Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
To ask if it is justified is to miss the point. Justification suggests some moral metric and by that standard it can be justified as an act of self-defense or of retribution. Soleiman, gosh knows, having no small amount of blood on his hands - including that of innocent children.
However, in the international arena, there is no agreed upon moral standards. Indeed, it is rightly defined as an arena and NOT - as is all too commonly used - a "community." The latter suggesting a grouping organized around a shared identity and set of values.
As Theodore Roosevelt famously said, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states." That is the irreducible fact of international affairs and the imperfect nature of the human condition.
There is, of course, the issue of American law, but based on past precedent and the fact that Soleiman had been declared a terrorist by the US government over ten years ago, prima facie the President would seem to have acted consistent with law.
In terms of international law, the United Nations Security Council had placed a travel ban on Soleiman, effectively declaring him a terrorist. That said, international law is more a grand quid pro quo between states - "You don't do it to us, we won't do it to you." - and is subject to highly divergent interpretations when it is not even ignored outright. There being no independent authority above states to impartially adjudicate international law and impose sanctions for its violation.
Rather then the issue is the prudence, or lack of same, in the act of assassinating Soleiman. On that the question is more ambiguous.
Cards on the table, I am a Republican who has worked in politics for over 30 years. I am no fan of Mr. Trump and did not vote for him. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day and it must be said that Mr. Trump's foreign policy can often be tactically quite effective. The problem being that it seems to lack any broader strategic context or vision.
Given that, it can be fairly said that the assassination was tactically sound. It was in retaliation for the killing of an American by Iranian surrogates that had been a declared "red line" for the President. Thus both a retaliatory and deterrent effect and demonstrated that Mr. Trump's "red line" was not mere rhetorical bluster. The point has been made.
Whether the action advances US interests at a more strategic level, it actually is unclear but really is probably less consequential than the media hype makes it seem. After all, Iran remains what it is and its means of advancing its own interests are limited and have not changed.
CONT.
Moreover, Iran has no allies that are rushing to its defense and thus the status quo remains. Indeed, it has been argued that Iran might retaliate, but that begs the question of how Iran might retaliate.
By sponsoring terrorist acts? It already is the largest state sponsor of terrorism. By militarily attacking other powers in the region? It has done that - see the attack on the Saudi oil installations. By sponsoring insurgencies? It is already doing that in Yemen and to a lesser degree in Afghanistan. Pursue nuclear technology? It is already doing that. By shooting at American assets? Done that too in the shooting down of the American Air Force drone. By attempting to assassinate Western officials? Iran has done that too - see also the Iranian sponsored attempt to kill the Saudi ambassador to the US, right in the middle of Washington DC no less!!
In truth, there is little that Iran can do to retaliate against the United States that it has not already been doing. The frequency of such actions may increase somewhat, but it would not be anything that the West has not already had to deal with coming from Iran.
As to going to war flat out? The disparity in numbers and economic resources between Iran and the United States is so huge that it would make any outright Iranian war on the US - perhaps after initial victories if Iran gains the element of surprise - a suicide mission. It would assure the toppling of the theocracy and, in any case, would be a hugely risky undertaking by Tehran at a time when the Iranian economy is teetering and its population is deeply restive.
Put it all together and the action can be deemed justified in a narrow tactical sense. In a broader strategic sense it actually probably makes very little difference. As to a moral question - in the context of the international arena, the metric does not apply.
Nightdrot, I found your posting very reasoned and intelligent.
Thanks!
@nightdrot I agree with most of what you said, except that I'm not in favor of a war.
Nobody should be in favor of war.
War IS hell!
I am former Army.
@james2018dean I appreciate your service, sir.
Thank you Jamie!
You're welcome.
@Jamie05rhs @james2018dean Thanks to both of you for your kind comments.
Just to be clear, I am not advocating war. However - although I do not think it likely in this case barring some miscalculation or accident - war is an irreducible state of the human condition and to accept the world as it is rather than as we hope it would be is the best assurance of sustaining the peace.
To quote Theodore Roosevelt, "World peace comes not from human kindness or moral restraint, but from balanced power; equilibriums of force restraining the selfish aims of nation-states."
Indeed, there being perhaps no better example than what resulted from President Wilson's attempts to re-order international affairs after World War I. A Versailles, he attempted to build an international system rooted not in the balance of power, but based on the principles of national self-determination, international law, collective security, global free trade and a "parliament of man," i. e. the League of Nations.
What he got for his troubles was setting the stage for the Great Depression and another world war. Absent some agreed neutral moral authority above states, nations will cooperate and compete and this lends itself - by default - to global power politics.
To fail to recognize this is actually to invite war, not to prevent it.
@nightdrot I understand. But we (the United States) can't afford to get into another war. We're already 20 trillion dollars in debt.
@Jamie05rhs Well, if the United States cannot afford it, then certainly, with a much smaller economy, cannot either.
Actually, the problem with the debt is far more deep seated and not apt to be much impacted one way or the other by military action in the Middle East. The costs of that, relative to the long term costs of entitlement spending set against the profile of an aging demographic are far more debilitating.
For all that, the debt is merely the numerical expression of a cultural tendency by the American public to live beyond their means. Fun facts: 1 in 6 who works, works for government. 1 in 7 is a Social Security recipient and that will only increase as the population ages. 1/3 of all families, this year, will receive some form of transfer payment.
Set against that backdrop you could eliminate all the spending we do in the Middle East and it would not make a dent. This beyond the fact that the US is not apt to save money if it forfeits its national interests. One way or the other, you still pay.
@nightdrot You're missing the bigger picture. We could win a war with Iran, but at what cost? We have other enemies in the world, and some much more menacing. What happens if China decides to finally attack? We'll be depleted with nothing left to defend ourselves.
And I understand your argument on the debt. But that still doesn't help anyone. Right now we're just in debt. But what if we lose a quarter of our men and a large chunk of our equipment as well? We're talking about the security of our nation here.
@Jamie05rhs No, you are missing my point. I am not suggesting that we go to war with Iran. Indeed, I think it highly unlikely in any case.
Rather my point is that we accept the fact that war is an irreducible part of the human condition. To repeat a famous quote from an infamous person, "You may not be interested in war, but war may be interested in you."
The nation that fails to adapt itself to the nature of the international arena - and note that it is "arena" and not "community" - will find itself at a serious disadvantage and will apt end up at war anyhow. Albeit at war under far more disadvantageous circumstances - and at far higher cost in blood and treasure - than otherwise would have been the case.
In the Iran case, the region provides oil to our most important trading partners. If their supplies are disrupted, their economies will falter and that will have a knock-on effect to our own wealth.
Beyond that, if the perception in the region by countries like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is that they cannot rely on the United States to aid in their security - and here there is an identity of interests between the Saudis and ourselves - do you think that they will shrug and say, "Oh well, you win some you lose some."?
CONT.
More likely they will turn to other powers - think Russia and China - to secure their interests. This thereby putting American economic and security interests in the hands of powers hostile to ourselves.
Suffice to say, we are not in the Middle East for the fun of it, but because our presence there secures our interests and, in the balance, generally avoids war. We have compelling interests that are not optional.
Finally, you defined this in terms of the national debt. Debt there is but A) the segment of our debt represented by our actions in the Middle East is, relatively speaking, negligible and B) you confuse symptom and cause.
The cause of our debt is a public that resolutely will not pay for what it buys and that refuses to separate out its wants from its needs and then fails to prioritize those needs. That is a homegrown and deeply cultural problem, not born in the Middle East.
@nightdrot. You are in error on multiple fronts, good sir.
1. We are in fact going to war with Iran.
2. The USA doesn't get richer from Middle Eastern oil; we get poorer.
3. Russia will not ally with Saudi Arabia because Russia is already allied with Iran.
Jamie, we are not actually at war with Iran. But they have been at war with us for years.
We are self sufficient in oil. We also export it. When the price goes up, it helps us.
@Jamie05rhs
1) No we are not. In fact, so far it appears that in this particular episode Iran has backed down. It's recent attacks being perfunctory at best, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is issuing very emollient statements devoid of the usual Islamic revolutionary zealotry.
Grant that in the 21st century the line between war and peace - particularly in the age of terrorism and plausible deniability - is blurry. Still, insofar as war is a legal matter, no declaration of war by either side has or will be issued. War as defined as a concerted massing of resources and their employment over a limited time period - think the world wars, the Korean War, etc. - is definitely not in the offing. Not least because Iran lacks the resources to sustain it.
As an aside, @james2018dean has a point but it would be more accurate to characterize the state of relations between the US and Iran as something not dissimilar, albeit on a much smaller scale, to the Cold War. A sort of quasi-ideological contest played out more or less by clandestine means and when shifting to a more conventional level being of limited scope and duration.
2) Actually, the less oil that flows from the Middle East, at least in terms of the US economy in the short run, the better it is for the US - which is now effectively energy independent and is now the world's largest oil producer.
The issue is more about the economic well being of our trading partners. Over the long run their economic well being conducing to our own.
CONT.
