Simplified viewpoint I agree with

[wdmso]

again with the Hate excuse,, the embassy was never touched the outer wall was attacked AKA Green zone , but the fear of benghazi is to much .. Odd the base allows Iran to step over his line in the sand without a peep?

yes Iran supplied weapons that killed Americans And america provided weapons that killed syrians (tow missiles) will Russia Target Americans for Javelin Missiles that kill their Troops in ukraine .... not everything can be judged good or evil for a country's convenience

the issue is not if the Iranian general deserved to die , the issue for me is the US shifting to assassination as a policy

And the BS lie that money from the Iran nuke deal bankrolled these operations and new missiles... Are more lies from an administration who already has a credibility problem , everywhere in the world except in his base ..

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

again with the Hate excuse,, the embassy was never touched the outer wall was attacked AKA Green zone , but the fear of benghazi is to much .. Odd the base allows Iran to step over his line in the sand without a peep?

yes Iran supplied weapons that killed Americans And america provided weapons that killed syrians (tow missiles) will Russia Target Americans for Javelin Missiles that kill their Troops in ukraine .... not everything can be judged good or evil for a country's convenience

the issue is not if the Iranian general deserved to die , the issue for me is the US shifting to assassination as a policy

And the BS lie that money from the Iran nuke deal bankrolled these operations and new missiles... Are more lies from an administration who already has a credibility problem , everywhere in the world except in his base ..

this kind of targeted assassination has been accepted practice for awhile in certain situations. did you express this concern when Bin Laden was assassinated? Or is it only concerning when trump
does it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

this kind of targeted assassination has been accepted practice for awhile in certain situations. did you express this concern when Bin Laden was assassinated? Or is it only concerning when trump
does it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are a number of differences between OBL and a high ranking Iranian military commander with vastly different geopolitical ramifications.


I have zero issues that he deserved to be taken out for a career of evil. Mike Lee at least for the R's was that the briefing today was unconvincing for the true imminent threat. (I would point out that many of the Dems felt the same but their credibility is lacking with some here)

My concern, is that Trump is making these decisions in a very small vacuum with little thought for ramifications. I seriously doubt he discussed this with allies in the region and beyond. I don't doubt that Obama discussed the short and long-term ramifications of taking out OBL in great detail well ahead of taking him out.

Maybe I am wrong but based on Trump's apparent flippant approach to foreign policy, I think he got VERY lucky that this didn't escalate rapidly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

There are a number of differences between OBL and a high ranking Iranian military commander with vastly different geopolitical ramifications.


I have zero issues that he deserved to be taken out for a career of evil. Mike Lee at least for the R's was that the briefing today was unconvincing for the true imminent threat. (I would point out that many of the Dems felt the same but their credibility is lacking with some here)

My concern, is that Trump is making these decisions in a very small vacuum with little thought for ramifications. I seriously doubt he discussed this with allies in the region and beyond. I don't doubt that Obama discussed the short and long-term ramifications of taking out OBL in great detail well ahead of taking him out.

Maybe I am wrong but based on Trump's apparent flippant approach to foreign policy, I think he got VERY lucky that this didn't escalate rapidly.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

if Trump was flippant in this case, he got very lucky, because it was a big win. We killed someone begging to be killed, and paid no significant price. For a guy who is supposedly so stupid and such a fraudulent con artist, Trump sure scores some impressive victories now and then.

“flippant” would have been bombing the sh*t out of the sites where the missiles came from last night.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

this kind of targeted assassination has been accepted practice for awhile in certain situations. did you express this concern when Bin Laden was assassinated? Or is it only concerning when trump
does it?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the issue you and many others think . bin laden and the General are some how the same .. they are not no matter how Trump and administration wish to present the killings are the same

Bin laden was catch or kill. As was Al baghdadi , (both stateless ) A fire fight is not an assasination

[fishgolf]

Bin Laden and Al Baghdadi were Sunni's and would oppose General S within the region, but would be allies against infidel's (non-muslims) when the reason would benefit both.

One was a Shia Iranian General responsible for supporting proxy Shia militias in Syria, Iran, etc - aka Quds. The other an Iraqi Shia Militia Commander responsible for suppressing Sunni's and Kurds in Iraq (the ones that are protesting current Iraqi government, and the ones that did not vote in Parliament for for the removal of US military presence).

