War Party On The Run - The Roots Of The Anti-Trump, Anti-Sanders Camps In Both Parties

Tyler Durden's picture

Submitted by Justin Raimondo via AntiWar.com,

I haven’t had this much fun in years – of course I’m talking about the US presidential election season, with The Donald taking on all comers, and winning (at least so far), and Bernie Sanders burning up the self-satisfied mandarins of the Democratic party Establishment.

What’s great about this spectacle – and one must view it as a spectacle in order to gain maximum enjoyment from it – is that, as none other than Rush Limbaugh points out:

Trump is so far outside the formula that has been established for American politics that people who are inside the formula can’t comprehend it. They don’t understand why somebody would want to venture so far outside it, because it is what it is, and there’s a ladder of success that you have to climb. And somebody challenging it like this in more ways than one, as Trump is doing, has just got everybody experiencing every kind of emotion you can: They’re angry, they are flabbergasted, they’re shocked, they’re stunned – and all of it because he’s leading.”

As I explained here, and here, one of the ways Trump is upending the rules is that he’s broken with the GOP mandarins on foreign policy. Yes, yes, I know he bloviates about how he’s “the most militaristic person” on God’s green earth, but the fact is there’s plenty of others out there who out-do him in that category. I’ve heard him say he wants to “bomb the s**t out of ISIS,” but aren’t we doing that already – to little effect? When Bill O’Reilly asked him why he didn’t support putting ground troops in Syria, he answered “Do you want to run Syria?” O’Reilly demurred. Trump puffs up his chest and announces he wants us to have “the strongest biggest baddest military on earth” – but you’ll note he invariably adds: “So we’ll never have to use it.”

Most significantly, he doesn’t want to start World War III with Vladimir Putin’s Russia: he’s actually defied the anti-Russian propaganda blitz and said he’d like to be able to get along with Putin. This alone would’ve been enough for the neocons to start a holy war against him, but he’s even gone further than that and said the Iraq war – the neocons’ handiwork – was “one of the dumbest things ever,” and Limbaugh describes their response to a tee (of course without naming them).

Oh yes, it’s great fun watching the waterboarding of the neocons, because they count among their enemies the top two contenders for the Republican nomination, not only Trump but also Ted Cruz. The greasy-haired Canadian earned their ire when he attacked them by name, but as Rosie Gray reports in Buzzfeed they may be reconciling themselves to Cruz because he’s the only viable Not-Trump:

“Some of the hawkish figures who Ted Cruz recently dismissed as ‘crazy neo-con invade-every-country-on-earth and send our kids to die in the Middle East’ … say they’d consider supporting Cruz anyway if he’s the last man between Donald Trump and the Republican presidential nomination.


“Cruz, it turns out, hasn’t fully burned his bridges with that set of advisers and supporters of George W. Bush – figures like Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and former National Security Council official Elliott Abrams, who aren’t closed off to Cruz, especially in the case of Abrams. Indeed, despite some lingering resentment and suspicion, there are even glimmers of rapprochement as the Republican primary looks like it could become a two-man race. ‘I would not hesitate to back Cruz as the nominee,’ Abrams – who not long ago told National Review that Cruz’s use of the word neocon invoked ‘warmongering Jewish advisers’ – told BuzzFeed News.”

Cruz, for his part, is more than willing to smoke a peace pipe with the War Party:

“In an interview on his campaign bus in Iowa last week, Cruz told BuzzFeed News that, despite his jabs at neocons, he has ‘good relations with a great many foreign policy thinkers.’ Cruz has in the past cited Abrams along with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton and former CIA director James Woolsey as trusted foreign policy experts.”

It’s getting pretty cozy in that campaign bus. Rosie, who knows a thing or two about neocons, seems to be the designated ambassador from Kristol-land to the Cruz campaign, and as the Anti-Trump Popular Front – the widest coalition in the history of politics, stretching all the way from the New York Times to Charles Krauthammer – tries to sell us on the idea that the Establishment is now backing Trump against the “insurgent” Cruz, she provides some insightful analysis of just who is the Real Establishment:

“The neocons’ willingness to consider Cruz stands in sharp contrast with a new line of current conventional wisdom in Washington that Cruz, who is the object of particularly intense personal dislike from establishment Republicans, is actually less acceptable to the establishment than Trump.”