3) Iran's alliance with Russia is one of convenience. As I am sure you are aware that they have a long history of not getting along going back to the 17th century and including a partial occupation of Iran by Russia in both world wars.
In any case, you are playing checkers when foreign policy is a game of three dimensional chess. As Lord Palmerston said, "We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow."
Suffice to say that if Russia could step in to the balance between the Middle East's two principle powers and act as a shield of each against the other, it would no doubt do so. With Saudi Arabia having the smaller population and military looking to any great power patron it could find if the US left the region.
It would put Russia into the catbird seat with a boot on the economic lifeline of most of the Western world - and China to boot. Suffice to say, given its proximity to the region, that would give Russia an enormous geopolitical advantage.
At the end of the day, international relations are about power and interests - even when rooted in convenience and impermanence. Think the brief Soviet-German non- aggression pact in the early years of WWII.
For that matter, think of the alliance of convenience between the USSR and the Western allies in that same war. It was an alliance of interests, not of principle, let alone fervent loyalty.
Thank you for taking the time to write a detailed response. It's appreciated. Great points
simply... no... the assassination proves that the US act independant of the rest of the world and often see see themselves as the only authority, an authority who (they believe) have the right to infiltrate other countries and take any steps they like, this course of action is a dangerous one, which will have serious repurcussions on the rest of the world... and actions which have been decided not for prevention of a global threat, but rather for profit and personal gain... if it had been a global threat then Trump SHOULD have approached the UN and Nato... that is what they are there for...
the Iranian General was the only one who was preventing ISIS from getting a foothold in that region, without him... chances are the US will get their wishes... ISIS will now gain entry into Iran, and the US will use that as an excuse to justify a war...
the US claims that their embassy was attacked, but what they fail to accept is that it was attacked as a direct result of an act of war by the US, they shot first... and it wasn't on a military instillation but a civilian one... which shows that Trump has zero regard for civilian lives regardless of reasons.
also the response time of US military assets is not consistent with an unknown incident... they had moved their assets in place in preparation for any retaliation by Iranian forces... this is furthermore yet more examples of this whole situation was preplanned and not done for any lawful reasoning...
and since Trump has been impeached, this war would most likely draw attention away from that, and thus allow him to remain in power for longer until a way to overthrow that decision can be made.
that is clearly the sign of a dictator NOT a democraticly elected leader... he's a warmonger
yeah... remember when that woman who reprazented america invited all the other reps to a party an dno one turned up... can't remember her name even which shows how important it was... old trumpy boy has certainly isolated america from what were once allies... even the uk that is usually right up the presidents asshole has took a step back from this one
@wankiam yep though the UK, unfortunately my home country has always had a kiss arse of a PM, and the one who cheated his way into power is no where to be seen, they claim he's in the Carribean with his girlfriend, but personally in a situation whereby something like this gets triggered the PM or head of state would be recalled immediately in order to discuss what the next actions are... one of his underlings has stated the UK will not follow the US into a war against Iran or Iraq yet... we have 2 warships and a couple of nuclear subs waiting in the Persian Gulf ready to strike... if that isn't following into war, why send them there!
@wankiam yeah lmfao tbf though the entire Tory cabinet is just a crappy circus... no one takes them seriously... yet we have them full of murderers and crooks and paedophiles, rapists and such and yet they seem to get away with everything.. many of the voters are still wondering how they won the election as none of them campaigned enough to even get out there
@wankiam exactly, personally i believe that in Bozo the fridge magnet's absence and in the absence of a responsible and functioning government the baton should be passed over to the opposition, and also all investigation into the legitimacy of that election should be made top priority too as nothing feels right in how they won and all those promises he made nothing has been done in fact he's gone back on what he has already promised... i mean he said he was writing it into the British constitution that the NHS should recieve funding... i mean that should be by default, but takes a level of incompetence and lack of confidence in his own party and self if he has to make it law to remind that it needs doing
@wankiam yeah they seem to like the right wing extremists and their ilk, dont care if they create chaos or dissention and equality, and they love it when we fight among ourselves... and against the various cultures in our country... but hate it when anyone comes along and challenges that... but i would happily follow a socialist movement, especially if those who run it are honest and true to what they are doing it for
@wankiam Corbyn and Labour was my chosen vote before i even decided to vote :) and oh for sure... the media bias, the propaganda, the political lies and the bollocks about him being a terrorist sympathiser and the world of other lies that came out... mate, if i could have been able to meet the guy i would have shook his hand and thanked him, for being a prime example of a TRUE decent human being
@wankiam I totally agree, will say this though I had opened the eye's of a lot of people on my facebook friends and my close circle who were under the impression that what was said was true
and when asked "why dont you like him!" many simply said cos on the news... in the papers... this politician said this...
I asked them where the proof of it was cos those sources lie and have their own agenda
they had no answer... after they began looking at the info i sent them and surely enough voted Labour
@wankiam after hearing all what you'd said, even this far, i can imagine... but the important thing is you tried, personally although i would loved to have woken up the next morning to a Labour government, there was far too much corruption and dirty dealings going on for it to be so... much of which if there was an investigation into even a couple of things vote-wise, that would open the can of worms enough to ask more questions and shed more doubt on the legality and legitimacy of the rest of their actions going back to 2010 and possibly even further
Why would anyone listen to such an incompetent fool? He doesn't even pay attention in briefings and lies consistently.
https://www.cbsnews.com/live-updates/iran-news-qassem-soleimani-killing-iraq-us-airstrike-tension-fears-middle-east-war-today-live-updates-2020-01-06/
Looks to me that whether or not he's subjectively evil, we were supposed to PULL OUT of the Middle East. Additionally, we have someone completely moronic in the White House who is completely inept at dealing with such situations. He threatened to bomb 52 cities. He's as unstable as North Korea's leader.
We should pull out and help countries that ASK for our help instead of trying to police the world. This is why I'm not surprised by how many countries hate America.
It's amazing how many people believe this was justified even if it leads to an all out war. Even more amazing that people believe we'll win. Did we win in Iraq? Afghanistan? Vietnam? Korea? Answer is no.
Consider why we're in the Middle East. Do you really think we're the good guys bringing democracy to this region. Why is Iran hostile? Perhaps because we orchestrated a coup against their democratically elected prime minister in 1953.
We don't have the right to take military action all over the world. Would we accept an occupation by force? Would we accept military bases of any country within our border?
Opinion
102Opinion
Honestly?
Yes and No.
Do I believe it was a smart political move?
Yes and No
Let me explain
1. Soleimani was a known force of Iranian foreign policy. He pushed the Iranian agenda throughout the region. He helped fund terrorist organizations, He aided the Assad regime and its mass murders, He supported revolutions throughout the region, He supported Shia militant movements in Iran (that led to the death of 100s of Americans, and 1000s of Iraqis), He organized the Iranian Regimes brutal take down of protests throughout Iran, He caused general instability in the region... because it suited the Iranian position (and the current "Cold War" style conflict they have with the Saudis... SO YES.. the Saudis have done the same.. and YES.. Russia and the USA have intervened when it benefited them) Many argue he was a hero for being instrumental in the defeat of ISIS.. this is true to an extent. . many forces aided in the defeat of ISIS (the USA included... who at times worked along side Iranian funded militias).. but I dont think it necessarily makes void the fact the guy was a instability creator in the region... and the fact that Iraqis DONT want to be dominated by Americans (and also NOT by Iranians.. which was a chief objective of Soleimani)...
SOOO
His actions made the strike "Justified" in a way... but ultimately we then run into problem 2.
2. Though it is true Soleimani was all of the things listed above... the attack by Trump ignored congressional approval.. it was committed without the knowledge of most of his party.. and it was committed within an allied state (Iraq) without their approval.. creating a great deal of turmoil.. NOT only with Iran.. but also with Allies, who see the action as unjustified (because of its clear and unquestionable illegality).. IN THAT way.. No.. the Strike was not at all justified
ULTIMATELY
3. I think though it doesn't serve American foreign policy very well (It does nothing but create further instability... NOT just because of angering Iran.. which is always going to happen, we have a poor relationship with them anyways... but because it alienates us from our allies... it creates unnecessary turmoil) .. I think it mostly serves Trumps policy at home
HE will look strong to his base.. who have always viewed American responses to Iran (such as their constant harassing on ships in international water... constant threats of Western lives, and also lives of those within the region... support of terrorist organizations and rebel movements that cause instability.. support of opponents throughout the world.. etc.. the list goes on) AS WEAK... Obama was considered weak by many current Trump supporters (and the Iran Deal... though honestly it was IRAN who surrendered the most no doubt... but it was considered a weak position by Republicans/Conservatives/Right Wingers).. AND most importantly.. it takes the conversation away from Impeachment (which were to resume after the Holidays).
Ultimately I am unsure of the outcome of this
nor am I sure if I entirely approve
I agree the man (and Muhandis as well) needed to be eliminated (Many Iraqis themselves protested against them just recently... they are not supported by large portions of Iraq.. and its why only the Shia elements of the Parliament came to vote for the expulsion of American troops.. many do not like Iranian presence/influence anymore than they like American presence/influence)...