Iran's Shias would like total control of Iraq and the rest of the Middle East (meaning submission to Shia's tenets), then the rest of humanity. The Sunni's (ISIS, ISIL) would like the same control (meaning submission to Sunni tenets). The fighting Muslim's believe they benefit from victory in life (spoils of war), or in death where great rewards await them in their heaven. In Jihad, they win either way. This Islamic ideology seems very poisoness from a western logical and spiritual point of view - but Islam is a monotheistic ideology and arguments to the contrary are not considered by devout Muslims.

Is there strategic interest for the west in the Middle East? There always has been, and likely will be for a long time. I would hope our media would smarten up and pick up this religious context, along with the Kurd's and Armenian's situation, also persecuted by Muslim based governments.

Sorry to bore you all... but this context overlays all that is happening in the Middle east. I don't remember learning about this stuff in History or Social Studies in High School...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

This is the issue you and many others think . bin laden and the General are some how the same .. they are not no matter how Trump and administration wish to present the killings are the same

Bin laden was catch or kill. As was Al baghdadi , (both stateless ) A fire fight is not an assasination

i didn’t say they were the same. i said both were targeted for, I guess, assassination.

You have a point about Bin Laden being catch or kill, that’s a fair point.

So can we assume
your problem is using drones to kill people without giving them
a chance to surrender? Because Obama did that a lot, a whole
lot, including one strike
targeting an american citizen who had joined the jihad.

so i’ll ask again, is it only problematic for you when trump fires missiles at people? i don’t think you complained when obama did it.

Either it’s ok or it’s not. But the answer of whether or not it’s ok, shouldn’t depend on whether or not you happen to like the current potus. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Got Stripers]

I don't think a single person on this board or in this country feels that guy didn't deserve to be taken out. The problem as I see it is Trumps reckless strategy in the middle east. This problem started with the withdrawal from the treaty, but he has been making questionable moves all along, Syria being a prime example. The problems he creates require a solution involving our allies, oh what we have treated them like idiots and this is when his isolationist policy backfires in his face.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

This problem started with the withdrawal from the treaty

no it didn't

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

no it didn't

everything was peachy with Iran until Orange Man nullified the treaty. even the jews and arabs were having block parties together until Trump came along.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

i didn’t say they were the same. i said both were targeted for, I guess, assassination.

You have a point about Bin Laden being catch or kill, that’s a fair point.

So can we assume
your problem is using drones to kill people without giving them
a chance to surrender? Because Obama did that a lot, a whole
lot, including one strike
targeting an american citizen who had joined the jihad.

so i’ll ask again, is it only problematic for you when trump fires missiles at people? i don’t think you complained when obama did it.

Either it’s ok or it’s not. But the answer of whether or not it’s ok, shouldn’t depend on whether or not you happen to like the current potus. Right?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again you clearly refuse to see that targeting military targets Taliban commander or ISIS commanders who are stateless . And whom the international community see as rogue actors and legitimate targets .

And those who are part of a state an official. And 1 who was an elected in Iraqs parliament.. aka assasination

Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism

Americans has been doing the proxy thing for decades but thas ok

TRUMPs pull out the international nuke deal. ( the right leaves that out all the time )
Backs iran in a corner, then people act surprised when they push back

And the current talking point from the White House
And this Lee guy took exception

It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't care whether they are with the CIA, with the Department of Defense, or otherwise -- to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran," said Lee.

Hes right only authoritarian government see such debate as wrong

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Again you clearly refuse to see that targeting military targets Taliban commander or ISIS commanders who are stateless . And whom the international community see as rogue actors and legitimate targets .

And those who are part of a state an official. And 1 who was an elected in Iraqs parliament.. aka assasination

Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism

Americans has been doing the proxy thing for decades but thas ok

TRUMPs pull out the international nuke deal. ( the right leaves that out all the time )
Backs iran in a corner, then people act surprised when they push back

And the current talking point from the White House
And this Lee guy took exception

It is not acceptable for officials within the executive branch of government -- I don't care whether they are with the CIA, with the Department of Defense, or otherwise -- to come in and tell us that we can't debate and discuss the appropriateness of military intervention against Iran," said Lee.

