WW3 Iran attacked our base

I think that's the wrong sword!

 

Perhaps, but the guy he put the hit out on was far more dangerous than Trump. At least he didn't waffle uselessly on the decision. I don't think there's a very good "he started it" position to be taken here, particularly when dealing with Iran.

Remember these Iranians?


They were arrested and beaten for making this video.
Fuck Iran.

 

That is how it used to work. But then, one day, liberals morphed into leftists and discarded religion.

 

Seems to be a turn around, especially in regards to Boeing. Even though there are international conventions that allow those organisations to investigate any international crash

.....after they cleaned up the site that is


We will see if the black boxes magically disappear

 

The person who is replacing this assassinated Iranian General is now likely to be far more dangerous, since not only will he be picking up the threads of the policies previously being pursued, Trump has now given him a golden opportunity to add 'revenge' to those policies.

 

This is another Iranian video made as a protest after the first one. Notice how they're out in public instead of hidden in an apartment building. Iranians are wearing thin on being run by religious fanatics.

 

Or are discovered to be crushed, covered with track marks.

 

Isn't that always the claim when this happens? As if they were holding their best and bravest back and letting some incompetent rube run things till he gets bumped off.

This guy got off on torturing people. A missile was far too good for him. He deserved to roast in a cage, like so many of his victims.

 

Here's an interesting example from "living in the past"

 

There is not one incident of a victim being roast in a cage in Iran. Do you have proof?

 

So are three quarters of Israel's population.

 

Do you remember these Iraqis?

 

The government of Iraq just told Pompeeon to send a delegation to Baghdad to discuss and organized the removal of US Troops from Iraq. Most Iraqis say US Troops are torturers, Murderers, and oil thieves. Iranians are always welcome in Iraq, with or without their pet camels.

 

It would be good if more countries would assasinate dubious foreign generals like that. Right? It would definitely help international peace and relations, not destabilize them.
Or, if you can see the fallacy in this 'logic', maybe other countries shouldn't, after all who's on top in this kind of actions (lol).

So I wonder what you think is better: assassinating dubious figures in foreign regimes (often mainly as retaliation) becoming more regular practice for different countries, or that just the US does this every once in awhile? All for good reasons of course!

Do you really think Soleimani was killed primarily for retaliation of past deeds?

 

No, he was marked for death more than a decade ago. He was killed because he finally exposed himself and presented the opportunity. Obama would have taken him out just as well.

However, you make a great point about randomly taking out a head of state. It was a disaster in Libya and they still have a dozen factions fighting for control. However, Soleimani was not a head of state, he was well below that. A psychopathic minion of a sort. A hired pit bull.

I'm not going to shed a tear when nations take out each other's hit men.

Another thing that I think is overlooked is the phenomenon of national vengeance. Getting revenge, even on an entire nation, is something we've seen for most of human history. At first it seemed like the US might transcend this, but for two events; The Barbary slave traders and the ill-fated invasion of Canada. Both were knee-jerk reactions by the Americans with revenge in the lead. Americans celebrated when Bin Laden was killed (something hard to prove with the body deposited into an ocean). He was on the revenge list from late 2001.

 

You think that was the only or primary reason for doing this at this moment? I'm slightly disappointed.

Arguable. Even if he would be marked for death/it would be on an agenda, the moment and how it is done, and the possible consequences of doing it like this would imo likely have Obama made a different decision here.

 

40 years on, chilling display brings torture of Iranian dissidents close to home

 

What does the international community gain by going along with Trumps wish to let go of the iranian nuclear treaty? What do they likely lose/risk?
What does the US/Trump gain by convincing the other countries that signed, and want to keep, the iranian nuclear treaty to give up on that treaty? And what do they lose if everyone who signed it except the US would honor it again.
What does Iran gain by stopping honoring that treaty (lots of sanctions and even more distrust methinks)? And what do they risk?

 

Didn't you forget the ballsed up invasion of Cuba in retaliation to Fidel Castro overthrowing the Batista government and how the Cuban refugee army supported by the Americans got their arses severely kicked in the Bay of Pigs.???

 

Like shoplifting, it was a crime of opportunity. They were already looking for him, even Obama had a chance but the intelligence was old. I've heard the suggestion that Trump ONLY did this to deflect attention from impeachment, but I don't buy that. Impeachment hasn't hurt him at all so far and it's beginning to look as impotent as the charges that were finally laid on Clinton.


One of the things that gets tiring in discussions with you is your constant pursuit of jabs. It's like conversing with a stepbrother. I realize it's a tactic, but that sort of thing is supposed to be used strategically. Even Alinsky made that point clear. Most of his methodology was designed for rapid effect and would not self-sustain for very long before people got tired of hearing about it. Of course he never dreamed that his plan would be inherited by wealthy sycophants who turned it into a cash cow.

If 2 is better, 3 must be grand.