But ultimately the way it was carried out was typical of Trump
Reactionary.. Emotional.. Rash.. Quick.. Ignorant.. without any consideration
an attempt to LOOK big.. while causing more turmoil
a way to serve the EGO... of a complete imbecile. . who has largely made horrible decisions throughout his tenure as President.
other Administrations (bother Republican and Democrat) would have found a better way...
would have put some consideration into it
but that is not Trump's style
consequences do not matter to him
and some of the biggest consequences (which have been his hallmark) will be our alienation from our allies.. for our questionable and rash decisions.
I apologize for the long answer
but complex issues
require a bit more words :P
@N192K001 Precisely
and it appears on both sides of the political realm
they are attempting to put out one side as being the angel
and honestly I consider myself more of a Leftist on policy
but IN THIS CASE... I see a lot of news media misleading the American public about who this man is... and what Iran does within the region (does it make the USA the good guys? obviously not... but it sure as hell doesn't make Iran the victims)...
but also at the same time
a bit of overzealous Trump support.. to the point its ridiculous
You sir are the first person I’ve seen on all of social media I completely agree with on this topic. It seems to me like you’ve actually read the news and understand what is happening vs being force fed the general propaganda.
@Wintergrace Thank You :)
I try my best to please! XD
@Wintergrace I think one of the issues (at least of American media)
is that EVERYTHING is controlled by Party Politics (more so than ever it seems)
EVEN if you agree with the other side with someone... its taboo to say so.. and therefore the norm is to conform with the party.
So in this case
many Republicans.. Conservatives (and Conservative Media Outlets) are for the most part.. throwing out their support for the action
while the Democratic/Liberal versions... are doing the exact opposite (some going as far as preaching WW3.. or that Soleimani was a great man)
and honestly I find both positions ridiculous
and I really do the think the root is less in realism
and more in "what best services my party at this moment"
and for Trumpists... its support Trump
for Anti-Trumpists.. its going against him
trust me.. I dont agree with most things he does
but ill try to take things in a more realistic approach...
and im afraid weve lost that...
even media outlets I tend to look to (like the Young Turks). I think take it a BIT... far o. o
I don't know
it gets silly.
As an Iraqi, I absolutely agree with what you have said. Yes, it is a complex issue and I think difficult to simplify. Yes, we Iraqis want Iran out of our country and even though they assisted greatly in the removal of ISIS from the our region, their influence on Iraq is very negative and they supported the militia to create more negative control over Iraq. They planted their seeds in our corrupt government and now their influence in Iraq is stronger than ever. And then the media attention is focused on the conflict rather than the protests which gives more weight to decisions made by a government that we're protesting against in the first place.
@NoUsername9 Precisely, some parts of the USA media really want to advertise Iran as being the good guys, the victims, the ones who have done nothing wrong... Which is obviously an absolute lie.. they done nothing but create problems in Iraq.. and the region in general)
They really want to advertise Iraq as being a very Pro-Iran nation... while (like you said) ignoring the protests in Iraq against Iran... against government officials working with Iran..
Not to mention the absolutely ridiculous "ITS GONNA BE WORLD WAR 3" BS that people keep pushing...
I think so many people in the USA tend to miss the point on this
and are so blinded by either
1. their love of Trump (so everything must be perfect)
or 2. their hatred of Trump (so everything he does must be completely wrong and have the absolutely worst consequences)
without actually looking at the issue at hand.. the relationships between the different nations... the influences they have on each other.. etc
people need to understand the Iraqi worry (and the reason the Parliament met to vote American troops out of Iraq... though only the Shia members came.. apparently the Kurds and Sunni decided not to come to vote). has nothing to do with their LOVE or Support of Iran... but the their fear of conflict within Iraq... their fear of Shia Militias being used to cause more havoc.. or American bombings destroying more things...
clearly they want to remove themselves as much from the conflict as much as possible (though i doubt its possible).
its always just the 2 political sides in the USA... using whatever ridiculous means they have to attack the other side (even if they know they would have done the same thing)
sometimes I think American politics (especially in the era of Trump) have turned in the equivalent of 2 toddlers throwing sand into each others eyes.
"people need to understand the Iraqi worry (and the reason the Parliament met to vote American troops out of Iraq..." that's where we disagree. The Iraqi parliament has Iran rooted in it. They made that vote simply because Iran was hurt. If they cared about Iraq, they would've done something to prevent all assaults on the protesters by Iran that killed hundreds in just more than two months. They made that decision in a rush and it's not AT ALL in Iraq's best interest. It's quite the opposite actually. Sunnies and Kurds on the other hand not only understand that, but they're also happy that Iran is in its current condition. If America imposes sanctions over Iraq, that's goodbye for us. Because we have no exports and we rely a lot on imports, so in short, Iraq would starve. Again we don't want this it's our government and I wouldn't take anything they say at face value because they are a caretaker government.
@NoUsername9 That is why I added the "though only the Shia members came.. apparently the Kurds and Sunni decided not to come to vote)" to the end
what I was attempting to explain is the divide within Iraq on this issue (probably largely on religious based lines). NO DOUBT.. Iran has a great deal of influence in the region.. as you stated before they hold political (and arguably military) influence through their militias
Perhaps I explained it poorly..
Without a doubt I fear for Iraq... it has gone through much (and fought for much) in the past decade...
sectarian violence/civil war (no doubt influenced by Iran as much as it was influenced by the removal of Saddam.. creating a power vacuum..)... the rise of ISIS.. etc.. Iraq has gone through much.
I hope ultimately that Iran will do what it has always done in the face of American determinism.. and that is BIG TALK.. with THREATS... but nothing else... so I honestly think war is unlikely (let alone any sort of real strike on Americans... the MOST I think Iran will do is use its Iraqi based militias against the USA... but even then I doubt it... more than likely they will just make threats.. and perhaps solidify it with continuing their nuclear program)
BUT FOR IRAQ...
to be honest.. I am unsure what can be done about Iranian influence in Iraq...
I agree. Yes, I too think that war is unlikely, as Iran certainly can't face America in war, but it may use its militia to attack the U. S, but that's probably it. As for the future of my country, I'm uncertain. I can only hope for the best because yes, we've been through so much.
@NoUsername9 We can hope for the best
and hope that ultimately decades from now
people will look back at Iraq... Afghanistan... etc... as being signs of commitment and success.. not just from the USA.. but also from those governments.. for creating stability.
Conflicts like these are far more complicated than Nation vs Nation (Saddam was easy to defeat)
Its keeping the peace.. keeping the stability.. creating some sense of unity.. that is truly difficult
and the reality is
the Iraqi people... and the Afghan people.. will be the ones required to do most of the heavy lifting..
it will be up to the Iraqi people and the Afghan people to keep that stability...
the USA can stand by and help (which I hope it continues to do... we dont need a repeat of Vietnam.. where though the USA military won nearly every engagement.. even our allies the South Vietnamese were performing well... it meant nothing when the USA left... made it illegal to return... and cut all funding to our allies... South Vietnam collapsed under North Vietnamese invasion... and it became an epic political disaster for the USA.. just because we were unwilling to continue our support.. had we continued. its likely South Vietnam would exist today)..
but even with that support..
it ultimately won't be the one that decides the future of Iraq/Afghanistan
that will be the Iraqi and Afghan people.
Allegedly. Remember, these are the same people who said Saddam had weapons of mass-destruction, the war in Afghanistan was a smashing success with a winning game-plan, the U. S. troops could conquer Iraq and all withdraw back home in time for Christmas, and the so-called "U. S. A. P. A. T. R. I. O. T. Act" that rips the Bill of Rights was just a temporary measure.
Iran & Iraq are next-door neighbors with a predominantly Shi-ah Muslim population.
Their common-enemy of تكفير ("takfir"; 「excommunicated/heretical」) Islamic State is Sunni (specifically hardcore Wahhabi/Salafi). So, Islamic State invaded Iraq from Syria (just west of Iraq) from their western-border, getting help from fellow-Shi'ah Iran was natural.
When Lt. Gen. Qasem Soleimani was assassinated in Baghdad, he was invited by the Iraqi Government and was accompanied by the Deputy Chairman Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis of the Popular Mobilization Forces, a Tehran-backed branch of the IRAQI Armed Forces. They were both killed in Iraq's capital. How this is not an insult to Iraqis and an act of war (to both Iran & Iraq) is beyond me.
This is why Iraqi Parliament voted to have U. S. forces expelled from their country.
Also, the Authorization to Use Military Force from 2001 authorized the punishment of the 9/11 attack's perpetrators: al-Qa'ida (which is also Sunni Salafi) & its affiliates. Was this act of war on a U. N.-recognized Shi'ah nation that despises them as heretics worthy of death Congressionally/Constitutionally authorized?
I think not.
What makes this even worse: Lt. Gen. Soleimani was on a DIPLOMATIC MISSION to MAKE PEACE with Sunni Saudi Arabia, when he was killed by Washington.
www.independent.co.uk/.../...-arabia-a9272901.html
Of course, peace between Sunni & Shi'ah just HAD to be stopped!
