18 Comments
User's avatar
Matt Esparza's avatar

Great article. I got a laugh out of this quote though

“…to longtime War Enjoyer Tucker Carlson…”

Also absolutely love the title. Mike really cooked with this article. I hope that the liberals “TACO” nickname for Trump rings true here… the people of Iran do not deserve the hell on earth that Trump has the power to bring them.

Expand full comment
Empire Files's avatar

Thanks Matt!

Expand full comment
Jim's avatar

Your comment "The height of the anti-war movement was in many ways an anti-Bush movement. A perfect avatar: the oil industry political dynasty trust fund kid who failed upwards, and suddenly altered the lives of millions as he sent us to an oil war based on lies he told to the world." is, I believe, highly misstated. First of all, it was not a war. Use English properly before they slaughter the language too. It was an imperial aggression. Second, this was hardly an "oil war" anyway. It was a neocon aggression in service to Israel.

Expand full comment
Laladge's avatar

Trump is just a useful idiot at the service of a perverted "caballe"...

Expand full comment
Matt Esparza's avatar

Trump is just representing the American Empire in the interest of his class. His faction of the ruling class have been salivating at the idea of war with Iran since the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Expand full comment
Empire Files's avatar

Thank you for reading the article :)

Expand full comment
Scoop Tinsel's avatar

#CeaseFire

Expand full comment
ChatterX's avatar

Ppl attach too much importance to politicians' personalities.. common mistake..

Any POTUS is a puppet to the MIC/CIA's Imperialist Deep State.. It's all just a kabuki theater..

Look up "Safari Club"

Just Another proxy POTUS for more proxy WARS…

Expand full comment
Ohio Barbarian's avatar

The US would already be at war with Iran were it not for Big Oil and the Pentagon, especially the Navy. Big Oil does NOT want to see the Persian Gulf oil supply shut down, and the Navy couldn't even beat the Houthis, so what would happen to their ships if they attacked Iran?

There was a time when they would have been all in, but a lot of things have changed since the neocons first drew up their list of target countries, ending with Iran, over 20 years ago, and one of those things is missile and drone technology.

The American MIC model is based on manufacturing the most expensive weapons possible in order to generate more grift. The Iranian MIC model is based on manufacturing the least expensive weapons possible in order to throw so much junk in the air that the expensive American defense systems get depleted, making the more sophisticated Iranian missiles more likely to hit their targets.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out which system is more militarily effective.

Expand full comment
Tony Litwinko's avatar

Hitting the nail in its head once again, Mike Prysner!

Expand full comment
Susan Mercurio's avatar

It's "neocon tenets," not "neocon tenants."

Expand full comment
Mike Rube's avatar

It looks like he’s hitchhiking! Hitting the road. My recommendation; Do not pick this guy up. A total perv.

Expand full comment
roos demol's avatar

Moldy taco

Expand full comment
includeMeOut's avatar

You past expose of Tulsi Gabbard is also relevant here as she pivots from correct claims that Iran has no nukes to joining Team Trump in moving against Iran on that bogus basis.

Expand full comment
Roberoni's avatar

ICE raids and kidnappings - destroy communities and families to fill domestic airtime and outrage to saturation levels.

Throw in two global alliance-altering international maelstroms and the "weary of bad news" sheeple literally refuse to hear more "upsetting news."

Thank you for your energy and focus today on what my grandchildren might one day study in history classes - provided the public education survives the next 3.5 year assault.

Expand full comment
Abdul Basit Ahmad's avatar

Thank you for this post.

Expand full comment
Debbie Lawrence's avatar

Don the con

Expand full comment