We know who is the Establishment: it’s those brilliant folks who brought us the Iraq war, who want us to repeat our mistake in Syria, and who pine for a US-led regime-change operation in Russia to get rid of Putin and install a pliable Yeltsin-substitute in power. The Establishment, in short, is the War Party, otherwise known as the neoconservatives, and they are the tireless enemies of peace and liberty. Until and unless they are destroyed as a viable political force, either in the GOP or outside it, there will be no peace in this world. If and when Trump succeeds in sidelining them, that alone will be worth whatever price we have to pay in the – unlikely – event he makes it to the White House.

As even the usually clueless Ben Domenech, over at The Federalist, observes:

“On foreign policy, Donald Trump is exploiting American frustration with the elites of both parties. He cites over and over again his opposition to the war in Iraq as a smackdown for the neoconservative views which have ruled the roost in Republican foreign policy circles for 15 years. But he also uses his opposition to engagement in Libya to smack Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Marco Rubio.


“It is very telling that the two leading candidates in the GOP primary today are very critical of intervention in Iraq and Libya and Syria, and this has not only not hurt them, but potentially helped them reach more than 50 percent support in the polls. One would think Republican elites would recognize this and think about what it means about the views of their base. One would think, but one would be wrong.”

With the triumph of Trumpismo having demolished the GOP foreign policy consensus – and the neocons’ ideological and organizational stranglehold on the conservative movement – the way will be cleared for a libertarian-ish insurgency to arise out of the rubble and make some real headway. I realize it’s hard to see this at the present moment: just like on HGTV, when some clueless couple on “Fixer Upper” or “Property Brothers” just can’t see that the scary dilapidated wreck of a house they’re being shown could become their Dream Home. Yet, in the end, they are bowled over by the luxurious and stunning result.

(Of course, there are no guarantees in life: a lot depends on if the fractious libertarians, beset as they are by right-wing opportunism and a brainless form of anti-political sectarianism, can finally get their act together.)

On the other side of the aisle – that is, in the Democratic party – a similar drama, with some significant variations, is being played out in the race pitting Bernie Sanders against Hillary Clinton. The latter is widely considered the presumptive heir, much like Jeb Bush was assumed to be the GOP frontrunner on account of his last name. Yet Bush has been humiliated and sidelined, and Mrs. Clinton may well be in danger of sharing his fate: Sanders is beating her in New Hampshire as well as in Iowa. This has “centrist” Michael Bloomberg, former New York City mayor and professional scold, so upset that he is threatening to launch a third party run if Sanders gets the nod.

The beleaguered Mrs. Clinton doesn’t have major principled differences with Sanders when it comes to domestic policy: their disagreements are over strategy, not goals. The real split is over foreign policy, with Hillary the hawk pecking at Sanders over his relatively dovish stances on issues from Iran to Libya. And now a posse of “national security” bureaucrats has taken out after Sanders with a joint statement deploring his unwillingness to parrot the War Party’s line:

“Over the past four debates, the subject of ISIS and Iran have come up a number of times. These are complex and challenging times, and we need a Commander in Chief who knows how to protect America and our allies and advance our interests and values around the world. The stakes are high. And we are concerned that Senator Sanders has not thought through these crucial national security issues that can have profound consequences for our security.


“His lack of a strategy for defeating ISIS – one of the greatest challenges we face today – is troubling. And the limited things he has said on ISIS are also troubling.


“For example, his call for more Iranian troops in Syria is dangerous and misguided and the opposite of what is needed. Supporting Iranian soldiers on Israel’s doorstep is a grave mistake. And while we support de-escalation of Sunni-Shia tensions, his argument that Iran and Saudi Arabia – two intense adversaries – should join together in a military coalition is just puzzling. Indeed, the Iranian government recently failed to stop protesters from ransacking and burning the Saudi embassy in Tehran, after which Saudi Arabia cut off diplomatic ties with Iran.


“We are all strong supporters of the nuclear diplomacy with Iran. Some of us were part of developing the policy that produced the diplomacy over the past several years. And we believe that there are areas for further cooperation under the right circumstances. But Senator Sanders’ call to ‘move aggressively’ to normalize relations with Iran – to develop a ‘warm’ relationship – breaks with President Obama, is out of step with the sober and responsible diplomatic approach that has been working for the United States, and if pursued would fail while causing consternation among our allies and partners.


“Given these concerns, it is important to ask what he would do on other issues – on Russia, China, our allies, nuclear proliferation, and so much else. We look forward to hearing him address these issues.


“We need a Commander in Chief who sees how all of these dynamics fit together – someone who sees the whole chessboard, as Hillary Clinton does.”

The only time the Clintonistas want to “move aggressively” is when it involves invading a sovereign nation like Iraq, Libya and Syria, and turning it into a cauldron of Islamist terror. Her “strategy” for defeating ISIS is to set up “no fly zones” in Syria, reoccupy Iraq, and fund the very head-chopping Syrian “rebels” from which ISIS and Al-Qaeda have sprung and with whom they are ideologically aligned. Indeed, Mrs. Clinton, who spearheaded the movement inside the US government to arm the Islamists in Syria and Libya, deserves the title “Mother of ISIS.”

As for all the balderdash about Iran: this is clearly the Israel lobby talking, and if there was any confusion about Mrs. Clinton’s role as their champion in the Democratic party, this should clear it up.

Yet the Clintonian arguments for an anti-Iranian foreign policy are not very convincing. For just one example: If “supporting Iranian soldiers at Israel’s doorstep is a grave mistake” then is Israel supporting ISIS at their own doorstep an equally grave miscalculation? But of course you won’t be hearing any criticism like that coming from this crowd.

From a noninterventionist perspective, neither Sanders nor Trump is perfect – both are very far from that. But to nitpick over their deviations is to entirely miss the point, as sectarians of both the left and right are bound to do. These two candidates represent, each in their own way, powerful and growing tendencies on both sides of the ideological spectrum that the movement for peace can utilize to its own advantage. For we cannot change the world until and unless we begin to understand it: only then can we take advantage of such openings as it allows. What is happening in this country is a rebellion against both wings of the War Party – and that is something to be celebrated and encouraged, even as we critique its shortcoming and urge the rebels to take their insurgency further.

Insofar as this election season is concerned, the watchwords or slogans that give voice to the “correct” position are best expressed in terms of double-negatives. For the conservative Republican readers, that would be: anti-anti-Trump. For the progressive Democrats: anti-anti-Sanders.

We are hearing the voices of the Mushy Moderate Middle rise up in defense of the status quo: Democrats like the Washington courtier Dana Milbank are warning us against Sanders, while the neocons to a man are railing against the Trumpist Temptation. This should be enough to tell us what is the right road to take and what our answer to the Mushy Middletarians must be: Extremism in defense of peace is no vice – and moderation in the fight against the War Party is no virtue!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hedgeless_horseman's picture



col (crying out loud)

War party on the run?  Is this guy fucking high?

Trump is a war monger, and Sanders is a class-war monger.

Soul Glow's picture

Bush and Clinton are sellout establishmentarians.  And they both run the drug trade.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



If you do vote, vote Gary Johnson, and against all incumbents, especially the cock-sucking judges, pretty please.

Soul Glow's picture

I mean I might as well write in Ron Paul at that point.  And that's why I don't vote.  My vote soesn't count, and it isn't a statement.  It isn't like someone somewhere will be like, "Oh shit, Soul Glow wrote in Gary Johnson!"  It's just a fucking facade.

I'd rather have Sanders or Trump in - I really don't care which - so that we don't have a Clinton or a Bush.  Like I said, is this sound logic?  Probably not.  But that's all I got.

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Cool.  There are plenty of better things we can do on a Tuesday in November.  Mountain biking in Moab and then paragliding the next day in SLC? 

Soul Glow's picture

Harvest some pot, drink beer, and then write on Zero Hedge?

hedgeless_horseman's picture



We should do a ZH meet-up to ride The Whole Enchilada on Election Day.  If it is too snowy we can always go skiing at the Bird.  Otherwise, we can do Slickrock warm-up on Monday evening, and eat tacos, drink margs, and talk politics that evening. Paragliding at Point of the Mountain on Sat and Sun, with Sandy, Utah debauchery as a prelude.  Mormons know how to make sushi.  Gary Johnson sometimes paraglides there, and may try to sway your non-vote.  I will buy all zh posters beer during the transition in Green River.  

Stop voting.  Start training, bitchezzz!!!!

Or you can just sit on your fat ass and watch it all on CNN.


Choose wisely.