It's always tricky to actually know who's telling the truth when it comes to the US government Republicans & Democrats alike from what common sense tells me is why the was high ranking Irani general Im a Iraqi base accused of provoking and attacking American bases in the region... where actual Americans died if that's the truth then he'll yea it was justified you don't kill Americans proxy wise or not and get away with it. Just cause you don't like Trump doesn't give you the right to stop supporting America which a lot of peope are falling in the trap off, regardless of what you think of the Trump Americans being killed is never on and when I saw Twitter trending plead Iran I was honestly sickened because it honestly doesn't pass the common sense test hmm high ranking Iran General in Iraqi base yea that sounds logically? I mean if you want to talk about wtf are we still doing in the middle east after all this time than that's a whole diff. Topic and it includes both democrats and Republicans the US being corrupt beyond repair.
I want people to ask themselves, why is the United States so heavily involved in the Middle East? For oil, it's not peace, Iran is another country the United States wants to conquer for their oil. Let me ask someone this, would you allow anyone to enter your property and break into your home? The answer would be no right? Iran has not touched the United States since the Islamic Revolution began in 1979. Mike Pence fools Americans stating, "Iranians were behind 9/11" that's a damn lie and he knows it, it was Saudi's who were paid by the United States government. Soleimani was a huge reason why ISIS is not much in the news because of Iran and Lebanon's army is why ISIS and other extremist groups are running away, ISIS was created/funded by the United States. Members of ISIS are just paid mercenaries, mercenaries have no real allegiance to a country or religion they sacrifice their lives for the top dollar. Hence why the United States and Saudi Arabia continue to do business... but yet Americans always seem hush-hush on Saudi Arabia... why is that? Because Americans are sheep if Donald Trump says "Iran bad, Saudi Arabia good" then they adore Trump for it. People don't understand something serious is about to happen. People can laugh and say "what can Iran do?" Remember who Iran is allied with, countries such as Russia. If Iran killed Mike Pence is America going to sit back? Trust me there will be payback and I know a lot of racist people on GAG hate Muslims and laugh at "what can they do?" then why are they scared if they are in the US? Deep down inside many Americans are worried but they will never admit to their fear. America didn't learn from its lessons in Iraq/Afghanistan, spending over $2 trillion which led to the 2008 recession. If the US starts a war with Iran, it will cripple their economy which could see an economic collapse worse the Great Depression, I guess that's what Americans want since they predicate on war. Be careful what you wish for.
Initially I was upset when I heard about this, but the more I learn about it, the more I'm feeling it's justified. Iran was behind the recent attack at the US embassy in Baghdad, and Soleimani is the one directing pretty much all of Iran's foreign interventions. Ultimately, he was acting like a terrorist, and died like a terrorist. I don't like the reporting on this (and was probably why I was upset when I first heard about it) calling this an assassination, implying that we killed him in Iran while he was at his home or something, when we actually killed him in Iraq where he personally was leading attacks and killing civilians. Many Iraqi civilians cheered the news of his death and to me that's very telling of what kinds of things he was involved in. Iran has been testing the US and its allies for years, and the US has done pretty much nothing, so this time the US responded. I think the killing of Soleimani was justified, but without knowing the full story I can't say if it was the best action.
I know he has the blood of hundreds of Americans and thousands of Iraqis on his hands via terrorist actions and giving money and equipment to other terrorist groups doing the same kind of thing, and he has been recognized as a terrorist for a long time. What's your justification for calling Trump a terrorist?
Nonsense! You know nothing about him. You are brainwashed by your media. Trump is an ambitious person. He wants the oil of the Middle East. All around of Iran are full of American troopes. We see only oppression around our neighbour countries! What are you doing in the Middle East? What do you want? Think about many innocent people who live in these countries. There is no security for them because they can't live in their own countries freely. Please think about these matters. If we didn't have a brave general like Qasem Soleimani so what would happen to us? He was in Iraq in order to fight against those soldiers who thought only about their own ambitions. General Soleimani was a great barrier for imperialitsic drives of Donald Trump. So Trump wanted to break this barrier and unfortunately, he did it. If I were you, I wouldn't judge people in this way. If general Soleimani really was a terrorist, so why all people in Iran are mourning for him? American media tries to introduce him as a terrorist like Osame Bin Laden but they know what is the truth themselves. They fool their own people by their lies. I respect American people but believe me what I see here is not so respectful.
Supposedly the US is trying to bring stability to the middle east, we aren't doing a good job. I want to get out of the middle east, Trump says he wants that too and I hope we can leave soon. I do have concern over the innocents in the middle east, which is why I believe Soleimani being dead is a good thing, he was the one killing innocents deliberately-- therefore he is a terrorist. Without Soleimani maybe you can reclaim your government and reinstall a representative democracy, but that's up to the Iranians, I don't want any part in it. Imperialistic drives? Sounds like propaganda, we don't want to deal with the insanity that is this region any longer than we have to. It also sounds like propaganda when you say that everyone in Iran is mourning his death all the while there are mass protests against the government. The mainstream US media has been bashing Trump for this along with everything else he does, so I don't know what you're talking about. I even said myself I'm unsure if this was the right decision or not.
I live in this country so I know it better than you. What is so obvious is thst U. S. is a coward country which only by media can show itself the most powerful army in the world! U. S. could not even show any reaction to our missiles!!! It was really funny and what was the most funniest part was the claim of Trump who said no one has died. It is very clear that he was lying! Since it is your country, you don't want to believe these facts. Trump says he wants to leave the Middle East but why? Because he is afraid from Iran! You talked about mass (?) protests against the goverment. In everywhere, there are people who are against or for their government. We have the same issue here but their number is so low. Understanding of this fact is not difficult.
Yeah okay, whatever you say. 13k ultra modern war planes and 19 aircraft carriers are afraid of 800 cold war era war planes and zero carriers who launched precision missiles that deliberately missed Americans to avoid war. The US reaction was additional sanctions in case you missed that. No military reaction was taken because they didn't actually damage anything, the last time they damaged something and killed Americans we killed your terrorist general remember? If you can't accept reality then you can't convince me otherwise.
Pushipu: You are obviously a propagandist pushing opinion only.
You would be considered an enemy of the United States.
We know that the Iranian people want a change in their govt. And the leaders in power dont want to give their power and position up.
This man has murdered peaceful protesters that were fellow citizens of his country.
We are not always right, but executing this man was the right thing to do. This act saves American lives un the future.
@james2018dean It's none of your business.
What's none of my business?
And who gave you the authority to determine that?
This is an app that asks for opinions. So whether you like it or not, that's my opinion!
And whether you like it or not, I'll continue to give it!
Please do us a favor and just put me on your block list! I'm not interested in getting your biased, lying, propaganda!
@james2018dean you're not worthy to be on my block list. I can't make my fingers dirty by touching your worthless account.
This guys was officially invited by Iraqi government for talks of desecration in this region.
Imagine, your country invites Putin and Medvedev to a conference and some (((ally))) kills them both on the way from airport to hotel with an anti tank missile.
No matter if the guy deserved it or not, there wasn't a trial and killing people just because of assumption is murder, especially if they enjoy diplomatic immunity while invitation on foreign soil.
I'm not wondering that Iraq wants to get rid of US Forces in their land after this action.
If I were the President of the U. S. I'd assassinate more than just this guy.
But we have bigger fish to fry on our own soil Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned, and the President should prosecute the liberal judges for crimes against humanity, as the Germans who committed infanticide in WWII were executed, so why do we stand by and let Democrats kill tens of millions of unborn children?
If I were the President, I'd clean house here. I'd prosecute every liberal judge for infanticide.
But yeah, I favor assassinating terrorists and other evil leaders whenever possible.
probably, a lot of US soldiers were killed by bombs likely planned by him.
He was in Iraq, they had just killed a US contractor (e. g. soldier).
Why wouldn't they have more attacks planned? Of course they did.
But we don't know for sure...
What kinda throws me is that "they gave Trump several options", and a day or so later, he chose this one. So... he could have given a stern warning and then taken him out or at another time. Did I mis that? That is what is questionable. But... it was a hot moment, they were attacking embasy, and he took out the head of that operation. I still say justified.
I seriously doubt we'd accept it if they took out our top General... so its a mess either way. How this is explained to people, and what the facts are, makes a lot of difference.
Nature is nature. Human rules are imaginary. So we can kill anybody we want, as can others. Who was right or wrong depends on your allegiances.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/m9-R8T1SuG4”I think one of two things is true: either we have unlimited rights, or we have no rights at all. I, personally, lean towards unlimited rights. For instance, I feel I have the right to do anything I please. BUT, if I do something you don’t like, I believe you have the right to kill me. So where are you gonna find a fairer fuckin’ deal than that?”🙌🙌🙌💯💯💯
was the assassination of hussein justified? no. the reasoning they gave at the time was bullshit. many people already suspected that even at the time. however now this is open and public knowlegde. it has been admitted by the people in charge themselves...
so since when does any murder the US commits need to be "justified"? as if they ever cared about "justice". they always just did what they wanted and what they profited off most. if you're American, guess what you're not part of "the good ones". you're as bad as the terrorists you're scared of. not you personally but your leaders and by proxy your entire country.
i don't know shit about Qasem Soleimani to be perfectly honest. maybe he was bad. but if he was bad and his murder has not somehow been profitable to the US, he'd still be alive, that much is for damn sure. america isn't the world police as much as they'd love that narrative.
