Bloomberg blasts Sanders' 'outrageous' claim that Soleimani strike was an 'assassination'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg balked at fellow 2020 candidate and Sen. Bernie Sanders' suggestion that President Trump carried out an "assassination" when he ordered a lethal strike on Iranian Gen. Qassem Soleimani.
When asked about the descriptor, Bloomberg said: "If he was talking about killing the general ... this is a guy who had an awful amount of American blood on his hands. I think that's an outrageous thing to say."
"Nobody that I know of would think that we did something wrong in getting the general," he said, before adding the U.S. had a "right" and "obligation" to pursue Soleimani.
But prominent Democrats have accused the president of engaging in an unlawful assassination by killing the Iranian official.
Several Democratic members of Congress leveled that charge on Friday. "The assassination of Qassem Soleimani laid bare the consequences of war powers increasingly coopted by the executive branch alone," Rep. Joe Kennedy, D-Mass., tweeted.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., and Sanders, I-Vt. similarly called the killing an assassination.
The administration has defended itself, noting that it acted out of self-defense to defeat a dangerous terrorist. U.S. officials also claimed that Soleimani's death occurred "on the battlefield" and therefore didn't meet the legal definition of assassination.
During his first public remarks on the strike, Trump claimed that he "caught" Soleimani "in the act and terminated him." State Department officials similarly said Trump acted on solid intelligence and that U.S. interests faced "imminent attacks" by Soleimani.
Several U.S. presidents have passed executive orders prohibiting involvement in assassinations, but the war on terror seemed to make those distinctions more difficult.
Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz argued that Soleimani's death was "a lawful, proportional, preemptive military action." He described Soleimani as a "combatant enemy who had killed and was planning to kill Americans."
Laurence Tribe, Dershowitz's colleague at Harvard, cast doubt on that conclusion.
"I shed no tears for Iran’s General Suleimani, but his assassination at Trump’s personal order risks a massive Persian Gulf war and also violated both domestic and international law unless it was demonstrably necessary to prevent an imminent lethal attack by Suleimani," he said.
He also tweeted columnist Max Boot's comments describing Soleimani as "the highest-ranking foreign military commander assassinated by the United States since the shoot-down in 1943 of a plane carrying Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto, the architect of the Pearl Harbor attack.”
The opinions appeared to cross party lines as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., indicated to Fox News that the U.S. carried out an assassination. "I don't think you can do an assassination like this and not think or at least believe that one of the unintended consequences will be war with Iran," he told Fox News host Neil Cavuto.
Tags
Who is online
116 visitors
Bloomberg has gained a little respect from me. I know he can't stand President Trump but at least he doesn't have a severe case of TDS that the Proglibs are demonstrating.
The General was engaging in acts that threatened American lives but the left would rather we just ignore the intel and let him go on with his mission, maybe we should have drawn a red line with Iran...
Just curious-- did you ever wonder why so many "proglibs" have such seriou cases of "derangement syndromes" against Republicans-- but "repcons" never have any derangement syndromes against any Dems?
Never any HDS against Hillary-- never any ODS against Obama. And of course never any ADS against Ocasio-Cortez?
Could it be, possibly, that repcons are genetically superior?
Curious minds want to know!
I myself thought it was mainly because they can't get over the fact that Hillaryious Hillary lost.
Really, how would that be? If you think genetics have anything to do with it I don't know what to tell you?
So how do you feel about Bloomberg saying he felt the attack was warranted? This goes against everything the left wing media and TDS sufferers are pushing at the moment.
Look at Mike trying to get my vote! Never say never.
Agree 100%! I don't like Bloomberg much, but I give him credit for being right on the money on this one.
The General was an enemy combatant. Even Obama's DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson called it legal & lawful.
Are you claiming that with his death, all of his plans will no longer happen and Americans are now safe from Iran from this point forward?
He certainly is not alive to coordinate things. That is a major plus right there!
Doesn't answer my question, does it?
You will personally guarantee that his replacement won't be even more ruthless and determined to make Americans pay for the death of his predecessor? That he won't be worse than Soleimani?
You know as well as I do that there are no guarantees on something like that. Just as Loki said down below, that's a strawman argument and you know it. If the next one is as bad or worse, then he will most likely get taken out as well.
Are you saying that we should be pussies like the cock holster [Deleted] was and do nothing because you know....But Trump?
Other than your strawman attributing something to me I never implied he sure the fuck won't be around to coordinate attacks now will he?