Soul Glow's picture

Bay, Chumblz, and I are down.  See you there!

hedgeless_horseman's picture



Absolutely.  Get your asses in shape.  Humping up the pass in a little snow is harder than frontrunning the Fed or pimping scrap, but the ride down is way more fun.

Lots of places to rent bikes in Moab and take lessons at Point of the Mountain.

Ms No's picture

And random betting/speculation on events like who will get belligerently drunk first or betting on things like this..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gS2J-9N0FYU

Oops this is in the wrong spot, supposed to be below vvvvvv that comment.

The Blank Stare's picture

"Mother of ISIS"



cheka's picture

all are war whores, where trump is different than the other repugs


1. social security -- you paid it, you get it.  all other repugs want nyc/dc to decide who gets it, who doesn't.  favorite term is 'means testing'.  meaning if you have saved a few bucks in 401k/ira or pissant company pension = no soup for you.  the money you paid into ss, nyc/dc has better uses for it

2. import tariff -- get back to the american system -- import tariff and reduce income tax accordingly


the int'l banksters turned the american system upside down with their free trade snake oil -- no import tariff, high income tax

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) cheka Jan 30, 2016 2:43 AM

Counting Bodies Like Sheep to the Rhythms of the War Drums
A Perfect Circle




I need more asshats's picture

What's the ratio of joo:to:goy on the Trumpo campaign bus or jet?

I'm thinking it's somewhere around 50:1. Enough said.

jeff montanye's picture

there probably are, but elliot abrams and william kristol hate him enough to back ted cruz.

personally i'm backing bernie sanders after backing ron paul and gary johnson last time but, failing that, i'm pulling for donald trump and his wild ass hair.

don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good or nothing at all gets done.

DownWithYogaPants's picture

So people advocate not voting.  That of course is idiocy. Why?  Because you have =>0 effect.  ( greater than or equal to zero ) 

If you have 0 effect then you only wasted an hours time.  If you have >0 effect then you have not wasted your time.

So I repeat here:  

  • If you are going to vote for Hillary Clinton this philosophy makes sense --- you should not vote.
  • If you are going to vote for Trump you should by all means vote.  

Don't cheat me out of the RCO ( Ruling Class Oligarchy ) screaming its head off.  Oh and just as delicious the SJW heads will explode. ( Social Justice Warriors ).  Even if the only thing that happens is SJW heads exploding it will all be worth it just for the entertainment value.  I suspect many on here who suggest not voting are trolls for the establishment who if they really though Hillary was going to win would not be pushing the "don't vote" line.  I have read accounts of paid comment boiler rooms that do the bidding of the deep state.  I am pretty sure I've seen these comments included on any site that has any significant traffic.


Chris Dakota's picture
Chris Dakota (not verified) hedgeless_horseman Jan 30, 2016 12:16 AM

When my kid was little I drove a school bus, the only job I could find near.

I only made $600 per month in the early 90s. I drove the little bus with handicapped kids

and what I found out is 99.9% of these kids were in foster care. Because American people

are trash and they throw away kids who aren't perfect. I had only one Hispanic kid who was

living at home with his biological family. He could not speak at all, but we were cool together.

I was leaving this route and had to train my replacement. He was a guy who said he voluteered

with "Kids Street Theater" and he rode with me. One day he drove my route by himself, without me

and the next day I had him with me and the kid came on he started sceaming and crying. I was

very concerned and I said something to the bosses of this nationwide company and the bitch said

to me "How dare you accuse someone of something so serious" well the most molested kids are

kids who can't speak, because they won't speak. So a few days after I left this route I hear my old

bus number being called out on the radios "Where are you?"he replies "I am on the side of the road

checking his safety belt" I was right.

I had asked my friend who's husband was a cop what I should do. He said "if you think something is going

on you have to report it"

It was the whole fucking 90s. A guy lived in a cottage behind the neighbors house who had little kids (welfare kids) coming into his house recycling cans. I asked the kid "what goes on in there" and he was funny and secretive. The woman who lived in front said she knew something was going on back there.

So I pulled my shades and windows wide open looking into his place, he moved in two weeks.

fucking perverts, cowards and destroyers of our children and culture.

qweston content's picture

I was abused when I was a kid so I was emotionally not available to be indocrinated in school. I wish the American people would wake up.

chumbawamba's picture

Pimping scrap???  No no no no no.  I much prefer to refer to it as mongering televisions.  And ripping metal with my bare hands.