How was Hussein's execution (not assassination) not justified
@kaitylatte he was neither assassinated, cause assassination is an act of terrorism nor executed cause execution is a legal act which as we now now the "legitimation" for was completely a lie as i will explain as brief as i can.
Hussein was put into power by america in the first place and supplied with weapons to attack iran so that america could take their oil. however hussein failed to succeed, as iran was also supplied with weapons by miscilaneous global gropus of interest supplied those with weapons too. realizing that iran is a hard target, he decided it would be easier to attack kuwait, which was a huge faux pas as that is and was an ally of the US and the Nato so since america realized hussein wasn't getting the job done, they just framed him as a muslim terrorist (which was bullshit as he actually didn't care for any religion) and claimed he has "weapons of mass destruction" (if you're as old as i am, you still remember that magic slogen going through the media over and over)... well they searched and searched and well before they found any, they just killed him for being a terrorrist with weapons of massdestruction and that's the end of that story.
and guess what. weapons of mass destruction were never found to this. George W. Bush, who was president at the time openly admits today that this was a complete lie. which in retrospective makes the killing of Hussein Murder by definition.
and to round up this story, the US wanted the iran to go down for oil in the very first place. and now they're murdering another iranian leader. iran is gonna go down. it just takes time and resources to establish the structures it takes to make such a coup seem somewhat "just"... i mean as Gorbatschow commented: if i was america, i would at least have "found" those weapons of mass destruction. but they didn't even care to mask their blatant murder after it was done with...
what america does is very rarly justified.
sorry this got so lentghy -.-
Oh okay, so what you are saying is that even though he killed hundreds of thousands of people by invading Iran and Kuwait, he didn't deserve to die like those people had. His family didn't deserve to suffer when their murderer son was killed, but it's ok that hundreds of thousands of people suffered when Hussein killed their innocent family members.
And he was executed, I'm aware that execution is a legal act (my sister is a lawyer). The government IN HIS OWN NATION, not the US, in Iraq was the one to sentence him. The Iraqi Special Tribunal sentenced him for the murder of 148 Iraqis. So that means you are saying that the "legitimation" (148 bodies), is all fake.
@kaitylatte i'm saying Hussien just did what he was paid and ordered to do by america. he had no choice. they didn't equip him with enough resources to beat iran... yeah his misstake was attacking kuweit. amerika didn't like that. if he hadn't done that he would never have been framed with all this negative shit and he'd be in power still today.
i mean i'm german and trust me when i say that getting rid of hitler was definitely a good thing. however i don't believe one second that america did that out of heroic benevolence... they straight up ignored what hitler did in Europe for a decade... up untill the point where germany was weakened enough by war on all fronts to not be an easy pushover.
they didn't help re build germany again out of goodwill either, germany was merely built up to be a stronghold against russia. that was the one and only reason but of course it looks like you just wanted to help, so they went with that.
again. the US isn't righteous, nor the world police, nor "the good one". there's a good reason that those "terrorists" they always keep finding and killing have US-Citizenships. they don't even try to hide it. it's a war for resources, not to provide the middle east with democracy...
I wholeheartedly agree that Hitler should have died no matter what. He killed millions. But as a German, you would also understand that some Germans were Jews. He killed some of his OWN people. The same is true with Hussein. He, an Iraqi (and the president, no less) killed thousands upon thousands of his own people. Regardless of what the United States did or didn't do, Hussein deserved to die, and his own country made sure that he did. You didn't see Americans doing the killing.
Also not being snarky I really want to know, where did you find information about the US paying him to do things? I am genuinely interested (I'm a bit of a history nerd lol)
This guy has been a terrorist since 2000. why would we wait until now to kill him? When questioned, the trump administration can't come up with a definitive answer on why this time we finally killed him. Mike Pence even said that this guy assisted in planning 9/11 which turned out to not be true. I think trump just wants a distraction from his impeachment. The consequences to killing Soleimani far outweighs the benefits. We are prepared to see thousands of soldiers who are gonna lose their lives in this new decade. I live in nyc and right now the new York city police department are all armed up and prepared for terrorists attack on civilians.
@gotc147 do you realize all US allies are not standing with us? They are all backing off and afraid of being dragged into another world war. When all your buddies are backing off, what does this tell you about trump's impetuousness. A lot of what trump said bombing cultural sites was also contradicted by the secretary of defense, who said they will take another approach.
@gotc147 The rest of our government and our civilian population are against war. Former CIA director , David Patreus, implied that he was also against it. He stated it would be a loss for us all. Most of our civilian population don't want more troops going to war, there are protests all around the US for the war to stop.
Our allies aren't helping us and standing as far away from the US as possible right now. Allies don't want anything to do with us. The rest of all the politicians in the government criticizing against the war and Nancy Pelosi is putting limits on trump's power to declare war.
And I think the consequences of the war will far outweigh the benefits of killing Soleimani. No doubt this guy was an evil guy. No tears should be shed for him. But what will happen to our US troops that will be killed in our new decade? We are planning for massive deaths in US troops.
There isn't going to be a war, sheesh all the same people crying about war are the same ones who were saying we were going to be at war with North Korea, stop trying to spread fear.
And Nancy Pelosi can't put limits on Trump's power, not by herself. Also the fact that the President can't declare war anyway makes that redundant. Learn how our government works.
@gotc147 I know Nancy Pelosi can't restrict the president's powers. But she is trying to pass something that limits the presidents powers, I forgot the specific name but yea take a look at how the rest of the government is responding to trump's one man declaration of war. Nobody seems pleased at this within our govt and civilian populations.
There will be a lot of deaths from now on forward just because we had a mentally ill president who can't make the right decisions.
@gotc147 Just take a look at the news, none of the politicians are pleased with what just happened. And Iran tried bombing US solders twice already. No casualties were reported on both missle bombings but I have doubts. The government might be lying to cover up trump's impetuousness. 14 missiles being fired and nobody got hurt? you must live in magic land. .
My personal view is that it was justified, based on wha5 he’s done, even just recently, so if it also stopped any future attacks tha5 our intelligence agencies have identified, we have to believe them.
If any of this had happened during the last administration, I would be more skeptical, knowing what we have recently found out about the establishment and the deep state that does not always have our best interests in sight.
I’m hoping that everyone finally realizes there are bad people deeply imbedded in our beauracracy and they don’t have any accountability, AKA the swamp.
i won't cry for this warmonger, but his assassination seemed like just another ill advised and impulsive act by an incompetent president. He did not seek advice and consent from congress, nor did he advise our allies. As such he has lost whatever remaining credibility he had with those countries in the EU who formally supported us-and he has made this world a more dangerous place to live in.
Is this how we do diplomacy now- that the U. S. president has free reign to assassinate a sovreign country's high level official? It seems that there is now no moral distinction between us and our enemies.
God help us all.
Well put. President Bush had the decision to assassinate Soleimani, and even he chose not to.
If he'd asked congress first, how long do you think it would take for them to approve of it? Assuming they approve of it at all. He took it upon himself to make the call to prevent further loss of American lives, politicians who are too afraid to take action aren't people that you want to have power because they won't use it to save our people and hold people accountable, as they should.
@Rangers Respectfully, that's not the way our government works. This president isn't a king, and so far, he isn't a dictator either (although we are moving in that direction) It is not his job to "take it upon himself" to do what he wants. You do have an inkling about the concept of checks and balances, do you not?
On another subject, how are you feeling? How is your dog?
This won't save American lives, this is looking like it will lead to a war where thousands of Americans will die. The evactuation notice given to anericans in iraq is evidence of this, your government just put American citizens in danger.
"How long do you think it wpuld take for them to approve it? Assuming they approce of it at all" well they dont have to approve of it. You're acting like this was 100% necessary and they had no time to spare. This is just Trump trying to provoke Iran into war, that way he doesn't look bad, because all he did was kill a bad guy and suddenly America is at war.
@devilman666 If the Iranians want a war, we'll give them a war, we won't just stand around and do nothing like you want our president to do. It was absolutely neccessary and the only reason you'd disagree is because you wanted terror to continue to go unanswered by our government
@Rangers the Iranians dont want a war, but america just started one. You killed their second in command in cold blood.
Nice display of ignorance. No, I hate terrorism but this is not the war to deal with it, this will just cause more hatred towards america, more terrorism, and more death on both sides. Also, I'm Canadian, not American. This is americas third invasion of the middle east in less than 20 years. America is the aggressor.
Why was it absolutely necessary? You can't say because Trump is hiding that, because it's a lie just like Iraq and Afghanistan were lies! It wasn't necessary it was a provocation designed to get Iran to strike back so that America can officially declare war.
@devilman666 He killed 600 American soldiers, was one of the biggest financial supporters for jihad terrorism for decades, and he was planning further attacks, and he died in cold blood? That's laughable, our president decided that the time of hesitant politicians allowing him to evade justice had come to an end and he did the world a great service. We invaded to stop terrorism, are you this stupid? Oh wait, you're Canadian, no wonder you have no concept of justice and are a pushover that terrorists love.
What was Suleimani planning? How many americans had he killed? This shit is secret, they just say it is necessary because they want to invade Iran for natural resources.
What further attacks was he planning?
600 American soldiers, damn, that sounds like 9/11 part 2.
You didn't invade to stop terrorism, this won't stop terrorism, it will make terrorism worse. You invaded so you could steal natural resources from the middle east. Trump even admits to it openly too, just listen to him talk about syria, "and we left our soldiers there to guard the oil." Trump is hijacking syrian oil, and he wants to do the same to Irans natural resources. I have no concept of justice? America is acting like pirates, stealing from other countries simply because they cannot be stopped, if there was justice, then America, china, and russia would all be simultaneously destroyed.
@devilman666 agreed.
Truth be told, I don't know enough about the situation to have an opinion on his guilt. What I DO know though, is that IF HE NEEDED TO DIE: hitting him with a drone, at the airport was the time and place to do it. In terms of correct and effective use of drones, this assassination was cleaner than anything that the Obama Administration was doing (which I'm not faulting them for, as the technology has gotten a lot more sophisticated).
My understanding is that Soleimani was directly involved in anti-western warmongering, but again: I don't know enough to have an opinion on the matter.
Killing radical Islamist terrorists is always justified, you don't need any other reason. Ofc those stupid "liberals" are using it as another excuse to whine about Trump, but that's only because they use any excuse to whine, that's just what they do and all they're good for.
Now, I don't live in the US so I don't give a fuck, I usually like Trump because he annoys the self-victimizing feminazi cult and I love seeing them cause themselves pain. But in this case? I honestly thank him for reminding the rest of the apologetic anemic world what's our job when it comes to Islamists. I hope he has enough time to order a few more assassinations, the sooner the better!
It's not just a matter of whether or not is was justified, but was it the best and wisest move to make. Was there another way to reach what was wanted, without igniting the middle east? Trump's not known for his deep thinking ability, or for thinking things through. And it's problematic that he says he knows more than the generals, and believes Putin over our intelligence agencies. That kind of screwed up thinking, easily leads to poor decisions.
I agree with Trump here. Every nation has a basic obligation to protect its citizens. That is what Trump did. When our embassy was attacked, we answered with an attack to show them that we protect our own. That general was responsible for the deaths of many people who were innocent. The world needs to remember why America is top dog. We have had weak presidents lately who let the world treat us however they wish. Iran thought they would join that train and learned that train has been derailed.
100% unjustified. I don't believe one word about what the U. S. government says about him. What I know is that he was fighting the U. S. proxies ISIS and alQaida. So I am more inclined to believe that Soleimani was a hero. Because it is for certain that the U. S. is a murdering thief in the region and shouldn't be there at all.
What the U. S. has done is to make it justifiable to fire a rocket at or car bomb anyone. I'm waiting for the chickens to come home to roost.
While a high ranking official of a divergent state, the US has designated him a leader of a terror organization, Trump hasn’t described what imminent threat he posed or what threat was averted by his assassination. I fear this won’t actually prevent violence against Americans and will probably increase the chances.
I’d think that releasing proof would jeopardize their efforts.
You're implying that he did nothing to deserve what he got, he killed 600 American troops, destroyed countless families, he's supported terrorists for decades, and he was planning further attacks. President Trump decided that his days of being able to dodge justice because of hesitant politicians has come to an end.
The assassination of general Qasem Soleimani was to show his fellow supporters that the United States is not going to allow behavior such as shooting down surveillance drones and the killings of US Troops will not go unpunished. It was justified. The fact that some argue that the death of this one individual is unjust but not the death of thousands of troops is tragic. This man planned to take out MORE US troops. The very people who are trying to protect the United States.
It’s neither justified nor unjustified. Israel wants them eliminated and since the USA are the powerful puppet to the Jews we comply.
You aren’t allowed to say this in our society but in the end we have no say anymore. Federal Govt prints money, world currencies are controlled by central banking institutions, and brainwashed is so far removed from our society we couldn’t dare understand how to question lies and distinguish truths on a level that amounts to the majority.
This did not answer your question because your asking the wrong question in my opinion.
Obviously not justified. This is an act of war. Imagine Iran assassinating an American general? Especially with Soleimani, he had a very high approval rating, he was considered a hero who defeated Isis.
Its not justified since in 2017 he helped the US nuking isis in Syria , trump is just compulsive , he is going to regret it. While he thought winning Vs Kim was easy, because of military pressure , its not going to be the same vs Iran, knowing that those guys are a real threat and just have been caught by surprise... the future is bad , if trump continues on this path, even Boris Johnson is against Trumps decision , an unlikely alliance
Justified? Maybe. Was it a smart move, i dont think so. It's made him a martyr. Plenty of individuals and groups will try to avenge his death, as has already happened with rocket attacks earlier in week
Yes, it was justified and should have been done years ago.
Given the attacks by Iran on the USA, if I had been in the Oval Office, much of Iran would have been turned into a smoking hole in the ground after US citizens were taken hostage in the US embassy in 1979.
He’s absolute scum, with a lot of blood on his hands for expansionist and terrorist Iranian goals. His death is definitely justified, regardless of whether he was planning an attack on US troops soon or not.
Regarding the planned attacks on American allies, one of his main projects is Hezbollah and Iranian presence in Iran. Both of them have attacked Israel, which is an American ally, quite often. I find it hard to believe the IRGC was not planning anything new
Whether it’s a provocation or may escalate is a different question. But he is a piece of filth that should have been assassinated years ago
I believe it was a political move from Trump to try to distract us from his impeachment.
I'd have to see the evidence of that
But he was a known war criminal who committed war crimes throughout the Middle East, especially against Syrians.
From Trump's perspective, better safe than sorry, and I feel better about it knowing the guy had blood on his hands.
I really wanna know what Rand Paul thinks of all this.
Dude the fucking americans are war criminals with all the innocent deaths we’ve caused in iraq since we invaded it
All of the belligerents of the war are guilty of collateral damage including the US own these murders when you point at someone you have three fingers pointed back at you
So, uh... you do know, I hope, that you're asking this on a site in which at least half of all users, if not more, appear apparently to not even be functionally literate, right? You may as well as our opinions on anything else that almost no one here actually understands or has read substantively about, like String Theory or how the polio vaccine was invented.
@Thatsamazing- what is your point? How does one determine who, exactly, is functionally literate enough to have an opinion that’s worth anything? I know not much about string theory or polio, but I do know about other things that are more relevant to our everyday life, so is your analogy really on target? Do you think this topic is really that complex? I’m sincerely curious as to your remark, it seems authentic, so I’m asking?
@Girther10 "Do you think this topic is really that complex?" Yes.
There are Iranians dancing in the streets over his assassination while the anti-Trump crowd cry over the murder of a brutal terrorist.
Obama assassinates Bin Laden: GREATEST PRESIDENT EVER!
Trump assassinates Soleimani: WORST PRESIDENT EVER!
Not exactly the pinnacle of objectivity or consistency.
Soleimani had an over 70% approval rating.
Iranians considered him a hero who defeated Isis.
@devilman666 uh huh.
www.google.com/.../...st-hero-200105211451136.html
that's not entirely true: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChFGe57mLk
Big difference between a stateless outlaw and the second in command of a major nation
@Meatunnel69 i ain't no dem-but he's GOTTA go! i want EVERYONE to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft6A3WZnd3s and think.
@Meatunnel69 yeah, I can see that. State-sponsored terrorism is much better than rogue terrorism. Why did we go into Afghanistan again?
went in based on lies.
@Sabretooth lies about what?
there were no weapons of mass destruction.
@Sabretooth that was Iraq, wasn't it?
yeah-lies. more information comes out that only continues to make this worse: i believe him and the reports-not because i'm a dem-i'm not-but it does square with what we've all seen and heard numerous times. at this point-we all know that he's incompetent, immature, insane and impulsive-even his supporters do-they just don't care... they have to know-we're constantly being bombarded with examples.
@Sabretooth are we talking about Bush, Clinton, Bush II, Obama, or Trump now? We went from Soleimani to Bin Ladin to WMDs, and now we're talking in such generalities that it could be any of them.
And how could it be that every single president has vowed to get us out of this quagmire, and they do pretty well for a while, but things deteriorate to the point where they don't have much of a choice? Could there be someone behind the scenes pulling strings? I'm not partisan either, so I'm not playing team politics. It seriously seems like there's something else going on here.
The afghan war was because of 9/11, it had the goal of destroying the Taliban.
So many wars, so many razor thin justifications, it's really getting hard to keep track of it all. "Which middle eastern conflict are we talking about?"
@devilman666 exactly my point. You can't just pin it on Trump like it all started with him. He called off the first strike he ordered because he found out he was being baited. Its not as if he WANTED to engage. But something's going in behind the scenes that forced each one of those president's hands.