Hes right only authoritarian government see such debate as wrong

OK, so it's OK to bomb actual terrorists, but not those affiliated with a nation state.

"Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism "

OK. SO what do you call it, when in 2011 the Obama administration uncovered a plot by Soleimani to hire Mexican drug cartels, to plant a bomb in a Washington DC restaurant, with the goal of assassinating the Saudi ambassador to the US? Is that a legitimate act of a sovereign nation-state, or is that an act of terror? Look it up, because that happened, was called Operation Red Coalition, I think. But it happened. That's not the act of a terrorist?

You're saying he wasn't a terrorist because he was in the employ of the nation of Iran?

I don't know that defining someone as a terrorist is an exact, precise science. There can be judgment and disagreement. But you're in a distinct minority if you feel this guy wasn't a terrorist.

I agree with you that targeting terrorists is nit the same as targeting legitimate military officials of another sovereign nation. Most people feel Soleimini was both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_a...ssination_plot

[scottw]

it's fun watching libs defend the indefensible

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so it's OK to bomb actual terrorists, but not those affiliated with a nation state.

"Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism "

OK. SO what do you call it, when in 2011 the Obama administration uncovered a plot by Soleimani to hire Mexican drug cartels, to plant a bomb in a Washington DC restaurant, with the goal of assassinating the Saudi ambassador to the US? Is that a legitimate act of a sovereign nation-state, or is that an act of terror? Look it up, because that happened, was called Operation Red Coalition, I think. But it happened. That's not the act of a terrorist?

You're saying he wasn't a terrorist because he was in the employ of the nation of Iran?

I don't know that defining someone as a terrorist is an exact, precise science. There can be judgment and disagreement. But you're in a distinct minority if you feel this guy wasn't a terrorist.

I agree with you that targeting terrorists is nit the same as targeting legitimate military officials of another sovereign nation. Most people feel Soleimini was both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_a...ssination_plot

North Atlantic Treaty Organization

NATO defines terrorism in the AAP-06 NATO Glossary of Terms and Definitions, Edition 2019 as "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence, instilling fear and terror, against individuals or property in an attempt to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, or to gain control over a population, to achieve political, religious or ideological objectives". [50]

Nowhere does it say stateless.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, so it's OK to bomb actual terrorists, but not those affiliated with a nation state.

"Terrorist is the new catch all ,, I am sorry actions conducted against foreign military targets by militants who wish us forces out of their countries, is not Terrorism, kill civilians shopping in a market or blow up a mosque or church that's Terrorism "

OK. SO what do you call it, when in 2011 the Obama administration uncovered a plot by Soleimani to hire Mexican drug cartels, to plant a bomb in a Washington DC restaurant, with the goal of assassinating the Saudi ambassador to the US? Is that a legitimate act of a sovereign nation-state, or is that an act of terror? Look it up, because that happened, was called Operation Red Coalition, I think. But it happened. That's not the act of a terrorist?

You're saying he wasn't a terrorist because he was in the employ of the nation of Iran?

I don't know that defining someone as a terrorist is an exact, precise science. There can be judgment and disagreement. But you're in a distinct minority if you feel this guy wasn't a terrorist.

I agree with you that targeting terrorists is nit the same as targeting legitimate military officials of another sovereign nation. Most people feel Soleimini was both.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_a...ssination_plot

This is the issue with the right they assume any criticisms of the administration's actions are Translated as being sympathetic or seeing Soleimini as a poor victim...

many casually see this assasination as some heroic action by Trump
In the defense of Americans. And there playing that line hard

Where is the might of America to avenge the deaths of those killed the airbase attack in Kenya? Trump never mentioned them. But 1 death prompted trump to conduct an assasination and blame past administration.. I am sorry it's all


This administration has taken executive privilege out of the barn with no intention
Of putting it back,, and Republicans are complicit and are all in.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And the BS lie that money from the Iran nuke deal bankrolled these operations and new missiles... Are more lies from an administration who already has a credibility problem , everywhere in the world except in his base ..

He can’t help himself the lies are all he knows, I guess his staff didn’t advise him those really weren’t US dollars, but frozen Iran funds freed up after the treaty. History and facts have never been his strong suit.