What does this have to do with Germany, a first world nation that abides by the rules? If Hitler was alive, you probably wouldn't be complaining and neither would young Germans. We have seen young Iranians who are somewhat educated have been wanting this for a while. It's not a declaration of war, but a clear signal by the US they know exactly where these guys are at all times and when they stir up trouble with embassies and soldiers repeatedly, have no problem taking them out. It's a terrorism organization we are talking about.
The implication is that's what war is prioritized on with the US, but forget about that. It's not relevant. Accurate drone technology is a game changer in the war game against guerilla's.
Thanks. I hope you're correct in this and your previous post about a chain of decision making. My problem with the "intel showed this general was uniquely hatching big anti-American plans" is that, for me, for us, and billions around the world, we have to trust an administration that has literally lied more than half the time it speaks. It's a really tough position, but again, I really hope you're right. On Bin Laden, we can agree to disagree on him (a non-state actor, sworn enemy of the US, and admitted proud and public terrorist) being a useful comparison.
No, people are upset that the situation with Iran is escalating. This doesn't just involve the US and Iran either. China, Russia, Iraq and a number of other nations are involved. Rather than patting each other on the back, people should be concerned about the possible ramifications involved. There are issues involved with Lindsay Graham stating he knew about it, but not a single congressional Democrat was told until after it happened. Germany has expressed grave concerns, China and France has carefully spoken out about respecting the sovereignty of nations in response. Putin is now taking an even larger leadership role with his involvement with France. The effects of the alienation of our allies by the President is on full display. UN experts are calling the attack illegal. You have a President unilaterally deciding to murder people in a foreign nation without informing the opposition party in his own country. You have Pompeo saying it had to be done quickly, but you have Lindsay Graham saying he knew about it days ago. You have leading congressional Republicans staying with the President in the days leading up to the attack. These are scary times for a number of reasons. Ideally at this point all parties deescalate the situation and Iran stops efforts. However, the lack of support internationally should be a warning to President Trump.
I believe Pahiyas was referring to Suleimani's political position... he is believed to report directly to the iran's supreme leader.
The main difference here is this was a top general of a conventional military that is a adversary to the US. Iran right now is in a position where they are also weighing the risks between not showing an ability to defend their interests or incremental escalation that will lead to full out war with the US attempting regime change.
It depends. If this (the assassination) is the relative end of it, then he will get support and an argument can be made that the means justify the ends. However, IF this turns into a situation even remotely like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria; then I think you will see some serious division and issues. A lot of American's are sick of war, sick of the costs associated with it and want the focus on domestic issues.
Not sure how many Americans are in Iraq today, but there were 150,000 in 2015 -- good luck to those who can't get to the airport and must flee by land. Nothing like a well thought out plan of action.
My assumption is that escalation is going to happen in Iraq as a proxy before any direct action is taken on Iran. I really feel sorry for the people of Iraq.
probably a good day to stay off internet forums, but . . . this is an extremely charitable description of Soleimani
