• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander

Fred C Dobbs said:
You must have received a lot of Participation ribbons in school but that's not the way it works here.
Click to expand...

I know how it works, thanks.

DelightfulNastyAcornbarnacle-small.gif
 
Mithros said:
Soleimani is dead because our government can't think even a few seconds into the future.

What did we actually gain? Lets put this in sports terms. The key is value over replacement. Iran has a professional military. Soleimani will be replaced and we have no reason to suspect that his replacement will degrade Iranian capabilities in any way. Say Mattis had been killed by an IED in Iraq. Would that have hurt the overall US war effort or would it have galvanized US public support for the war and increased US presence?

So we gained nothing. What did we lose? What we wanted was to push back against Iran because of their support for groups that attacked our embassy. But this is like trying to put out a grease fire with water. Its far to provocative. It does not smother tensions. Iran has to retaliate. Tensions now have to escalate.

Where does Iran attack us next? Does Iran have nuclear weapons? If not they're going to be making a full out push to get them. And what of other countries? The lesson we're broadcasting to the world is that you're only safe from the US if you have nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

So you prefer us to have let them kill the Americans they were planning to kill? Is that really your stance? Thats imbecile level.
 
Dans La Lune said:
The difference between us is that I’m morally consistent. You wax and wane your morals depending on the whims of the Republican agenda. I have a depth of knowledge and you think history begins and ends whenever America is wronged. Jesus would disapprove.
Click to expand...

Nice avatar. Now pull that plank out of your eye.
 
Re: Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander immediately

Jredbaron96 said:
Would the Soviet Union have been justified assassinating the Director of the CIA due to it's conduct of Operation Cyclone?
Click to expand...

Before answering that question, several preliminary points need to be noted.

First, the comparison isn't apt. The Director of the CIA was not in Afghanistan, nor in the military, nor the military commander of the mujahedeen forces. Nor did he initiate or direct attacks on Soviet military forces. His position was that of a civilian out-of-the battle zone, in the chain of providing logistics.

Second, the comparison should be made more exact: If an American general in Afghanistan, who commanded insurgent military operations, were in the zone of conflict when a retaliatory strike was conducted by the Soviets, would the Soviets be "in the right" to do so with the general among the targets selected. The answer is yes.

Third, there is a difference between "just conduct of war" and "a just war". Just conduct has always included targeting of military command structures, especially in the zone of conflict. Whether or not striking civilian leaders not in the chain of command in their home country is "just conduct" may be a different matter, although that may be debatable.
 
AlphaOmega said:
So you prefer us to have let them kill the Americans they were planning to kill? Is that really your stance? Thats imbecile level.
Click to expand...
How did killing Soleimani prevent anything? He's a general in an actual military. Anything he was planning doesn't just die with him.

And FYI, it's imbecilic to assume that the only options were to do something stupid or nothing at all.
 
Does anyone know how the killing of journalist Khashoggi by a US ally in Turkey differs from the killing by an Americans of an Iranian citizen in Iraq? And if he was an “enemy” and a “bastard,” it turns out that Russia, too, can now officially kill the ukrainian nazis and other scam in the territories of other countries?
 
Mithros said:
How did killing Soleimani prevent anything? He's a general in an actual military. Anything he was planning doesn't just die with him.

And FYI, it's imbecilic to assume that the only options were to do something stupid or nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Stupid? We killed the guy who was planning to kill Americans. If we find out there is a replacement planningbto kill Americans we will kill him to and anyone in his presence. I'd think twice about being that guy if you want to see next year. Yes our option would be to do nothing while more Americans are killed. Not this President. It's about time these animals learn to be civil otherwise their option is removal from the planet.
 
Re: Iraqi TV Reports Strike Kills Powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Commander immediately

maxparrish said:
Before answering that question, several preliminary points need to be noted.

First, the comparison isn't apt. The Director of the CIA was not in Afghanistan, nor in the military, nor the military commander of the mujahedeen forces. Nor did he initiate or direct attacks on Soviet military forces. His position was that of a civilian out-of-the battle zone, in the chain of providing logistics.
Click to expand...

There is no record of General Suleimani directly leading attacks on US military forces, rather his position was one of direct similarity; coordinating logistics and operations. Others in this thread have argued that General Suleimani was not a real military figure, I would argue this is inaccurate, and even thought the director of the CIA is indeed a civilian, he is very much a government official, just as General Suleimani was. Finally, I find the notion of in theater placement to be of questionable discretion. Some of the most heinous acts of inhumanity were ordered in the comfort of a climate controlled office, and while I do not consider Operation Cyclone (or indeed, even General Suleimani actions, despicable as they might be) to fall within the vein of "the most heinous acts of inhumanity".

Second, the comparison should be made more exact: If an American general in Afghanistan, who commanded insurgent military operations, were in the zone of conflict when a retaliatory strike was conducted by the Soviets, would the Soviets be "in the right" to do so with the general among the targets selected. The answer is yes.
Click to expand...

Why the qualifier of insurgency military operations?

Third, there is a difference between "just conduct of war" and "a just war". Just conduct has always included targeting of military command structures, especially in the zone of conflict. Whether or not striking civilian leaders not in the chain of command in their home country is "just conduct" may be a different matter, although that may be debatable.
Click to expand...

When said civilian is involved in the coordination and distribution of lethal military aid, I would not consider his involvement outside the "just conduct of war".
 
POTUS once again shows us what a panty waste Obama was. I support the termination of the military leader with American blood on his hands. Once Iran screws up again we turn their homeland to glass

-VySky
 
AlphaOmega said:
was that a yes or no? You either donor don't. I don't fall for the its in the link dodge. Answer my question or move on.
Click to expand...

Not a big reader, huh? I’m shocked. I’m telling you that the argument you’re using here was used to justify the Iraq invasion. Get it now?
 
AlphaOmega said:
Stupid? We killed the guy who was planning to kill Americans. If we find out there is a replacement planningbto kill Americans we will kill him to and anyone in his presence. I'd think twice about being that guy if you want to see next year. Yes our option would be to do nothing while more Americans are killed. Not this President. It's about time these animals learn to be civil otherwise their option is removal from the planet.
Click to expand...
The world is slightly more complicated than 1980's cartoon villains would have you believe.
 
Mithros said:
The world is slightly more complicated than 1980's cartoon villains.
Click to expand...

Nonsense! We just need to keep killing the bad guys and eventually they'll lose!

After all, the only reason there are bad guys is because there is evil in this world and they hate our freedom!
 
VySky said:
POTUS once again shows us what a panty waste Obama was. I support the termination of the military leader with American blood on his hands. Once Iran screws up again we turn their homeland to glass

-VySky
Click to expand...

^^^

I would hate being right so often, but I’d fear the self-loathing that would result. Republicans are monsters.
 
Fred C Dobbs said:
Good theory but others can easily recognize when Trump is joking, when he's serious, and when it matters.
Click to expand...

I live in NY, known about Trump for over 30+ years.

He has no sense of humor, and when he lies about something 50 times, like the Veterans Choice legislation, that's not a joke. That's a sickness.
 
Dans La Lune said:
^^^

I would hate being right so often, but I’d fear the self-loathing that would result. Republicans are monsters.
Click to expand...

Actually, Quds Force, which has committed numerous terrorist attacks over its history, are the monsters.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
So are a lot of people.

Killing him isn't the problem, the repercussions are.
Click to expand...
So we should creep around the way mice do in the present of house cats when they incinerate our embassies overseas? That doesn't always work out so well. Back in November 1979 Iranian "students" seized the U.S. embassy in Teheran, holiding over 40 Americans hostage. The Carter Administration relied upon "quiet diplomacy" to obtain their release. This was successful, over one year and two months later. As the November 9, 1979 New York Times reported (link):

New York Times said:
A White House official said only "quiet and firm diplomacy" was being pursued and no consideration was being given to military action to free the hostages. It was learned that Pope John Paul II had been asked to help and that consultations were going on at the United Nations. Despite reports from Iran that appeared discouraging, American officials were still pinning their hopes on the possibility that the P.L.O., with which the United States has avoided official dealings, might be able to persuade Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Iranian ruler, to order the release of the hostages.
Click to expand...
By contrast, after the Iranian government, led by Qasem Soleimani incinerated the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, our President speedily had him removed, with extreme prejudice. What a difference 40 years, almost to the day makes.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
Probably the bread and butter of Iranian covert ops, targeted killings and bombings, against American civilians and soldiers.
Click to expand...

Which the Iranians have been doing for years and were likely to keep doing even without the death of their Skorzeny.

The only thing this really changes is that it gives those in Europe and Canada an excuse to justify the attacks and claim the US had it coming.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Which the Iranians have been doing for years and were likely to keep doing even without the death of their Skorzeny.

The only thing this really changes is that it gives those in Europe and Canada an excuse to justify the attacks and claim the US had it coming.
Click to expand...

Assassinating an extremely popular foreign figure is a major escalation who's repercussions will likely be felt for years to come. This is not a trivial matter.
 
JBG said:
That doesn't always work out so well. Back in November 1979 Iranian "students" seized the U.S. embassy in Teheran, holiding over 40 Americans hostage. The Carter Administration relied upon "quiet diplomacy" to obtain their release. This was successful, over one year and two months later. As the November 9, 1979 New York Times reported
Click to expand...

We pursued a diplomatic course of action because over military reprisal was beyond the capability of the US Armed Forces at the time. The 70s were a low point in US readiness.


By contrast, after the Iranian government, led by Qasem Soleimani incinerated the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, our President speedily had him removed, with extreme prejudice. What a difference 40 years, almost to the day makes.
Click to expand...

And who's repercussions will be felt for years to come.
 
Dans La Lune said:
Not a big reader, huh? I’m shocked. I’m telling you that the argument you’re using here was used to justify the Iraq invasion. Get it now?
Click to expand...
Nonyou don't get it. I'm not reading anything until you answer my yes or no. Either answer it or no need to quote me further.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom