Has Trump even tweeted anything yet? Can one of you check please? (I refuse to

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

He's not my PM :nono: Even had I still been in Canada he wouldn't have been my choice.

And I'm not saying the West can never respond, you just need to be careful when you do. Violence begets violence after all.

The question really is whether or not *this* killing was worth it. It was the equivalent of an anti-Western country assassinating the Vice-President of the United States. There would outrage (quite rightly) all over the world had that happened. Iran is struggling massively given the sanctions in place. If this escalates and we have an increase in stability (political and economic) and an increase in violence, will it really have been worth it?

As I said, if the Americans have intelligence indicating that escalation is very unlikely then I can understand it. If not, this strikes me as really, really stupid. Do you really think the Iranians are going to be less hostile, less violent because we assassinated their second in command? Really?

---

If you want to know who this bloke was (and how wildly inaccurate the Vice President comparison is) read this.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2...adow-commander

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

That is nonsense. As far as I'm aware, Mike Pence is not directly responsible for directing the USA's military operations in the Middle East and is not directly responsible for the killing of hundreds of American and British soldiers. Neither, as far as I'm aware, has he directed attacks against foreign embassies or commanded the blowing up of a Saudi oil field.

The idea that this guy was just some politician is utterly ludicrous. He was described as "the single most powerful operative in the Middle East today" by the CIA and is a direct combatant against US personnel and interests. His killing was wholly justified.

---

He's been described as the second most powerful man in Iran. If you don't like the VP comparison how about the Secretary for Defence? Or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It was an assassination of the senior member of their establishment/military who is not a member of a recognised terrorist organisation, has not been charged with anything by any credible body etc etc.

You're being disingenuous and you know it. And you've avoided the two main points. 1) if this does result in a significant escalation including instability and violence will you really argue that one man's death was worth this? One man who can easily be replaced, possibly with someone worse? And 2) do you really think Iran is more likely to be less hostile, less violent because of this?

I think you know the answer to those two questions and are ignoring them so that you can revel in his death. Which strikes me as short term thinking. This was Trump at his worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

He's been described as the second most powerful man in Iran. If you don't like the VP comparison how about the Secretary for Defence? Or the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? It was an assassination of the senior member of their establishment/military who is not a member of a recognised terrorist organisation, has not been charged with anything by any credible body etc etc.

You're being disingenuous and you know it. And you've avoided the two main points. 1) if this does result in a significant escalation including instability and violence will you really argue that one man's death was worth this? One man who can easily be replaced, possibly with someone worse? And 2) do you really think Iran is more likely to be less hostile, less violent because of this?

I think you know the answer to those two questions and are ignoring them so that you can revel in his death. Which strikes me as short term thinking. This was Trump at his worst.

---

He was an enemy combatant who clearly considered himself at war with the US and its allies and operated accordingly. He had been allowed to live this long, but clearly an attack on a US Embassy had to be answered for and there was no more effective means of doing so than to kill the man who commanded it (they actually wrote their allegiance to him on the embassy walls, ffs!).

As for 'What if it makes things worse?' Well what if doing nothing emboldened them to undertake even more ambitious and bloody attacks on the US and its allies? And, since we're doing unknowables, what if it makes things better by getting Iran to wind its fúcking neck in and stop killing people? And yes, I do think the latter scenario is extremely likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

He was an enemy combatant who clearly considered himself at war with the US and its allies and operated accordingly. He had been allowed to live this long, but clearly an attack on a US Embassy had to be answered for and there was no more effective means of doing so than to kill the man who commanded it (they actually wrote their allegiance to him on the embassy walls, ffs!).

As for 'What if it makes things worse?' Well what if doing nothing emboldened them to undertake even more ambitious and bloody attacks on the US and its allies? And, since we're doing unknowables, what if it makes things better by getting Iran to wind its fúcking neck in and stop killing people? And yes, I do think the latter scenario is extremely likely.

---

He was not an enemy combatant - he was a general in the military of a country which is not at war with the United States. Regardless of what they thought of him and his actions, that has to be respected.

We could play what if scenarios all day and not really get anywhere. My main point is that it is far too early to be considering this a success, it could turn out very badly for everyone and one Iranian general is not worth that risk. Past history suggests strongly that Iran is not going to buckle because of this, quite the opposite. Sanctions are having their impact, an impact which may have just been undone by assassinating someone.

Madness imo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

He was not an enemy combatant - he was a general in the military of a country which is not at war with the United States. Regardless of what they thought of him and his actions, that has to be respected.

We could play what if scenarios all day and not really get anywhere. My main point is that it is far too early to be considering this a success, it could turn out very badly for everyone and one Iranian general is not worth that risk. Past history suggests strongly that Iran is not going to buckle because of this, quite the opposite. Sanctions are having their impact, an impact which may have just been undone by assassinating someone.

Madness imo.

---

He was general in the Iranian military who was in a foreign country conducting military operations. He'd just come back from Lebanon, where he was also conducting military operations. So tell me this: why was it OK for him to conduct these operations outside his home country and against the interests and allies of the US, but not for the US to act against him?

Killing him was a way for the US to make emphatically clear that it would not continue to tolerate Iran's (and specifically Suleimani's) actions against it. To show weakness in the face of such provocations would have been disastrous. Iran now knows it cannot act against the US with impunity and that Trump isn't bluffing. That will temper its behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

He was general in the Iranian military who was in a foreign country conducting military operations. He'd just come back from Lebanon, where he was also conducting military operations. So tell me this: why was it OK for him to conduct these operations outside his home country and against the interests and allies of the US, but not for the US to act against him?

Killing him was a way for the US to make emphatically clear that it would not continue to tolerate Iran's (and specifically Suleimani's) actions against it. To show weakness in the face of such provocations would have been disastrous. Iran now knows it cannot act against the US with impunity and that Trump isn't bluffing. That will temper its behaviour.

---

You honestly think that the Americans (or anyone else) can positively influence a countries actions by assassinating members of their military?

Naive is the nicest word I can think of for that view.

And he's been in this role for years, why now? And what next? Russian generals? Putin hasn't been playing ball recently, let's teach them a lesson as well.

It's insanely stupid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WES

You honestly think that the Americans (or anyone else) can positively influence a countries actions by assassinating members of their military?

Naive is the nicest word I can think of for that view.

And he's been in this role for years, why now? And what next? Russian generals? Putin hasn't been playing ball recently, let's teach them a lesson as well.

It's insanely stupid.

---

Yes, I do. Particularly when that general is the prime mover behind most of that country's offensive operations.

I don't think you grasp just what a big player this guy was. He was not just some general. He was Iran's foreign policy kingpin and was considered virtually invincible. In a single blow, the US has just neatly decapitated Iran's foreign military operations.

As for the Putin comparison, Russia's forces are not engaged in warfare (covert or overt) against the US. Iran's are. Russia has not violated a US Embassy or killed US personnel. Iran has. Both those things made this guy a legitimate target.

Well, not anymore anyway. Not since Khasham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Burney

Russia's forces are not engaged in warfare (covert or overt) against the US.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redgunamo

Well, not anymore anyway. Not since Khasham.

---

Ah, there you are! I take it you approve of the Donald's work in this instance?

Absolutely.

The man is quite good at this game. I know because I'm quite good at this game.

[QUOTES=Burney;4254896]Ah, there you are! I take it you approve of the Donald's work in this instance?[/QUOTE]