I guess you are claiming that the relatives of those that Soleimani killed can go fuck themselves.
So you cannot guarantee that the killing won't end up in even worse results.
What argument? I asked a question. It's not my fault that Loki doesn't understand what a strawman argument it.
So, in your opinion, do you feel assassination would be justified for war criminals?
If said individuals are attacking U.S. citizens and it's interests, yes I do.
So, you don't care how many crimes a person may commit, as long as the crime doesn't effect you personally? Okey dokey...
So you still can't address the subject at hand. Sadly pathetic.
Nice try with the word games, but no cigar. I never said that, you did. My statement stands for itself. I put my country first ahead of the rest of the world.
Word games? But I quoted you word for word...
Yes it does, and that's what I have been saying. [deleted]
"If said individuals are attacking U.S. citizens and it's interests, yes I do."
Please explain how you quoted me word for word. You were not even close. Perhaps you got my quote mixed up with somebody else's!
Yeah, you are right my friend. Just not worth it. As I said above, he is just trying to play word games. My thanks.
removed for context
And you as well.
This is the type of response i would expect from opposition candidates, and would have been the norm 30 years ago.
Reagan’s bombing of Tripoli, which this resembled, was immediately supported publicly by liberal leaders like Ted Kennedy and Tip O’Neil.
The usual definitions of "assassination," where it's considered to be outside the law, involve the killing of someone for political or maybe religious reasons. The victim is usually someone powerful, but not a fighter or leader of fighters themselves. Thus, when we speak of assassinations, we think of kings and presidents (e.g. Abe Lincoln, JFK). Maybe a priest (e.g. Thomas Becket).
I don't think it works, though, to apply that word to someone who is actively engaged in physical attacks. Soleimani led and planned attacks on Americans and their allies. Baghdad airport, where he was killed, is just another place where he was engaged in that business.
We didn't kill some politician vacationing at his private villa or making a speech in the public square. We killed a soldier on the battlefield.
I wouldn't think that any intelligent voter would be impressed by the fact that the Democrats continue to oppose everything the WH does - they may just begin to think that the Ds are digging themselves deeper and deeper into a hole that they're sure as hell not going to be able to climb out of in November. I would like to see statistics of how many people who have usually voted Democratic are deciding to vote independant 3rd party or even "cross the floor" (British expression for politicians changing loyalty) to the Republican side. Personally, I would not be impressed by all the mudslinging - and I'm amused by the fact that the Democrats have not learned the lesson of how Jean Chretien won by a landslide when the opposing party posted an attack ad.
No different than when the Repubs opposed everything the WH did during the 8 years Obama was President. McConnell made it his business to try and negate anything and everything Obama did or tried to do. He even openly admitted that it was his goal to get Obama out of the WH. And he did everything he could to do just that.
But, seems the Repubs and some others choose to conveniently forget that fact.
I don't know why, but for some reason I can't remember the Repubs being as vicious as the Dems have been with Trump.
Probably because they weren't.
It seems like some are stuck on the talking point that the opposite party doesn't do everything it can to defeat the incumbent president.
Is this like a ground breaking revelation for you? Tell me which party doesn't try to get the opposing parties out of the White House?
So other than your but republicans did this cry fest, what do you think about Bloomberg's stance supporting the Trump administrations decision?
So, politics as usual.
EVERY opposition party would like to see their OWN person in office. Standard stuff. I would EXPECT Democrats to try to get Trump out office (at the polls) .
I supppose it's the oppositions duty to oppose, but when it gets mired and nothing is accomplished, how is that supposed to be beneficial for the public?
Well, nobody's perfect!
Indeed they were, Buzz. I had never seen, or heard, of people in our government being so vicious about a sitting President as the Repubs were about Obama, mainily, because of his skin color.
The hateful and vicious comments and accusations made about where he came from, and the endless, hateful lies about his being born in Kenya and unfit to hold the office of President, about his Father, and his wife.
Yeah.....payback is a B*tch. Now that the shoe is on the other foot they can't stand it.
I guess people only remember what they want to remember. But, I, and many, many other Americans, and people around the world, will never forget how the Repubs made a lie out of our country's "all men are created equal" before the world stage.
I tried once to get you back on topic. Take your I hate republican bullshit over to whinners and Butthurts, I'm sure it will be appreciated over there. You make no logical comments than to cry about the republican party on every post. Maybe the problem isn't Republicans and you should look in the mirror?
What do yo think about Bloombergs stance supporting the Soleimani strike?
