@gjohnsit
are the party of war.

The current Democrat mouth pieces, NYT, WaPoo and CNN have been cheer-leading America's wars since the late 80's. Trump got elected because he promised to get the US out of the wars Obama had either started or continued. The only reason he can't do that now is because the current Democrat supported Deep State/MIC has him by the nuts. Every time he says he wants to bring the soldiers home, they squeeze.

The Democrats loudly oppose war on principal but will vote for it when given the chance. When they are in power, they are hawks. Just look at what Clinton and Obama have accomplished in their terms. Clinton had even set up the conditions during his second term for Bush to go into both Afghanistan and Iraq. The war plans for those countries was drawn up under the Clinton Administration.

Obama started wars in Libya and Syria. He dropped bombs in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Mr. Nobel Peace Prize President ran a war presidency for the entire 8 years of his term - a national record.

#1
Besides the fact that we cannot win that war, it would be a disaster for mainstream politicians in an election year.

meanwhile...

“It’s a question of political will,” he said, alluding to the central issue of whether Iraq will choose to sustain its U.S. partnership, which many Iraqis see as an infringement on their sovereignty.
...“We haven’t seen sufficient action on their part,” he said, adding that Iraqi leaders must “get the Iranian influence out of the country.”
...Asked specifically about the likelihood of further provocations by Kataeb Hezbollah following the embassy attack, Esper said, “Do I think they may do something? Yes, and they will likely regret it.”

Footage shows civilian cars outside of Baghdad Airport on fire after being hit by missile/s. Via @omartvsd #Iraq pic.twitter.com/9lTCRLqkik

— Baxtiyar Goran (@BaxtiyarGoran) January 2, 2020

@snoopydawg we give cash and guns.
USA! USA!

#5

Suleimani is the guy that just got killed. I'll wait for moon of Alabama's report on this because I don't trust the AP. BTW. Most articles come from them according to a chart I saw.

It was not the first time Suleimani had been dispatched to Baghdad to do damage control. Tehran’s efforts to prop up Abdul-Mahdi are part of its long campaign to maintain Iraq as a pliable client state.

Now leaked Iranian documents offer a detailed portrait of just how aggressively Tehran has worked to embed itself into Iraqi affairs, and of the unique role of Suleimani. The documents are contained in an archive of secret Iranian intelligence cables obtained by The Intercept and shared with the New York Times for this article, which is being published simultaneously by both news organizations.

The unprecedented leak exposes Tehran’s vast influence in Iraq, detailing years of painstaking work by Iranian spies to co-opt the country’s leaders, pay Iraqi agents working for the Americans to switch sides, and infiltrate every aspect of Iraq’s political, economic, and religious life.

Sources are plied with gifts of pistachios, cologne, and saffron. Iraqi officials, if necessary, are offered bribes.

Pot and kettle much? Kinda reminds me of when we pay warlords and the Taliban ungodly sums of money while we're stealing the country blind.