. And his successor achieved what exactly?

    • Replies: @LondonBob
  181. JMcG says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    And Hillary couldn’t remember anything about her homemade server. Nor could her minions. Get a clue.

  182. JMcG says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    You’d find it distasteful, but go to one of his rallies. He doesn’t have dementia.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason
  183. @Dr Van Nostrand

    Job or no job, David Frum was never a “Canadian,” and he isn’t an “American” now.

    The math: do, as they say, it.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  184. BB753 says:
    @Hail

    Simply by thinking the opposite of conventional wisdom and not giving a damn about what the MSM and “experts” say.

  185. LondonBob says:
    @Dr Van Nostrand

    His successor was his deputy in all the achievements you name.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  186. Pericles says:
    @Jonathan Mason

    Lol, but would his secretarial staff really put a coethnic on that list?

  187. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    LOL. I usually find a lot of insight and knowledge in unz comments even as I disagree with the authors on core issues. But one cant avoid howlers such as these. “do the math” hahahaha

  188. @LondonBob

    Having a deputy fill in is not quite the same and only few of his achievements have any similarity to those of Soleimani’s.

    Esmail Ghani was focussed more on Afghanistan and Pakistan where he achieved..really not much at all. Their track record in the region mirrors that of U.S. Pakistan anyhow is very favorably disposed to Iran, Shia Sunni rivalries not withstanding. So really not much for him to do over there. Apart from this he was more of a back office guy trying to bypass sanctions to procure weapons ,recieve and move money. Nothing to scoff at but he is not quite in Soleimani’s league.

  189. @Colin Wright

    Or to be precise, somehow we wound up doing it for them. I think it’s a bad idea to underestimate Iran.

    Iran managed to sort of revive the Achaeiminid empire by the right combination of treachery, intrigue, violence, enduring soft power and money. They have an ability to read the zeitgeist and ride it in a way that no Arab states can manage. This in part due to the Iranian personality which is pragmatic, patient, cold and calculating and the Arab which is hot headed and impulsive.
    The Ayatollahs know to push and pull back which is what they are doing now. However they are running out of cannon fodder and forced conscripts can be only an effective fighting force if you have numbers to spare -Iran right now does not. No longer can it inspire others such as in Syria and Lebanon to do its bidding as even the Hezbollah went native and the average Hezbollah member is an urbane Francophone cosmopolitan ,not the hardened mountain rustic of the 1980s. And Hezbollah like the PLO may well be a hollow organization which is compromised by the Mossad.
    The Iranian people unlike Arabs have only capacity for one revolution in them every 100 or so years . Unlike the Arabs however they do it well. As of now they make do with the mullahs. My guess is the Ayatollahs keep their grip on Iran but lose pretty much everything else in the Middle East.

  190. Jack D says:
    @nebulafox

    What if Hitler was living and hiding underground in Germany (Saddam) or living next door protected by America’s “ally” Austria (Mullah Omar)?

    • Replies: @nebulafox
  191. @James N. Kennett

    There is over-investment, but that doesn’t mean there is going to be a dramatic crash. There may just be a series of minor corrections followed by a general slowdown. Most investors today are cautious boomers investing in index funds, and share prices haven’t risen as dramatically as they did before the 1987 crash or the dot com bubble.

  192. @Mr McKenna

    Oops, I really meant the 3 months before the election.

    As well as asset prices rising, the money supply is increasing at rates not seen since the approach to the last financial crisis.

    http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/money-supply-charts

  193. nebulafox says:
    @Jack D

    I don’t think that’s likely because by 1945, Hitler had largely let go and was riding along the path set before him via inertia. Doing that would have fundamentally incompatible with his nature. But for the sake of argument, let’s say he did. There are a number of major differences:

    1) Austria was part of Germany for all practical purposes, postwar self-serving narratives aside, and had its own occupation structure. The conditions for a Werwolf-style resistance would have been no different than in Germany proper, unless you count the defensive terrain, which would have also been found in Bavaria. There would have been no independent authority from the Allies to protect or aid the Nazis other than what they themselves had.

    2) Germany did not have the deep sectarian divisions that Iraq did, tensions that had been inflamed by regime policies. The Shi’ites in Iraq were very happy to see Saddam gone: even the Iranians were willing to give us helpful intelligence on the Ba’athist regime in 2003. This meant that a lot of the fighting we had after the occupation was not against regime loyalists. Despite Saddam’s embrace of Islam (which might have been more sincere than given credit for at the time-these things can happen to men in power) in the 1990s, Islamists had little love for his regime: their fight against the Great Satan did not necessarily imply a defense of Saddam or a wish to re-institute Ba’athism after the Americans left. The question of the regime being discredited and the question of fighting the Americans were separate in a way they weren’t in Germany.

    In Germany, things were far more binary. If there was going to be a resistance, it would have to be regime organized, and that didn’t happen until it was too little, too late: and well after the regime had been discredited in the eyes of most.

    3) Much different scale of occupation, whether it was intent, the multinational level of organization, the methods on the table, etc.

    Just apples and oranges, IMO.

  194. @nebulafox

    Hard to tell with Reagan because playing the slow old man and gulling people into underestimating or dismissing him was one of his favorite political tactics.

    He probably lied about Iran-Contra, but when he met people he had to be given index cards to be able to say hello to them. And after his presidency, there was no doubt that he had dementia.

  195. @JMcG

    You’d find it distasteful, but go to one of his rallies. He doesn’t have dementia.

    If I could get to speak to him one-on-one at one of his rallies I could make that determination very quickly.

    If he does not have dementia, how to you explain episodes like Sharpiegate, or the fact that when he was briefed on a category 5 hurricane, he exclaimed that he had never heard of a category 5 hurricane before, even though he had been briefed on 4 category 5 hurricanes before during his presidency?

    Just saying that he always lies about everything including about what he had for breakfast is getting a bit thin. It is more likely that he just does not remember.

    However, saying that he clearly has dementia is not the same thing as making a diagosis. He could have Alzheimers disease, prefrontal dementia, Parkinson’s disease, or something else. Some people have suggested that he might have tertiary neurosyphilis, although I think that less likely. If I could place a bet at long odds on Parkinson’s disease, which is also a form of dementia, I might take a punt since Trumps problems with gait and balance are somewhat suggestive, as is holding a water glass with two hands.

    However, though some of his behavior is on camera, consider that it is absolutely certain that the White House is doing everything it can to keep the truth from the public, for example no real explanation of the recent visit to the hospital, and publishing medical reports that were clearly never written by a doctor.

    Anyway, his next annual physical is due soon, so let’s see if it resembles something written by a physician.

  196. @Dr Van Nostrand

    Let the record reflect that the official witty riposte was, and I quote, “hahahaha”.

    Nothing further your honor.

    • Replies: @Dr Van Nostrand
  197. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    Generally the defense or prosecution rests when the evidence is so overwhelmingly that they can take a break and stretch their legs. You have provided opinion which you confuse for evidence and wish to take a victory lap on this basis. I hope this is not how you conduct your work life.

  198. @Dr Van Nostrand

    The phrase “nothing further” does not indicate that the defense or prosecution rests; rather it merely indicates that one is finished with a particular witness, and is often deployed theatrically to indicate that one is finished with a particularly tiresome or ridiculous witness. Such as yourself, in this instance.

    And I’m not even a lawyer.

    I hope that this is not how you etc etc etc

    But it probably is. Presumably your “doctorate” is from some very respectable place like say, Trinidad, yes?

  199. Lot says:
    @Svigor

    “ they’d be preaching 1 complete withdrawal of all American military from Muslim countries, 2 completely closed borders with all Muslim countries, and to all Muslims, and 3 repatriation/expulsion of all Muslim populations in American territory”

    1 and 2 sound good to me.

    3 should be limited to non-citizens. And I’d make a few other exceptions besides that.

    Neonazi types like Svigor however damage the brand of American nationalism and make policies like Trump’s travel ban (which cut migration from places like Sudan and Somalia by 85-90%) harder.

  200. @Dr Van Nostrand

    There is zero evidence Mason offers for his position. Desiderius doesn’t have to prove a negative I e Trump isn’t suffering from dementia. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Mason offers opinion which he attempts to pass off as evidence.

    Everything that is posted here is opinion. In answer to a good faith question about what indicates that Trump has dementia, I pointed to a few examples of apparent deterioration of speech, memory, and decision making, but there are new examples becoming apparent almost every day.

    For example Trump falsely claimed on Thursday that he deserved credit for the Nobel Peace Prize recently awarded to Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed. Ahmed was awarded the prestigious prize for negotiating a peace deal between Ethiopia and neighboring Eritrea following 20 years of bloody conflict. Trump had nothing to do with the peace negotiations.

    Now, you might just say that Trump has a bizarre sense of humor and that he tells lies every day as a way of taunting the press and his opponents, but another interpretation could be that Trump was confused and thinking that last year he offered to help negotiate an agreement between the Ethiopian prime minister and Egypt’s prime minister over a dam on the Nile.

    Anyway we all have opinions and you may have a very different opinion from me as to what constitutes rational behavior and speech on the part of a head of state who knows that his every word or tweet will be reported on worldwide.

    In the end, you just have to go with your opinion and try to explain to others how you formed that opinion.

    In the run-up to the Iraq invasion I was writing opinion posts on various web forums in which I stated that I did not think that the intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was credible, and that the Iraq war would be long and drawn out and occupying that country would create a huge amount of suffering for that country, and that George Bush had said in his debate with Al Gore that he did not think America should be in the business of ‘nation building’.

    Now, my opinions were not particularly original and were obviously derived from what I could glean from media, mostly internet media, and not from any first hand reports that I was receiving from generals or people on the ground in Iraq.

    But I was right on all points when the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, the President of the United States, Donald Rumsfeld, and all the president’s men were 100% wrong on all points.

    It would be interesting to know what the opinions of frequent posters on these pages was prior to the Iraq invasion.

    When it comes to “diagnosing” whether Trump has dementia or not, anyone can see for theirself there is something wrong with him, the only question is what is wrong with him.

  201. Momus says:
    @Whiskey

    Trump is fighting a sanctions war against Iran and wining. Iran wants the assymetric and proxy-ised military conflict against soldiers, which they excel at but he refuses to engage.

    The US economy dwarfs Iran’s and his sanction war against them has no effect on it, so it can be kept up indefinitely.

  202. Lagertha says:
    @Steve Sailer

    he was not wordly in the most ethical sense of the word. He was a complete neophyte to the “tigers of the world.”

  203. Anonymous[294] • Disclaimer says:
    @Steve Sailer

    Carter was just another Kennedy. Both men were out of their depth, at least in regard to foreign policy, and presided over a succession of avoidable blunders that weakened the U.S. internationally.

    (And it’s one of the great ironies of history that Kennedy was killed by a communist. No president since Roosevelt did more to advance the world power of communism.)

  204. Anonymous[294] • Disclaimer says:
    @German_reader

    With Trump in the White House, the Russians wouldn’t have dared put missiles in Cuba in the first place. (They wouldn’t have done this with President Eisenhower or President Nixon either.)

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments are moderated by iSteve, at whim.


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS