# How wars are prepared



## notimp (Jun 22, 2019)

Highly interesting interview with the iranian intellectual elite about the incidence that would have caused war - if the democrats would not have reminded the Trump andministration, that they would not fund a war at this point in time:

https://www.democracynow.org/2019/6/21/trump_cancels_iran_strikes_after_drone

Video already starts at the correct timecode.

US quality media this time isnt on the side of the war mongers (I restrain from just calling them hawks in this case), which is also noted.


If you need quick background information. US wanted to get out of the middle east - they all but lost all the recent wars there, and now have energy independence in country - but their colonial outpost in the region (sorry Israel), has honest doubts, that it will survive as a state, once the americans are gone.

So now destroying iran is on the agenda again, as a prerequisite for america eventually leaving the region. Democrates currently are against funding this war. Europeans are as well.


The other side wants to tell stories of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction again, as well as of attacks on tankers, again, which arent plausible - but very emotional.

Currently all sides seem to cautiously agree, that war is on the US agenda - after the US presidential election.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 23, 2019)

I was thinking of starting a thread on this as well. And I'm glad that source seems to cite the events as I perceive them, so I don't have to defend myself unneeded.

The first strike was the withdrawal from the US from the nuclear pact. Rather than providing proof that Iran did violate it, it just assumed they were right and threatened the other countries who just want to uphold the pact as normal.

Then there's that bombing on those ships. The US claims it's Iran, Iran denies. But this is two years under Trump administration, and the administration 's credentials are actually less than zero (meaning : they've got motives to divert the attention from the domestic mess.
I mean... The war on Iraq was a mistake, but it could get started because the rest of the world had no real reason to doubt the intelligence. Right now, it's just known that Pompeo and Bolton want war first, with an actual reason as an afterthought. 

Next up : the shooting down of the drone. Again : either you believe an administration that lies on a daily basis (heck... Even Sarah Sanders admitted lying about sources), or a country that hasn't posed a threat in decades. The former say the done was over international waters and shot down without warning, the latter way it was over their state border and they were warned.

The thus far last part is also the most interesting one : Trump calling off an airstrike at the last moment. This is weird because I'm absolutely not used to Trump doing something right. It's not much to his credit as those potential 150 civilians wouldn't have been in danger if it wasn't for those American provocations to begin with (hey.... I forgot : of course there are more economic sanctions against the country, because of course there are). But still... It could've been worse.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2019)

notimp said:


> Currently all sides seem to cautiously agree, that war is on the US agenda - after the US presidential election.


There's no guarantee it's gonna be after.  If Trump's poll numbers keep slipping, he's likely to see war with Iran as a way to help his re-election chances.  Rarely does the US change presidents during wartime, and it worked for GWB.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> There's no guarantee it's gonna be after.  If Trump's poll numbers keep slipping, he's likely to see war with Iran as a way to help his re-election chances.  Rarely does the US change presidents during wartime, and it worked for GWB.


I've thought about this as well, but I dare to say this could just be the exception.

The second golf war(1) happened in the aftermath of 9/11. While there was some international concern about the targeting of Iraq ("wait...why are you planning to strike on Iraq? Those clowns came from Afghanistan! "), there was still some sympathy to the USA. International experts couldn't locate those "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that were touted about, but that could just prove they were hidden better than expected. Because the US intelligence had plenty of proof (even if that later turned out to be twisted to be in favor of the strike) and the USA was united behind Bush(2) it was hard to argue against it.

Compare that to now: the intelligence is undermined by the president, the US military thinks it's a bad idea to attack, Iran isn't as much of an isolated country (the nuclear deal is only abandoned by the USA), the trade war with China isn't a small endeavor and the USA is all but united (if Trump isn't pissing off US allies he's pissing off the USA public by sucking up to Russia or North Korea). Not to mention the fact that Trump manages to make W. Bush look intelligent by comparison.

So all in all: where is his basis for a war? Congress certainly isn't going to give a go for it. Democrat want to not only have him impeached but imprisoned as well. And at this time, just about the only way Trump can manage to get something done is by veto-ing the opposition. His attack on the media helped him in the short run when he came into office, but that card has been played. The result is that even fox news isn't enthousiast about branding anyone with concerns about war a traitor to the US cause.

It could also be (but maybe I'm naive) that people have actually LEARNED from the Iraq fiasco. Saddam was a dictator, but at least he kept the country relatively stable. Bombing the place and removing that guy created a vaccuum that was later filled with ISIS and similar terrorist groups that made Al Qaeda look like pansies. It doesn't take a genius to realise that doing the same thing in Iran will give the same result as in Iraq. So why wait four more years to vote in a democrat as president who will clean up the mess when you can do that in 2020 as well? 

Provided Trump isn't impeached and/or jailed before that time, obviously.

(1): if you want to call it a war, of course, as the US was so much stronger that it was basically the equivalent of a wrestler taking on a toddler
(2): I really didn't like it, but what was I really going to do aside protesting in the streets of Belgium? Our opinion simply didn't matter


----------



## Xzi (Jun 25, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> So all in all: where is his basis for a war?


I don't think he has one...yet.  Seems this administration is working on it, though, given the blame placed on Iran for the Japanese tanker explosion and now the drone we baited them into shooting down.  If we had bombers in the air just for that, you can bet people in the White House are licking their lips at the chance to blame Iran for the next random extremist attack anywhere in the Middle East.  One American death is more than enough for the warmongers in the Republican party to start beating their chests.



Taleweaver said:


> Congress certainly isn't going to give a go for it.


Trump says he doesn't need congressional approval to strike Iran, and unfortunately he is correct.  Under GWB, executive powers were expanded to allow for that decision to be made unilaterally.


----------



## linuxares (Jun 25, 2019)

Xzi said:


> Trump says he doesn't need congressional approval to strike Iran, and unfortunately he is correct.  Under GWB, executive powers were expanded to allow for that decision to be made unilaterally.


Trump is correct. He have the right to start a war, but he need congress to help keep the war going. I'm baffled that one person have so much power.


----------



## cracker (Jun 25, 2019)

15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. None were from Afghanistan or Iraq. 

Re this topic: If some Iranian was behind the oil tanker attack then it doesn't make any sense at all for it to have been state-sponsored since the Japanese PM was, at the same time this occurred,  in trade talks in Iran. That would be a helluva way to negotiate... The crew said it was an airborne attack so it was from a plane strike or missiles being launched from land. I wouldn't doubt it being a third party that was trying to stir shit up.

The drone being shot down is quite an ambiguous event. The area where is was flying in has a very narrow international airspace. It is hard to say if it went into Iranian airspace or not. Besides that, we don't know if it was a normal spy mission or if it was meant to be passively aggressive — notwithstanding if it was armed or not. 

What hasn't been mentioned in nearly any source is that there was also a U.S. spy plane carrying a crew of 35 flying in the area at the same time that Iran purposely left alone because they knew it was manned. It seems almost as if there was a plan to provoke killing U.S. citizens to start a war was engineered by warhawks. Hmmmmm...


----------



## Xzi (Jun 26, 2019)

Well, Iran's president is not being subtle with his insults: 'Trump White House is afflicted by mental retardation.'

Trump responded predictably, threatening Iran with "great and overwhelming force."  The only problem being that during the announcement of new sanctions, Trump named the wrong leader of Iran, one who has been dead since 1989.  Not exactly helping his case against having a mental disability.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Jun 26, 2019)

LOL. It won't happened at all. They are just silly children barking at each others like an idiots. Stupid politics and the corruption.


----------



## cracker (Jun 26, 2019)

While not mentally incapacitated, there are practically neon signs pointing to him having various mental issues (read: narcissism, personality disorder,...).


----------



## SG854 (Jun 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The thus far last part is also the most interesting one : Trump calling off an airstrike at the last moment.



If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will be a better President the George Bush.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will be a better President the George Bush.


Only problem being that Trump is the one who has brought us to the brink of war with Iran in the first place, by reneging on the previous nuclear inspections deal both countries had agreed to.  Then he appointed John Bolton and other known warmongers to key positions in his administration.  Hardly praiseworthy if he somehow manages to solve a crisis that he created.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> If Trump keeps us out of war with Iran he will be a better President the George Bush.


How about we make these sorts of claims until after his presidency? When he got in office, there were absolutely no tensions whatsoever with Iran. Now you're at the brink of war. It's also pretty cynical to call "not being at war TODAY" an achievement.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> How about we make these sorts of claims until after his presidency?


Make if claims after Trump presidency ends? Doesn’t make sense. That’s not how if is used. It’s used before not after. If X happens then YZ.



Trump keeps saying he’s anti war that’s what he campaigned on. And keeps saying he doesn’t want war with Iran. He takes credit for bringing Troops back and avoiding interventionist wars. Which show his mindset on this. He listens to a lot of Fox News and Tucker Carlson, and Carlson is against war. There is right wing and left wing union against the establishment and neo conservatives, wanting to avoid war.


----------



## barronwaffles (Jun 26, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> When he got in office, there were absolutely no tensions whatsoever with Iran.



You're fucking kidding, right? Both burgerland parties have members absolutely barking at the idea of turning Iran into another failed state - the US has been attempting to cripple them for decades.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 26, 2019)

linuxares said:


> Trump is correct. He have the right to start a war, but he need congress to help keep the war going. I'm baffled that one person have so much power.


I mean, you start a war, I think they kinda have to find it after that, now about Iran, I mean it's pretty bad, I'm guessing people died on those oil tankers? The UK seems to agree it was probably Iran. I know theyer mad about the nuclear agreement, but they cant kill people because of it, and  expect we are all supposed to just be okay with that.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 26, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> I mean, you start a war, I think they kinda have to find it after that, now about Iran, I mean it's pretty bad, I'm guessing people died on those oil tankers? The UK seems to agree it was probably Iran. I know theyer mad about the nuclear agreement, but they cant kill people because of it, and  expect we are all supposed to just be okay with that.


No deaths from the Japanese oil tanker explosion AFAIK.  The crew abandoned ship and was picked up by the US Navy.


----------



## Ericthegreat (Jun 26, 2019)

Xzi said:


> No deaths from the Japanese oil tanker explosion AFAIK.  The crew abandoned ship and was picked up by the US Navy.


Other was Saudi Arabia? No matter how you feel about their prince ( :/ ) no reason they should die.


----------



## Xzi (Jun 26, 2019)

Ericthegreat said:


> Other was Saudi Arabia? No matter how you feel about their prince ( :/ ) no reason they should die.


Hmm?  I'm not sure how it's related, but I agree that continuing to support Saudi Arabia's despotic leadership while simultaneously threatening war with Iran is very hypocritical.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 26, 2019)

SG854 said:


> Trump keeps saying he’s anti war that’s what he campaigned on. And keeps saying he doesn’t want war with Iran. He takes credit for bringing Troops back and avoiding interventionist wars. Which show his mindset on this. He listens to a lot of Fox News and Tucker Carlson, and Carlson is against war. There is right wing and left wing union against the establishment and neo conservatives, wanting to avoid war.


Why do you still bother with what he says? The guy is a notorious liar.

What he _did _was tear up the nuclear treaty without reason. What he _did _was impose stricter economic sanctions. What he _did _was send a drone over their air space(1). What he _nearly _did was kill 150 innocent Iranians.


Besides...are we talking about Donald Trump here? Y'know...about this high, ski resort tan, blond and grumpy? All I hear him say when asked about a coming war with Iran are things like "I hope not" and "we'll see". Perhaps he campaigned against a war(2), but if so he has now delegated it to guys who actually do want war. And to be honest: I don't see him fire either Bolton or Pompeo anytime soon.


(1): yes, I know the US army claims the thing was over international waters. I'd say the same thing if my 150 million dollar toy was shot down over my neighbor's yard.
(2): I honestly couldn't say. His retarded antics like insulting his opponents and his pledge for a wall took up so much media coverage that "I'm against a war" was somewhat of a mundane footnote that didn't quite make it in international news


----------



## notimp (Jun 26, 2019)

Next step. Acknowledge, that those things happen.



> The U.S. military has refused to keep a tally of Iraqi deaths. General Tommy Franks, the man in charge of the initial invasion, bluntly told reporters, “We don’t do body counts.” One survey found that most Americans thought Iraqi deaths were in the tens of thousands. But our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion.





> The number of Iraqi casualties is not just a historical dispute, because the killing is still going on today. Since several major cities in Iraq and Syria fell to Islamic State in 2014, the U.S. has led the heaviest bombing campaign since the American War in Vietnam, dropping 105,000 bombs and missiles and reducing most of Mosul and other contested Iraqi and Syrian cities to rubble.


https://www.salon.com/2018/03/19/the-staggering-death-toll-in-iraq_partner/

Then find the trade off that makes it necessary.

By what means? Lesser of two evils principle, usually.


----------



## cracker (Jun 26, 2019)

Two tankers were attacked by ??? Iran rescued at least 23 which can be proven, but both the U.S. and Iran are claiming they both rescued all 44. Obviously, the U.S. could only have rescued — at most — 21 from the one tanker so it leaves the question about who actually rescued them especially since the U.S. lied about rescuing all 44. Even some Japanese news say Iran rescued them all.


----------



## notimp (Jun 26, 2019)

intermediate step. 

You will never get "the truth" in those matters. Even I linked the iranian state intellectual elites side - which is just one PR agency pitching stories against the others basically.. 

In this instance - the USes PR stories are pretty darn stupid, and you have the head of the democrats on tape stating - that he just came from Trump, having had to tell him, that the dems would not finance a war at this point in time. (Partly because of elections, because - presidents that start wars, are perceived as 'strong'. Read up on the chicago school  (Chicago Boys) again if you have doubts.  ) When a retaliation strike was immanent. 

So this is a rare case of both sides basically agreeing, that yes - the US wanted to start a war - but we thought it was wrong at the time.

Which makes this perfect for looking into methodology. 

Missiles or boats striking tankers. Accusing others of shooting down a plane you had flying "alongside their territory". Faking weapons of mass destruction and immanent danger, and telling folks that earlyborn babies are thrown out of their incubators, while crying - unisng a 14 year old for that job in front of an international body - are all PR tactics that were used to start wars in the past. If you want the public on your side - make the story have a heart. 

Then kill 2.4 million people over 15 years (Holocaust was 6Mio people - not a fair comparison at all - i repeat - at all, but for purely numbers based deliberations its good to also know that number) - in Iraq - and marvel at the PR effort in the US homeland to simply keep it under wraps, by and I quote "not giving out death toll numbers" because they are bad PR.

Death toll numbers - are what upended one US administration in the Vietnam case - when students revolted - because of that "bad PR" in papers (largely - domestic issues as well). So the US simply stopped giving out the numbers since then. They also stopped calling their wars - wars. (So that international wartime law would not apply. (Torture not permitted.))

And this is how wartime PR works. Liberators that are indirectly responsible for the death of 2.4 million people (by salon.com accounts), are something that the entire arab world doesnt buy anymore. Which limits your negotiation space - so the answer in that case is always - more military force, then negotiating again.

Which is why the Iran war isnt off the table by a longshot. (Troops are currently built up (flown into) in the region.) The real discussions will be held post election season.

And yes, america starts wars. If you spend more than the rest of the world combined on your military - it kind of benefits you to do so. Otherwise - empty spending, right? 


Here is a relict of an oddly enough - pretty much accurate - mad man (certifiably), from the first iraq war.  Just for flavor.


And then again - there is pretty much no opposition to anything you want to do in the youtube age, right? And thats how PR works, again.  Assuring majorities.


----------



## notimp (Jun 26, 2019)

Advanced course.  What do you do as a (free and independent) media outlet in that case? 

Answer: There is a period pre starting a war, where media is supposed to represent the different views on the issue. And in general, they kind of do so. The NYT and the WP were heavily criticized the last time the US went into war (the one you started with a PR lie of weapons of mass destruction) - because both of them burried the counter speeches, either in editorials, or in opinion pieces 'in the back of the paper' - causing them accusations of being "pro war".

You always have experts payed on both sides of the issue.  So you cant go by "experts". You need a public forum (media ideally) for them to argue. 

Once the war starts - media position shifts entirely - and becomes "megaphone for the administrations stance" - right down to embedded journalism and the likes.

Smaller media outlets might diverge, but not larger ones.

Now you suddenly have to read internatinal media to get a ballanced view - basically. And of course know affiliations on the international stage. Which is a little harder  - but not that hard... 


The step after that would be - getting into understanding international diplomacy.
(https://www.canada.ca/en/department...-relevant-to-the-case-of-ms-meng-wanzhou.html to start - but its not related at all - just the most interesting incident around right now.  )


----------



## cracker (Jun 26, 2019)

Don't forget Dan Rather getting canned for speaking his dissenting views about the Iraq war. There were other less notable anchors/journalists that were fired too over not speaking the war machine's narrative.

War is big business. Munitions and equipment contractors get huge payoffs. Private "peace keepers"/mercenaries make a lot (Blackwater/XI/whatever they relabeled it as now). The companies that exploit the areas for the natural resources make a crazy amount. The media gets tons of viewers and are paid mightily by by advertisers — many of whom are the same companies profiting from the war. THIS is the military-industrial complex Eisenhower warned us about!


----------



## SG854 (Jun 27, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Why do you still bother with what he says? The guy is a notorious liar.
> 
> What he _did _was tear up the nuclear treaty without reason. What he _did _was impose stricter economic sanctions. What he _did _was send a drone over their air space(1). What he _nearly _did was kill 150 innocent Iranians.
> 
> ...


It’s hoping he won’t go to war. Fingers crossed. So far he’s done good not attacking Iran. And I want to see him keep doing that.


Bolton and Pompei are begging for war Trump is not giving to them. Even before the drone was shot down since 2017, or very likely even before that, they’ve been wanting to go to war.


Him and Tucker Carlson talk. And this segment on Fox is excellent. I liked that Tucker said attacking Iran will be political suicide, end his presidency and end his chance for reelection. He calls Bolton demented and not normal. And pointing out Neo Cons still wage enormous power in Washington. Trump watches that, he sees what Carlson says and gets advice from him.


----------



## cracker (Jun 27, 2019)

Trump is egotistical if anything and can be — and has been — flattered into doing things. If enough people whom he admires get him behind closed doors and massage that ego then there is still a good chance of it happening.


----------



## notimp (Jun 27, 2019)

Slight correction to the above: Oh silly me - it is related. 

So Madame Meng Wanzhou is the daughter of the Huawei founder, and the CFO of said company. She was recently arrested after flying into Canada, because the US had formulated an extradition request, for crimes of Huawei not honoring the US sanctions against Iran. And will be extradited to the US.

Bwahaha.

Madame Meng was not warned by Canada that an arrest would have been immanent, when she was on her way to Canada. They just snatched her at the border.

The US basically wanted another bargening piece in China/US relations it seems. 

Now Canada is receiving the silent treatment from China.


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 27, 2019)

SG854 said:


> It’s hoping he won’t go to war. Fingers crossed. So far he’s done good not attacking Iran. And I want to see him keep doing that.
> 
> 
> Bolton and Pompei are begging for war Trump is not giving to them. Even before the drone was shot down since 2017, or very likely even before that, they’ve been wanting to go to war.
> ...



Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day. 

Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).




(1): okay, okay: I'll admit that it's a nice side effect 
(2): Trump's attention span isn't long enough to keep focus on the same topic too long, so international crisisses are literally avoided by putting certain documents out of sight


----------



## Joe88 (Jun 27, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet


Why? He is just a leader of a country of which there are hundreds of other leaders.
This also goes into why is it the USA's responsibility to police the rest of the world?


----------



## Taleweaver (Jun 27, 2019)

Joe88 said:


> Why? He is just a leader of a country of which there are hundreds of other leaders.
> This also goes into why is it the USA's responsibility to police the rest of the world?


Easy answers, though that doesn't mean they're pretty:

Why is he the most powerful? Because the USA spends BY FAR the most of their tax money on their army (what was it? More than the sums of #2 to #5 combined ? Something in that regio)

The other question I have to turn around: why does the USA _act_ as if it's their responsibility to police the rest of the world? I have no freaking idea why USA is involved in a bombing of two ships that aren't theirs to begin with, and I have no idea why your drone just HAS TO BE on the border of Iran in the first place. You had a deal with them. Why was this removed again?


----------



## SG854 (Jun 27, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day.
> 
> Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).
> 
> ...


Ha. I knew you were going to say that about Fox. Carlson isn’t so bad.


They are salivating, slobbering all over the floor, they want war.



Trump doesn’t have all the power in the world. We separated power with the 3 branches of Gov to weaken the Commander in Chief. Trump couldn’t get his boarder wall money for a long time. This is an example of how he can’t do whatever he wants. People hate Trump so much that he’s under a constant watchful eye, they have him in a pigeon hold like no other president before him.


----------



## cracker (Jun 27, 2019)

As time goes by, there is less and less a separation of power. Money is a big factor in this. If most of the delegates in the different branches of government are being paid off for particular views on issues then there isn't much of a separation is there? Court packing is a thing. When one side pushes through judgeships en masse based on hardcore beliefs then is upends the ability to have fair trials from the bottom up. If there was no money in politics and there was more than the two big "cliques" to choose from there would be a much better division of powers.

The powers of the President were amped up post-9/11. Things such as unilateral strikes without Congressional approval as was required before. Bypassing Congress to sell weapons to Saudi Arabia was just done by declaring it an emergency situation with no recourse.

Trump hasn't done as many shady things as say Nixon, but he has done quite a lot. It is more about the candor brought on by him being so inflammatory as the President and as a private citizen. His demeanor just begs for people to knock him down a few pegs. Also, he is inviting people into his world by being the first President with an online presence as the method to speak to the People. If you don't want exposés on what all you are doing then you should hide away from the limelight on unpopular items — much less gloat about them and leak them yourself.


----------



## SG854 (Jun 28, 2019)

Taleweaver said:


> Fox news bringing actual news? I can't say that every day.
> 
> Still...I'm not sure that "begging for war" is the correct term here. See...this whole "Trump is a moron" spiel that guys like me bring up over and over isn't just to spite political opponents(1) but because he really is totally inadequately prepared for the job. The president of the USA is supposed to be the most powerful man on the planet, so when that man is incapable of exercising these powers, it shifts to the rest of the staff. The book 'fire and fury' already revealed that his staff considers him a moron, and it was either that book or 'fear' (I forgot which one) that revealed that the rest of the staff handles that situation by either limit the documents he is given(2) or spoonfeed him information in such a way that he'll react the way he wants to (which doesn't work out as well, as he's pretty unpredictable in character).
> 
> ...



Tucker Carlson literally stopped a war with Iran.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2019/06/21/us/politics/trump-iran-strike.amp.html



> WASHINGTON — He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
> 
> In recent days, Tucker Carlson, the Fox News host, had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran’s provocations with force was crazy.




Oh My God Holy Shit.



Thank god Trump doesn’t watch MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC because they are all calling for war. And conspiracy theorist Sean Hannity.

For some reason Tucker Carlson is allowed to tell the truth about wars in establishment news. Some how they allow him to speak his mind about politics.



He was right about the Mueller Report. Right about war with Iran and calling out the lies. And last weeks segment on the Koch Brothers  and the Republican Party he killed it, he was laying out truth bomb after truth bomb.

How open boarders Bernie Sanders said is a Koch Brothers proposal, and Tucker Carlson said is the reasons republicans aren’t doing anything about the boarder problem is because they are all bought by the Koch Brothers. And he talks about Koch’s huge influence trying to ban free speech right now and their influence in politics.


----------