Not quite everything Raven. Far as I can remember (and my memory is pretty good for stuff like that) no one tried to railroad an impeachment of Obama through the Congress. Doing something like that without really good evidence of criminal activity, which has not been seen, would be deranged behavior. It is, however, the duty of the leader of one political party to use any legitimate (and sane) method to get a President of the opposing party out of office. Note that the words "legitimate" and "sane" are the controlling factors here.
Initiating such a ridiculous impeachment attempt, which will not only cause damage to your country but, based on the results from the Clinton impeachment attempt, to your own political party is either the result of stupidity or mental disorder on the part of those who did it. Nancy Pelosi, et al, don't seem to be all that stupid, so they must be deranged.
Are you saying that the evidence that has been made public, proving that the President tried to extort, from a foreign power, action against a domestic political opponent... is not "good evidence"?
LOL. The final words in the movie Some Like it Hot uttered by Joe E. Brown.
What evidence are you talking about? Not one of the Dems witnesses were willing to state Trump committed a crime.
Their indictments are for abuse of power and obstructing Congress.
Too bad the Republicans didn't hold Obama to those standards. He would have been impeached several times over.
You only watch Fox, right?
That is because Obama did not do the stupid and illegal stuff Trump has done to warrant being Impeached. To try and say that Trump does not deserve being Impeached for the articles presented by the house is giving Trump a blank check to do whatever he wants to our country and our allies with no recourse when he makes totally stupid and illegal actions.
No...I am not a Democrat. But, I am an American Citizen. I am able to read and can still hear, so I am not without the ability to know what is going on in the world an what is right and wrong.
Of course the Repubs all turn a blind eye to what Trump has done and try to justify it, does not speak well of their character, or their respect for the laws of our land, or our government.
JMOO
Please tell us other than giving you a severe case of TDS what crimes has President trump Committed?
What a sweeping crock of shit allegation. I heard that they have a cure for sever forms of TDS maybe you should look into it?
Stop watching Fox 24/7. You'll learn all about it.
Or keep watching Fox 24/7, and continue to show ignorance.
[deleted] that they are so willfully blind to reality, then there is nothing I can do or say that will change their mind. And I could care less. I won't waste my time leading [deleted] to water just o have them say they can't see it, smell, or taste it, so thus it does not exist. [deleted,] it's their choice, not mine.
And I have absolutely no interest in what they do or don't believe.
No. I don't watch tv anymore.
Sorry you only get your talking points from CNN, MSNBC, and MSM. Otherwise know as know as the Democratic news networks.
In case you missed it not one damn witness for the Democrats would admit that Trump committed a crime. Kind of fucks up your whole argument.
I'd call Fast and Furious pretty stupid and illegal just to name one. Then there was his genius idea to trade five hard core terrorists for one worthless deserter. That was pretty stupid as well.
Actually Fast and Furious was started by GW Bush.
A confused young soldier who wandered off and was captured does not a deserter make.
Obama really didn't have a choice.
Actually you are confusing "Operation Wide Reciever" which did in fact begin under GWB, which was similar, with "Operation Fast and Furious" which did in fact begin and take place under the Obama administration. Then President Obama was interviewed recently and stated that Fast and Furious began under Bush, but politiclfact fact checker stated that was not the case and stated the above about Wide Reciever. Seems Obama was trying to draw attention away from his part in the monumental cluster f*#& that became Fast and Furious.
And yes that soldier, confused or not did in fact desert his post.
To say that Obama had no choice is unmitigated BS. There is always a choice and Obama made a horrendously wrong one!
We are worse off now than before we invaded Afghanistan.
Obama had eight years to wind down the wars. He didn't do it. He stands solid with Bush and Trump.
That is the nature of the beast that is politics in DC these days. Each side does the same things. Not saying it is right or wrong. It just is.
On that we can agree.
That is something that the idiots on the left can't quite grasp. But then again they were all for the previous administration taking out US citizens in the same fashion.
So much saliva lost for no reason. Go look at a dictionary (Merriam-Webster):
Whatever one may think of the justification for Soleimani's killing, it clearly was an "assassination". It was very clearly a "sudden, secret attack for political reasons."
It seems that Bloomberg... and all those who agree with him here... do not speak English...
Only in the lefty world would retribution for plotting to take American lives be a political thing. He was a active player in terrorist acts perpetrated around the world hence the term assassination would only be used for political reasons by the But Trumpers.
Well unless you can justify how this was a political attack, Hopefully you wrote down your proglib talking points, it would be you that does not speak English.
Nice attempt at misdirection... but no go.
The guy was well known for being responsible for the killing of up to 600 Americans and thousands of innocent civilians. That makes him a terrorist.
His ass was rightfully taken out for being a terrorist.
How is it misdirection? You are the one claiming it was for political reasons. If asking you how it's political is misdirection and you can't say how I'll take it you are spewing someone like Rachel madcows talking points.
That's what generals do, you know... They plan operations with the purpose of killing lots of the enemy. That is their job.
Just as American generals planned the killing of Soleimani. That's their JOB. But the generals don't decide whether to run an operation or to just hold it at the planning stage. The politicians make the call.
Just like President Trump made this call. Just like the ayatollahs decide which operations to run.
Saying any general is "responsible" is silly. The political leaders are responsible.
So the fact that this terrorist had killed, injured, put in prison hundreds of thousands across Iran and the Middle East and was responsible for the death of 600 American soldiers and maiming many more and directed the recent attack on one of our bases and attacked our sovereign territory embassy in Baghdad and was there to plan additional attacks on us there wasn’t enough reason for you to justify taking him out as a military target 🎯? For the American people, it was a good choice to eliminate him.
The ayatollah’s just announced an $80 million dollar bounty for who ever will attack our constitutional republic and assassinate our American President
The Ayatollah issued a fatwa? Isn't a death threat against the POTUS a criminal offence? LOCK HIM UP!!!
From what I've seen on this site, the Democrats are establishing that had a Republican POTUS assassinated Adolph HItler, he/she would be chastized and criticized for doing so.
What is a "terrorist", C4P? Did you know that the Brits labeled our Founding Fathers "terrorists"?
Soleimani was a legitimate general in a legitimate uniform in a legitimate army. He was certainly not a friend of the United States, but I would hesitate to say he was an "enemy", since the two nations are not at war.
America has given itself the right to declare any opposition to be "terrorist". And then America has given itself the right to kill any terrorist anywhere. In other words, America may kill anyone, anywhere. That's kinda... a lot...
Why? In what way does this improve their lives? Another general will replace Soleimani, and the wars will go on. But in the meantime:
- the Iranians are using Soleimani's killing to justify ending any restraint on their nuclear programs,
- there will probably be reprisals against American troops.
So I ask you, why was it "a good choice to eliminate him"?
Source?
He led the Quds Force.
The Quds Force was designated a terrorist group in 2007.
Indeed. And perhaps the ayatollahs have declared the SEALs a "terrorist organization".
Hizbollah has also been declared a "terrorist organization", although it runs social services in Lebanon, and never attacks civilians.
Tha fact is that the US declared to be "terrorist" any organization that it supposes it might need to strike.
Most interesting Bob. By your definition of "assassination", and your assignment of responsibility, the killing of Admiral Yamamoto in April of 1943 was an assassination and the responsible party was Franklin Roosevelt. Yamamoto was, of course, a serving officer in the military of a nation making war on the United States and was, therefore, a legitimate target. Soleimani was also a serving officer of a nation making war on the United States. If you don't think that Iran is making war on the US, then you might want to question what all that shooting is about. If he isn't such a serving officer, then he's no more than an international outlaw and fair game for anybody who can get him in their sights.
Sorry dude, it is a dictionary definition assassination. Not saying anyone is going to miss him, but I worry about the consequences of this act. It could be that a lot more Americans are killed in the future as a direct result of this.
[Deleted]
Posts like yours are s-o-o-o-o tiresome...
Seems pretty strange for an organization that runs social services would issue statements about sending American soldiers home in coffins.
Not very social and all, you know.
And why did you need to clarify that Hezbollah never attacks civilians?
Why would Hezbollah be so concerned about the death of an Iranian general?
Do you not trust the assessments of the US government with all of its intelligence-gathering apparatus?
One gigantic difference, we are not at war with Iran.
Except that we are not at war with Iran.
When was this declaration of war announced? I guess the world's media missed it? A proxy war with a nation is not the same as being at war with that nation.
2006 Lebanon War - Wikipedia
He must be talking about a different Hezbollah than the one we are familiar with.
Really? Hasn't the US government - which runs a lot of social services, too - been a bit threatening lately? "52 sites" or something?
Soldiers kill soldiers. Terrorists kill civilians. (Where does that leave massive bombing strikes? Excellent question!)
I'm very surprised that you are unaware that Hizbollah and Iran are close allies.
You're joking, Right?
Hey! That is "nuance".