I have permanent and prominent scars from my scrapping.  I can huff my way up your silly hill.

Bring forth the alcohol!


Ms No's picture

I would hazard a guess that if this group ever met up their wouldn't be a lot of working out going on.  Probably a lot of booze drinking, paranoia (who is the agent game), fake moustaches, loud debates, one group off playing chess by themselves, most definitely gambling, intellectual snobbery, a caste seating system based on how long you have been around and then some guys would start popping open trunks to show eachother their latest prize weapon.  Somewhere between the unregulated gambling and the trunk displays is where we all go to jail in paddy wagons. 

Would be fun though.

LetThemEatRand's picture

As the world's biggest fan of Meat Loaf in Fight Club, I volunteer to hold all of you close in my man tits*

*I have a large handerchief that I always bring with me if needed.

Bob's picture

Go ahead, Cornelius . . . you can cry.  

You coming to the next Remaining Men Together meeting, LTER?

I've been working with Trump's people to put together a fund raiser . . .

I need more asshats's picture

If it does really go down everyone has to wear a nametag identifying joo or goy.

Mine will say: Goyum Asshats

Adahy's picture

I'll be off to the side trying to show those interested how to make fire from natural materials, and what native plants are edible.  Possibly also how to make a pipe.
And then maybe a debate on astrophysical theories.
And then a stomp dance.
And then we use the pipe.

JRobby's picture

Looks like a nice ride! When you can do it on a fixie, hit me up and I will ride it with you.


Save_America1st's picture

I'm down with that!  My bike is itchin' big time for more epic Utah rides! 

Have mt. biked Moab, UT (Slickrock, Porcupine Rim, etc.) several times around...amazing place.  Then finish up w/ some good chow w/ good peeps and some really good brews at the Moab Brewery!  Arches National Park is very kick ass too!

I'm in FL though unfortunately...closest thing to epic riding I can find down here is to drive all the way to North Carolina and ride the Tsali trails.  Excellent place for long single-track forested mountain biking!

JRobby's picture

+10,000 Vote out all incumbents. And keep on doing it every cycle.

If people realized that the corporate $$$ gets all the way down to the county judge and legislature levels, they would truly understand how owned the system is.

What we are finally seeing is the beginnings of a revolt against the wholly owned offerings for POTUS every 4 years. Yesterday's Clinton post was useful:



Are Trump or Sanders the answer that moves things in a new direction? A very reserved "Maybe".

stopthejunk1's picture

Any vote cast is a vote of confidence in a broken system.

However, if you must vote, at least make as much trouble as you can.


J 457's picture

Whiskey Lullaby brings a tear to my eye. La la la la la la la...la la la la la la la....

Father Thyme's picture
Father Thyme (not verified) J 457 Jan 30, 2016 2:35 AM

He put that bottle to his head and pulled the trigger.

zzz111's picture

George soros doesn't like trump. He doesn't like Cruz either but he doesn't like Trump even more so this is a good reason to go with Trump:

I need more asshats's picture

Pardon me but I will use your logic to extrapolate and further add,
everyone here hates Hillary so that's reason enough for everyone to vote for her.

Now that I have figured that out for you please do not be tempted to vote for Hillary because Hillary is going to win!

DownWithYogaPants's picture

Yeah but you are indeed quite the asshat and in reality need no more.

JRobby's picture

Soros is an enemy of the Human Race

Proceed accordingly

stopthejunk1's picture

Also, why can't someone with his net worth get some goddam plastic surgery?  If you're going to be on the news all the time, please fix your face.  It's revolting.

Tamosai's picture

It would be funny if it was not sad. The impression I have is that the political system is failed. It is a farse and almost nobody wants to change that. The elections are just an excuse to keep corporations and lobbies on power. 

Took Red Pill's picture

Agreed! Do we really think whoever gets in that they will fix things? Politicians are not the answer. They never have been and they never will be.

doctor10's picture

The whole Mid-East mess is owned by Hillary.

20 years-from Albright to Clinton-of sending women-even a black women-to do men's jobs in the Middle east

ya'd think if its so damn important for Muslim men to sell their oil in USD-we'd at least the foresight and judgment to do them the courtesy of sending a Trump-type or our own Putin-type out to negotiate on our behalf.

Instead we send women. And wonder why the rest of the world sees Americans as "arrogant" and "clueless" -and then pretend we really just can't figure out what happened over there-"nobody could see it coming" etc

And all the while Putin is laughing in his sleeve-and Bibi is raging-and all the Muslim Leaders of consequence are dead-humiliated in the eyes of their own countrymen by being forced to kowtow to American women. They are deposed and killed by their countrymen.

Any REAL politician and female American leader -knowing how critical the region is to American interests-should be able to see and appreciate the damage to American interests of forcing Muslim men to openly negotiate American interests with women. And should have declined the position in the best interests of the country.

There are very good reasons Muslim tradition and customs are considered Medieval. Simply desiring them not so does not make it not so-regardless of what Foggy Bottom would like to believe. The PC ideology infesting the American oligarchy has cost America the PetroDollar.

Thank you Hillary

LibertarianMenace's picture

Fuck the ME, all of it, and especially Peanut Carter's Doctrine. That's the policy that stooped to make Zio strategy our strategy. The US has no inherent 'permanent interest' there. Cordon off the cesspool and let the process of internal purification take its course: there's nothing to negotiate.

US autarky is very underemphasized in our policy, for the obvious reason that our .gov is no longer motivated by the genuine interests of its citizenry, but is instead controlled by alien, international influence. That influence sees us as a mere tool, to be discarded when we're no longer useful - to them. House servant obammie BOWING to saudi muzzi king is Exhibit A.

stopthejunk1's picture

"no interest"

Really... so you think we dont' need oil?  Or that things would go nicely for oil-dependent U.S. consumers/economy if we let the ME burn?  You do know, don't you, that roads, tires, asphalt roofing and nearly all plastics are made from oil, right?  Let alone gasoline, heating oil, etc.

The "non-interventionist" language is really just a cover for isolationism.  And isolationism is just putting your head in the sand.  Just like with WW2.  Eventually, you have to pull your head out and invade.  Rule or be ruled.  It's a small planet and there is no other way.

LibertarianMenace's picture

On whatever side of the political spectrum that the proggie mentality manifests itself, it leaves no doubt that it is not motivated by facts, just the opposite: it's animated by the only genuine form of stupidity. The type of stupidity that is neither a result of ability, ignorance, nor defective training, but a stupidity that Reagan termed 'knowing so many things that aren't so'.

Net monthly imports from the Persian Gulf for month end Nov. 2015 (in thousands of barrels): 49,847.


Petroleum products supplied in the same units for the same month end: 575,651.


Persian Gulf supply fraction of US consumption: 49,847/575,651*100% = 8.66% of total US consumption.

Hence Persian Gulf supply does NOT, repeat NOT, require permanent involvement of the US military. Go ahead and double it to encompass all OPEC imports, it still doesn't matter, the conclusion remains the same. Kick a proggie's ass today, in whatever political philosophy they've burrowed into: these vermin represent a clear and present danger to us all.

LibertarianMenace's picture

Hexagamic PM candidate barging in to adress the US congress in an effort to demonstrate said influence to HIS electorate is Exhibit B.

stopthejunk1's picture

Oh please.  Hillary is responsible for the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the establishment of a Jewish state in the middle of the Arab world, and the arbitrary drawing of national borders without regard to the actual nations (read: tribes) therein?

There are proximate causes and ultimate causes.  The most recent proximate causes are Obama's withdrawal from the conflict, as well as George W. Bush's ill-advised invasions.  The ultimate causes go way back.

Hillary has nothing to do with it.  The Sec of State is a messenger and nothing else. 

OTOH, the fact that Hillary voted for Bush's war tellls you everything you need to know. 


America's problem in the ME and elsewhere is not "too much interference," but rather a shirking from empire.  Bush's invasion would be perfectly fine, and maybe even profitable, if we had the sand to rule like the Romans.  The entire ME ought to be colonized for at least a couple of more centuries.  The Arabs are clearly not capable of self-rule.  This is why, with their massive oil wealth, they build empty plastic skyscrapers and ghost towns rather than universities and hospitals.  Their superstitions keep them barbaric.  Frankly they're not much better than North Korea.  They just have more money.

LibertarianMenace's picture

Exhibit C: the useful idiot that is the fodder for both Exhibits A and B.

Karl, is that you?