Yeah, the thing behind the scenes is... MONEY! Also, no one pinned Iraq or Afghanistan on Trump, you were the one who brought up afghanistan. It might not have started with Trump, but maybe if you start punishing your presidents for corruption then they'll stop being corrupt.
@devilman666 so then who's making the money off of it? Not Trump, by the look of it.
The oil companies are going to make most of the profits, and of course this continues the trend of the military industrial complex making tons of money. The top 1% are the ones who profit off of this the most though, especially the ones who bought "defense stock", also, wow that is an ironic name considering your country starts so many aggressive wars.
@devilman666 so then who do you think is really behind this mess? And what is there to do about it?
The same people who are profitting off of the syrian oil trump is current stealing. I don't know who they are, probably the rich people who donated money to Trump. Impeaching Trump is a possibility, though sonce democrats fucked that up so much already its probably best to wait and vote Trump out this election. That said, getting Trump out of office won't be enough to fix the issue, you need to pressure your government to set stricter rules for the president, get money out of politics, and you need to fix your election system to stop gerrymandering. This will ensure elections can't be rigged, ensure the president cannot assassinate leaders of foreign governments, and ensure that your government isn't controlled by the top 1%.
@devilman666 TRUMP! TRUMP!! TRUUUUUUUUMP!!! Do you know how stupid you sound? Do you know who the Iranians lobbied to get the nuclear deal? Do you know who has their hands elbow-deep in the petroleum cookie jar?
The same people who have programmed you to believe it was Trump's doing. You know nothing except what they put in your head. Obsma got us into Syria and Lybia, and here you are blaming Trump. Like I originally said, not exactly the pinnacle of objectivity.
who's been programmed by who?
obama made a deal that benefited us all-a deal trump ended out of spite.
@Sabretooth figure that out, and you might be smart enough to really think for yourself.
How did we benefit?
no more risk of war with iran-we also lost no money over it-from what i've heard. trump hates obama... but he loves what obama did with those cages at the boarder... think about that.
@Sabretooth thre Obama deal allowed Iran to inspect its own nuclear program and build nuclear weapons. No more risk of war? Sure, man. Again, whatever your programmers tell you. You're obviously not smart enough to think for yourself. Ever heard of Neville Chamberlain?
i can say those very same things for trump's followers... hell, anyone who isn't a trump follower would. it was trump who said this: www.youtube.com/watch you need to make a choice-listen solely to him-or look at the facts... but, before you do-listen to these people: https://youtu.be/X-ZFoco_1gQ?t=244
You're the stupid one. I never said Trump got us into syria I said he hijacked the syrian oil, which he is currently doing, everytime he talks about syria he mentions how America is "keeping the oil". The point is that America needs to get out of these wars and start holding their leaders responsible, it doesn't matter who started this mess, fix it before it gets even worse. Your election system is corrupt and runs on money, money=electability, and gerrymandering rules. Your president has the freedom to start war with any country he wants, at any time he wants, and for any reason he wants. This needs to be stopped, or else I fear america may start the next world war.
@Opinion owner the Iran nuclear deal was working, Iran didn't start a nuclear program until long after Trump tore up the deal. Also, are you fucking retarded? Are you genuinely trying to compare Nazi Germany to Iran? Nazi Germany was committing one of the hugest humanitarian crises that we have ever faced, further, nazi germany was aggressive, seeking to take over all of Europe and then expand further to take the entire planet under german reign. Iran has been mostly peaceful, they've helped stop terrorism and they haven't been invading their neighbors, they haven't been taking over territory, this is completely different you fucking moron. I don't know how you can be so dumb, honestly.
@devilman666 we're all stuck this make-believe world trump has created-that includes you and me. remember that, or you find yourself slippin.
@Sabretooth I'm not a Trump fan. But I don't blame him for everything, either. There's a lot of information on both sides, and its difficult to sort the bullshit from the truth, so I'm forced to acknowledge that I'll never have all the facts necessary to pass judgment. That's something a lot of people need to learn (on both sides).
the facts are currently against him. i can give you 3 stories by trump in regards to the situation in Ukraine.
No, that's bullshit. I agree that my view is rather biased sometimes but we can learn the facts, we can find the truth, this idea that we should just give up cause we'll never know the entire story, is bullshit. It's like if you had a witness who said he saw the suspect murder a woman, and the suspect says, "he's lying", and then the judge responds, "well damn, there is a lot of information coming from both sides, I guess we'll never know the truth, CASE DISMISSED!". Just because one side is lying, that doesn't make it impossible to know.
i agree with @devilman666 . these are the lies trump and his cult wants you to believe-some have outright said that truth is whatever you make of it.
@devilman666 great analogy, by the way.
@Sabretooth you think only one side is lying? Both sides are. Both sides twist the facts to say what they believe instead of using the facts to shape what they believe. And I didn't say anything about giving up, I said I'll never have enough of the truth to make a judgment, and that's true for all of us.
But as for your reference to a judge, that's absolutely what he'd do. One side says one thing, the other says the opposite, and there's no hard evidence? Case dismissed.
And I wasn't comparing Iran to Nazi Germany (but now that you mention it, there are some similarities). I was comparing foreign relations tactics where Chamberlain bought Hitler's bullshit and gave him enough time to hear up for a global catastrophe.
what's to know? trump launched an unsanctioned and unapproved missile strike against iran's top general and those in iran are calling out for war. trump leaves nothing to be twisted.
@Sabretooth a little biased sometimes, huh? Lol.
What happened last time Trump tried to launch an approved strike on strategic targets?
@anon no, I know that Democrats are lying too, money controls both parties, democrats and republicans, but Bernie is trying to change that, so there is hope. I disagree that you will never be able to make a judgement, maybe you will, maybe you won't, but pushing the idea that we will never know only helps the people who are trying to hide shit.
Well then in my example the police haven't done their job yet, they didn't inspect the scene, they cleaned it up and then said, "trust us, this man is guilty.". We should have evidence, they said that they had evidence of a future attack and that's why they bombed him, to stop him. Yet they release no details, why is that? The government is hiding it and covering it up, and telling the people to just trust that this was in the best interest of the American people because he killed 600 Americans over 20 years ago.
Pretty bad comparison then, Chamberlame made a deal to give part of another sovereign country to Germany, without even asking the sovereign country (czechoslovakia). This would be like if Iran was threatening war if we didn't give them control of Iraq, and then the democratic super powers of the world just backed down. This is clearly not even close to the same scenario, for example, at the time Germany was a world power and France+Britain were just coming out of ww1, their people did not want any war after the whole "war to end all wars" propoganda.
In what ways are Iran and Nazi Germany similar?
Finally, did you just imply that Iran is gearing up for a "global catastrophe"? Cause if you're comparing my choices to Chamberlame then obviously you think Iran is a genuine threat to international security, the way germany was. Do you think Iran is a genuine threat to international security? If so, why?
a little-i never thought he was a good fit due to his insanity. don't know much of the specifics he pulled back.
@Sabretooth he called it off because somehow, they were moving women and children into the areas they were going to strike. So someone in the US government was working against us.
he doesn't care about civvies-he damn sure doesn't care about foreign kids-read up on mexico boarder.
@Sabretooth why are children separated from the adults at the border?
to deter immigrants. there's no way to come legally. you would think they would be treated humanly... DOES THIS HUMANE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=59lwppXzjvo ? hell, trump wanted to deport kids who have a deadly illness who can only get the help they need here... a death sentence. he wanted black kids EXECUTED for a crime they didn't commit.
@Sabretooth its because of human trafficking. Sex trafficking, mostly. You get the kids away from the adults until you determine if they're really the parents. It also deters traffickers because they know they'll be separated and most likely lose their meal ticket.
So on a related topic, why aren't these kids recieving medical care in Mexico? Or Guatemala? Is the Evil USA preventing them from receiving care on the way here?
And why hasn't Congress passed a bill to help migrant families access better health care. Has there been any attempt by Congress to aid Mexico in carrying for migrant families awaiting asylum?
so says ivonkia-but that was only to deflect the question-if that was truly the case-why ain't they treated better or kept with their parents? it's just to deter others seeking asylum: www.rawstory.com/.../ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXynR7K7IZg . perhaps they can't. congress is trying to pass over 100 bills-McConnell is blocking them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyjaA84Ccd8
@Sabretooth give me a particular bill pertaining to the subject that's stuck in the Senate WITHOUT a bunch of riders mucking up the works.
to be honest-i haven't really cared about politics til a few months ago. either way, the answer to your first question is that McConnell is just not signing them-apparently, he has a long history of that.
@Sabretooth lol. No wonder. You became an expert on foreign policy, immigration, recent military history, and legislative procedure in just a couple months?
Did you at least research who started the detention camps and separating kids from adults at the border before you declared yourself the know-all on the situation?
Spoiler alert: it was Obama.
And just as a general reference, the president can only enforce laws that are currently on the books. So he has to abide by the immigration laws that the government put in place during Obama's presidency until they're changed.