Not allowed here.... Black is allowed. White is allowed. Gray is not allowed.
Keep It Simple, Stupid!
Don't bother to address me, Buzz.
Some Israeli settlements are occupied by "paramilitary" personnel. Israel defines them as civilians. They go purposefully into a battle zone. They carry weapons full-time. Hizbollah calls them military.
The world is messy, isn't it?
What entity does Hezbollah represent?
Is Hezbollah an army? What is its mission?
I bet not nearly as surprised as I am that you still seem to want to portray Hezbollah as some sort of good-deed-doing social organization.
Seems weird to me that a social service provider would feel it necessary to team up with terrorists.
I've only started posting today, and this is the third time that I've said that we need a new CoC violation: misquoting, mis-reformulating, or otherwise deforming another's words. Violation to be accompanied by automatic suspension, to incite better behavior...
Such distortion is intellectually dishonest and morally despicable.
My perception (which can neither be right or wrong, it merely is) is that is how you are attempting to portray Hezbollah.
Write something that changes my mind if you want me to think differently.
Every faux tantrum makes me think I am closer to the truth than you would like.
I absolutely do not care what you think. I am telling you that I consider willful misquoting to be dishonest and despicable. If you wish to persist, I really don't mind at all. Your character is what you make of it. I'm just a bystander.
I didn't misquote you.
What ARE you going on about now????
The term I used, quite deliberately, was "making war on the US". War in today's world doesn't bother with the politeness involved in a formal declaration, nor is it necessary. Just committing warlike acts against another country is quite sufficient to make your military personnel into legitimate targets.
As a practical matter, yes it is. If it were not, any Iranian caught fighting for the militias could simply be executed immediately without regard for POW status.
Jeez, Tex! I quoted you!
Copy/pasted your words: you still seem to want to portray Hezbollah as some sort of good-deed-doing social organization.
You are clearly "reformulating" my words, except for that fact that I never said anything even faintly resembling what you wrote. You are distorting my words, which, as I said, is dishonest and despicable.
If you want to discuss something I actually did say, then you should do the same: copy/paste so there can be no equivocation.
Here's an idea you may want to think about: very few organizations are either perfectly good or perfectly evil.
I think you need to study up on the Geneva Convention, concerning Prisoners of War. There's a section on irregular military - guerrillas and such.
here is what you wrote about Hezbollah:
To ME, that sounds like you are trying to portray Hezbollah as a good-deed-doing social services outfit.
if you don't like that, tough.
I didn't reformulate shit.
Oh I don't intend to "address" you, but I do intend to "correct" you. You know very well that you alienated me when you refused to describe a reply to me that I was unable to open.
Yeah, it is, like when I (and I was only a civilian tourist, not "paramilitary") had to run to a bomb shelter when I was visiting an Israeli kibbutz near the Lebanon border when bombs were being flown towards it and other northern Israeli CIVILIAN locations.
I was just trying to save you useless effort. I won't answer you again.
Ah! Now your misquote is nothing more than a misinterpretation. OK.
Then I'll answer:
That is a complete misinterpretation.
Better? No, of course not. You might do better by asking me what I mean, rather than telling me what I mean.
I think I got your gist just about right.
So! Be happy!
Almost always!
You might try doing some research before making bullshit statements you know nothing about.
As someone how knows people that have had direct contact with Hezbollah. Those doctors, teachers, and "social workers" that work in areas controlled by Hezbollah have no choice but to be a part of them. Either they are forced under threat of violence; or they don't get access to money or resources that are needed.
Some statements being posted here definitely come off as sounding very much apologist in nature. I find some of them totally appalling!
No.
I'm suggesting a change in the rules to prevent dishonest misrepresentations like the one you just made.
Exactly!
I'm so glad you understand.
The dead terrorist killed those that did not provoke. That is terrorism, not a general following orders.
He is now a dead terrorist.
You seem confused....Why?
Who gets to determine what is or is not a dishonest misrepresentation?
The person who is being misrepresented, of course.
Meaning you of course? Sorry, I don't think that will fly!
You're misrepresenting me!
Why, yes I am.
So pretty much every military action that kills someone is an assassination.
Got it.
Ya got it, Sean! As usual...
Yeah, imagine using surprise in war. Never happens.
Maybe the only time it DOESN'T happen is when the IDF notifies the Gazan citizens with telephone calls and leaflets dropped from planes to secure themselves before Israel retaliates against the Hamas militants who pulled a surprise attack on Israel. But natually the ICC is in the process of accusing Israel of war crimes.
We are not at war with Iran. We intentionally killed the second most powerful person within their government, how is that not an assassination?
He was illegally in a foreign country directing acts of war against the United States.
No, we killed a terrorist operating within Iraq. One that we know has organized and planned countless attacks that have killed hundreds of US personnel.
No one outside the rabid anti Trump left gives a shit if this terrorist worked for the Iranian government. Iran and the US are not friends, we are not allies, and while we are not at war with Iran they are damn well sure at war with the US in the ME.
Seriously, Sean? He was "illegally" in Iraq, which is now pretty much an Iranian puppet state?
Sean! You know that that's horseshit!
... and now that the Iraqi parliament has voted the expulsion of American forces, it is we who are there "illegally".
OF course he was there illegally. Ask the UN.
That's funny, Sean!
Did you do that on purpose?
I guess when you get all your talking points from Rachel Madcow you actually believe that.
Even so, he was the second highest ranking official within a recognized government that we are not at war with.
Yes.
So wait, only those who dislike Trump are concerned if terrorists work with the Iranian government? Good to know.
Nope.
Farthest thing from.
Proxy war, not like we don't do this shit all the time. There is a MASSIVE difference between a proxy (or cold war) and a hot war. A proxy war means you use your proxies to attack each other without making a direct assault. Directly attacking your enemy (AKA assassinating the second most powerful person in their government and gloating about it) is not within the proxy war rules, that is grounds for a hot war.
So far, and I think it will stay this way, Iran has not gone into "hot war" mode, but you can certainly expect the proxy war to heat up and more Americans die.
I guess when you get all your talking points from Rachel Madcow you actually believe that.
It's fascinating, the way wingnuts "know" stuff that's totally wrong. I guess that's not much of a problem for them though, since their "reality" accepts "alternatives"....
What you are saying there is that the second highest ranking official in Iran is a notorious terrorist which in effect makes Iran the leading terrorist regime in the ME.
I've re-read his post a couple times... He didn't say anything remotely similar to your reformulation. If you truly understand what you wrote as equivalent to what he wrote... you may need professional help.
The other, more likely possibility is that you know perfectly well that he didn't mean what you wrote. You're just dumping a load. Of your wisdom, of course...
they like to forget that part... LOL
What I think if funny is that the libiodits think EVERY strike by an MQ-1 or MQ-9 is vetting through the President.
Yeah, sure, whatever.
Back in the land of reality, we just assassinated the second most powerful person in a hostile government with influence and ability to retaliate throughout the entire ME.
The strike may have been illadvised.
Pretty fucking sure this one got the okay from the top guy. I mean, assassinating a prominent foreign official of a hostile government when it could very well spark a war, is no small thing.So basically you are suggesting that Trump is so fucking dumb that the entire chain of command beneath him didn't think a high profile assassination would be worth pulling him away from his giant bubbles on the White House lawn?
Of course, I also wouldn't be shocked if Trump was kept in the dark for fear that he would tweet about the strike before it happened.
But you don't know for a fact the approval went that high in the chain of command.
Is exactly what I said. Unlike many of your contemporaries, I say exactly what I mean. I don't sugar coat it so save your feelings. I know for fact, the use of MQ1s and MQ-9 do not need Commander in Chief approval. If it did, I would have been killed by Taliban and Iranian fighters in Bala Murghab back in 2009.
Don't think I can agree with you on this. Soleimani was a soldier engaged in hostilities against the US and our allies. If you consider this an assassination then you must feel shooting down the plane carrying Yamamoto an assassination as well.
Further, I'm not sure what you think the political reasons for killing the man would be. All political reasons I can think of are negative, except to demonstrate we will do what it takes to stop their terrorism. As far as I am concerned, this wasn't political, it was simply taking out a high value enemy combatant.
Of course, I was merely a soldier and the only thing I care about is that the guy responsible for the deaths of my brother and sister soldiers was eliminated. I think that's the way a lot of our soldiers are going to see it. Instead of just killing a bunch of low level enemy terrorists our leadership actually did something that mattered to the enemy. Rather than let our soldiers just die so we don't upset anyone too much by actually doing something we stuck 'em where it hurts. Can't be sorry about that.
... was killed while the US and Japan were at war.
The US and Iran are not at war.
I realize that the US - under all the recent Presidents - has pretty much declared that it may do whatever it pleases, whenever... but still...
That's a technicality. Fact is that this guy is responsible for the deaths of thousands beyond the hundreds of US deaths. He was doing that without a (official) declaration of war. Why would we need such a declaration to do something about it? You're arguing that we can't do anything about someone punching us in the face all the time until we observe some sort of protocol, even though the guy punching us in the face isn't. Just doesn't make sense to me.
For the fourth time today, let me suggest a new CoC violation. Any misquoting, mis-reformulation, or other distortion of another member's words should be punishable by immediate suspension.
Take it to meta.
I will.
Well, yay!
Well stated! Thank you.
Um, yeah. Okay, then, what did you mean by stating that we aren't at war with Iran? What I'm getting from you is that because we aren't in an officially declared war with Iran we assassinated the guy rather than killed a legitimate target. Assassination has a rather shady, somewhat to totally sinister aspect to it and that we shouldn't have done it. Like we should have to declare war first, then kill the guy.
This seems to be, more or less, your position. If I've mischaracterized your position then please enlighten me.
You have indeed mischaracterized my thinking.
Ummm... that no state of war exists between the two nations. How could anyone misunderstand such a straightforward phrase?
Exactly. When we killed bin Laden he was an "enemy combatant", a legitimate target under the Geneva Conventions. Soleimani was not a legitimate target, so by killing him we have effectively authorized any and all assassinations in our undeclared war(s).
That's what's stupid, here: WE have set the precedent that it is OK to kill the opponent's top officials. I hope you will remember who set this precedent, when our officials start falling.
My problem with this assassination is not at all on moral grounds. All war, declared or not, is immoral. My problem is that this assassination was stupid. No significant gain, and huge potential downside.
The Art of the Deal...
I've been surprised at how much of the media is downplaying the seriousness of this.
And today a prominent stock-market pundit said he was surprised at how little the market was down in response.
So what are they missing?
IMO they aren't realizing the seriousness because, after all, the Iranians haven't attacked yet. (The idea being tthat if they were going to they would have done it already).
But then I found out why they haven't attacked yet. Solemani was hugely popular-- and there's a 3 day mourning period.....
So, I'm having a hard time trying to see where I mischaracterized your position. Seems what I said captured your objection perfectly. I think what you're upset about is my position concerning what your view means. That, because we aren't in the magic state of being at war, your position means this guy should be allowed to keep punching us in the face and not being able to do anything about it. That isn't a mischaracterization of your view, it's pointing out the consequences.
And don't bother with trying to say diplomacy is the answer or some such nonsense. That's just asking our soldiers to keep on dying at the hands of this man for the sake of trying to find " a peaceful solution" to the problem. Um, try asking the soldiers who have to do the dying while we waste time trying to find peace with an enemy that doesn't want it how they feel about diplomacy.
Oh, dear.... 😞
That, because we aren't in the magic state of being at war, your position means this guy should be allowed to keep punching us in the face and not being able to do anything about it.
Yes. That's the mischaracterization. You're describing a asymmetrical situation, as though Iran can strike us but we cannot strike them. That isn't the case. The US deploys air strikes whenever and wherever it wishes. The US imposes economic sanctions on whomever it wishes, without the slightest justification (UN, NATO, whatever).
The US is constantly "punching others in the face".
They haven't? So you mean we killed Soleimani for no reason at all. That does it I'm voting Democrat from on now....
Much like the US and Saudi were not at war when bin Laden (a Saudi) was killed.
Much like...
No. Not at all like.
We were not officially at war with North Korea or North Vietnam. You think that did not make it any less real? As a participant in the little soiree in Vietnam, it was sure as Hell was a war to me!
I'd agree with you if I were in TDS freak out mode, but since I'm not....
I mean, it was definitely an assassination. The guy was a bastard no doubt and we are better off without him, but I have serious reservations about dip shit approving the assassination. Iran has much more incentive to test a nuclear weapon, any possibility for negotiations to settle our differences are gone, and the Iranian government has to retaliate now.
This would basically be like if the Iranian assassinated our Chairman of the Joint Cheifs or Secretary of Defense. For a guy who wants to reduce our presence in the ME, he sure has a habit of fucking up his own plans. Of course, I never believed him to begin with.
Obama's non binding agreement wasn't going to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. At best it was going to delay it 10 years. With the way Iran was obstructing the IAEA you can cut that time down several years. '
Iran also has a proven track record of violating their missile ban.
Those snap back sanctions worked out so well. Seems that Europe, Russia, and China want Iranian money and oil far more than they care about a non nuclear Iran.
Because the Iranians have proven to be so damn trustworthy in the past.
So leaving this asshole alive and allowing him to plan and organize more operations against US personnel is the only option? Well, he was only going to kill a few hundred more US personnel over the course of our stay in Iraq. That might be more or less that Iran's planned retaliation. If Iran chooses to retaliate they will be in for a world of hurt. My only concern is no damn invasion, and no nation building. Destroy their government. Destroy their military. Destroy their infrastructure. Let any US allies in the region that want to kick Iran while they are down do so. Let Iran suffer forever trying to rebuild.
If Trump had not responded the left would have been screaming at him about being weak; and being paralyzed by the impeachment process.
Never thought I would see the day when the left would side with Iran. TDDDDS knows no bounds.
It is very telling about people.
[DeletedThinking] an assassination was ill-advised and siding with the enemy are vastly different things.
[Deleted] A lot of my brothers and sisters were killed and wounded by the acts that POS [organized,Deleted] I just don't wan't to see anymore body bags for nothing .
What part of "more incentive" confused you? And yes, the economic relief was binding and conditional.
And now they will probably push with all their might and we may greet 2021 with an Iranian bomb.
Except every intelligence agency on Earth and the IAEA agreed they were in compliance, but whatever.
Cool, but wasn't part of the 2015 treaty anyhow so whatever.
No, but outright assassinating him and gladly taking credit for it means we are one step closer to a war that will make the last 20 years look like a cake walk. The Iranian government just gained a martyr, the US further alienated any potential allies, diplomacy is now completely off the table, and Iran has every incentive imaginable to produce a bomb ASAP. Oh yeah, and Trump declaring to everyone on Earth that the Persian culture itself is a target doesn't help.
This thing was fucked up from the start. There is no good way to spin this, we have backed ourselves and Iran into a corner, neither side can be seen to back down. IMO this is WW1 all over again, a stupid fucking war caused by retards that could have been avoided at several points.
I just posted a link by the head of the IAEA stating that Iran was not in compliance. Unless you want to claim the WSJ was lying? Here are some other links stating the same damn thing.
So, no they are not in compliance. They have obstructed IAEA investigations; which were limited to known sites only to begin with anyways.
Who cares? So you think that Iran developing missiles that can carry nuclear payloads isn't a big deal. It puts it in violation of UN Security Council agreements they signed off on as well. No reason to worry about Iran's repeated violations of UN Security Council agreements.
You think we cannot wipe out Iran on our own? So long as we don't invade and make an attempt at nation building it will not take 20 years. Oh, and as for no allies. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and Israel owe Iran more than a few paybacks. Of course they may wait until we take Iran down before kicking them a few times for payback.
As I proved, diplomacy has not worked in the past. What the hell makes anyone think it will work now?
Despite you vast optimism, Iran is doing that anyways. Nothing has changed.
I will agree with you on this one. Trump shouldn't announce he is targeting Iran directly; nor should he even be targeting Iranian cultural sites. There are more than enough military sites to take out.
Iran started this long before Trump took office; but you hate Trump- so want to blame him. No, this won't be like WWI unless Russia and China get involved and you notice neither of them are rushing to announce support for Iran.
We have been stuck on stupid in Iraq since Bush Jr invaded and took down Saddam's regime. Iraq kicked us out once; but Obama had to send back in US troops to rearm & retrain the government military; and save a government loyal to Iran. I have asked repeatedly what we are still doing in Syria (Yes we are still there- seems Trump couldn't stand the heat of a full withdrawal. So nothing has changed except the size of our footprint within the country); Iraq (Looks like we are getting kicked out a second time. Reinstate the no fly zone to protect the Kurds. Send all of the equipment and training intended for Iraqi military their way; and get out. At least that is what I would do. But it seems Trump doesn't want the political fallout for that- so he is backed into a corner of doing whatever it takes to protect US personnel.); and Afghanistan (Blame Bush Jr for starting nation building there; and blame Obama for the worst SOFA agreement ever that tied the US to a weak, corrupt Afghan government. We may never get out of there.)
Iran has spent decades becoming masters at the old shell game hiding their nuclear program just like Sadaam did his. Just because they were said to be allegedly in compliance, some people are pretty naive thinking that they Iran did not have a lot of stuff inspectors did bot know about. You can hide a lot underground. I would be willing to bet the time frame the West estimated for Iran to produce nukes is significantly less.
So then who gives a shit either way? They are going to build a bomb, let's stop pissing our pants about it.
Happy Grandpa - 1
Angry Grandpa - 0