By the way: a bill was passed. It started in the Senate and the House push back against it. It was passed in July. I can provide you a link, but I can guarantee it says something drasticallly different than the rhetoric you've heard.
most now it was obama who began that-that is no defense for trump doing it-it wasn't okay then and it's not okay now. trump doesn't care about laws-we all know this. you mean this one: www.cnbc.com/.../...nds-treatment-of-migrants.html
@Sabretooth that's the bill. What did the democrats in the House do with it?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also said she would not take up the Senate-approved plan, telling reporters “there are some improvements that we think can be reconciled,” according to NBC News. maks sense to me. look, i'm no dim and i don't have much faith in politics-BUT, i haven't exactly seen ANYTHING to tell me the republicans care about anything but money and they are absolute crap at planning-though that's more in regards to trump-but republicans bow down to trump-McConnell has also been shown to refuse anything that doesn't benefit them.
tell me-are you familiar as to why Pelosi is holding on to the articles of impeachment?
@Sabretooth Republicans wanted to spend more on the humanitarian side. Democrats wanted tent cities and less money spent on the actual immigrants
from what i've seen so far-i doubt that-and again-i'm no dim all this is going on under a republican president.
this is what i see from the republican party: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfvle0OdlgM
@Sabretooth you see what they want you to see. Good luck
same to you.
He was a pretty nasty piece of work, yet we had no right to assassinate him. That was an act of war. Would it be okay for Iran to assassinate Trump because he is also a nasty piece of work? We would go to war with any country that did that.
Trump can be a dick but Soleimani literally funds and works with multiple terrorist organizations. They aren't equivalent
You realize that's a conflict the US has been involved with for a long time right? Hardly has anything to do with Trump
Not to mention the president doesn't decide the defense budget
Still not even remotely on par
Why are these assassins only justified when it involves a country like Iran? If the British government ordered the assassination of an American it wouldn't be ok
America was the lead sponsor of the IRA during their terror campaign but we never used it as an excuse to assassinate Americans.
Am I alone in mourning Soleimani's death? It was an unjustified assassination orchestrated by an incompetent and ignorant president who is desperate to appear effective in order to be reelected. He wasn't the villain that western media portrays him to be. He was competent and effective in his position.
Humans are too emotional and greedy, we all fight over resources and influence like animals, wear badges of glory kill and die for patriotic pride. We won’t last, there will be a WW3 which is the last war some time in the future of humanity our track record is awful nothing changed since the last world war just the boundary lines between countries and a shit ton more firepower.
His killing is a small piece of bigger geopolitical issues we are no better than they, tit for tat violence reigns humans are flawed creatures
I agree with your second comment. There are no "good guys" in this fight.
Well it wasn’t an assassination. It was the killing of an active enemy combatant And yeah. Justified 600 times over.
Hardly. Iran and the US aren't currently at war. Soleimani's death was most definitely an assassination, in response to an attack on a US embassy led by Iranian protestors, and therefore unjustified. He was sanctioned by the US years ago for aiding the Syrian government, and regarded as a "terrorist" in spite of his active work against ISIS. The fact that Trump stated his intention to assassinate him before his presidency even began, without even knowing who he was, shows the blatant disregard for anything besides US foreign interests.
he was not a good person... BUT-trump and his administration are known liars-this was nothing more than a desperate attempt for trump to save himself-as a dr lance dodes has constantly warned-trump. will. get. worse. further more-they have no Intel of any plotting by Soleiman. as far as American diplomats, and US allies-that's almost a certainty. iran has already issued threats of military responses.
iranian people dont think so and lets be honest, if pompeo got killed like that there would be massive outrage in the west
You have to be pretty fucking stupid to kill a top ranking general. It’s like in the mafia movies, when mob bosses start getting shot, it’s bad news for everyone.
Yo, fatty kim jon un called them “gangsters” he’s fucking right!
Why the fuck would they give up their nukes now!
@Meatunnel69 the dude is a crime boss on the highest level. It’s just legal crime cause they run shit.
He's responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands, including hundreds of Americans and was one of the worlds leading terrorists with an army at his command.
There is no justification for *not* killing him.
Yes, because if that murdering piece of $hit had the chance he would kill me, or someone I knew possibly. I would have no guilt pulling the trigger on it myself.
Qasem Soleimani was a great general. He was a very kind man. He did a lot of heroic acts for the security of the Middle East. Trump thinks that by the assassination of him, he is free now but he doesn't know that we, Iranian people, are Qasem Soleimani, too. We'll never forget what he did!
It was justified. Qasem Soleimani was basically an Iranian terrorist who gave isis the weapons they had to do what they did in mid 2010s. He was also attacking multiple US Embassies, so the airstrike was justified. Also, somebody quoted back in the 60s that if Iran were to attack any US branch, it was an act of war, what we did was only a retaliation.
It was an escalation in a region of the world where the focus should be geared more towards deescalation and disengagement.
Very justified. He was directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans. I guess pussy liberals think that’s ok
@Girther10 i downvoted because we only got hit because we were the invaders of iraq it’s not complicated
@Meatunnel69 but what about Iran and them killing Americans since the regime took over starting with the embassy bombing in Behrut Lebanon?
Well we shot down an Iranian airliner full of civilians 👏👏👏
@Meatunnel69 one accident? That’s all you got? We paid them reparations
At least maybe we can agree the world is fucked up 👌🏻
If it's true and if he did order the attacks on the US embassy (I think) then yes. War is definitely a terrible thing for all involved and should be avoided but you can't let this kind of stuff go unanswered
Of course it was. Tell what exactly makes you think it wasn't? The idiot dems? You understand they're full of shit, right?
by the way, Obama did over 2000 of these, and no one was whining about it. You understand that, right?
@KyleArbs - Eat shit libtard. You're the death of this nation. GTFO
Please just google how many he's already killed. After that put yourself in his position... sit back and let it happen like that particular leader at that time, or, do what Trump did?
Absolutely justified. Do some research on your own in to this guy, don't take any news stations information about it, and you'll likely come to the conclusion by yourself that he needed killing.
read your history our history with iran has always been hostile and the fact iran attacked the us embassy had to be addressed.
Aku.
Soku.
Zan.
Yes, he supported terrorism, there's a good chance he was behind the Baghdad attacks, and he was planning further attacks on American troops, he had to be dealt with accordingly.
Should have been killed years ago. The guy is a terrorist who has been directing a proxy war at the U. S. for years. Any country would be justified for taking him out.
Justified? Yes.
Legal? Hell no.
What we did was an act of war, not against Iran but IRAQ. The reason doesn't matter, we drove a goddamn drone into their country without permission and blew of an airport.
it was not justified. it was to help trump get re-elected and distract us from his potential impeachment. look what happened with Iraq when they said it was WMD in Iraq. but really they was there for the oil
Even if what he said is true and lets not forget this is the USA president. He had no right to launch a missile in another country.
But it’s america and america is full of shite so what he’s saying automatically translates to a lie.
How about you fix your English first before you make an ass out of yourself.
@JohnnySigma85 How about you use something that requires actual intelligence then the classic "english" insult. That way when you call someone an ass you won't be the one actually looking like an ass. An American telling a British person to fix our language that they copied bloody hilarious especially when there's nothing wrong with it.
Not my fault the English suck at being English.
How's Brexit feeling by the way?
@JohnnySigma85 Gosh so slow to the point we're not sucking at anything silly boomers.
You're not sucking anymore thanks to Boris Johnson.
@JohnnySigma85 Great so glad to be away from money grabbing organisations free to trade with who we want decide our laws so cows like the wives of US diplomats can't come to our country and kill our innocent people because they're lacking brain cells and can't drive on the right side of the road cough cough. And free to decide where our money goes couldn't get better.
Hows Iran I hear a nuke may be coming for you guys soon? Will do the world a favour.
Aww are you still sour about what happened over 243 years ago?
You should be with your country being overrun with ragheads.
@JohnnySigma85 243 years ago LMAO WTF are you on about can't be sad about something I don't know just goers to show how empty and delusional your insults are.
Wow... you. van continue to live in your own ignorance I guess. That's the equivalent of every German ignoring the 2 world wars their country started.
@JohnnySigma85 The two wars that started with Germany was 50-120 years ago... not 243? If i'm ignorant for that then ignorance is bliss. ROFL.
Holy shit it's like your stupidity is on another level. The War For Independence took place 243 years to break away from your tyrannical king. Germany started two world wars back in the early 20th century and they ignore that fact just you ignore the fact that your country was going to shit thanks to the Labour Party.
He was a bad dude.
I heard today he had dandruff... they found his head and shoulders in the back seat :)
If there was a high likelyhood of attack of US personnel and that his removal would prevent it, then yes. Unfortunately, the general public dont know all the details. 🤔
This person was in a leadership position. This was a decapitation strike. We did the same to Yamamoto during WW2.
Not at all but the US have their own reasons for what they do. They carry out "false flag" actions to justify this kind of escalation.
Yes we are never told the whole story what looks obvious is iran wants influence in iraq but israel and the US won't allow it
Fuck him. Two weeks ago he said he wanted to destroy the USA and a week later a US Embassy is attacked? No sympathy from me. Mind you I hate war and I'm not a Trump fan but this is a case where someone brought it on themselves.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions