If it's good or the goose ...

[Circe]

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

This is a good thread topic. I can remember when Congress publicly promised as U.S. policy never to assassinate leaders again -- because of Kennedy's assassination. We had been doing a lot of that, or trying to. And it is thought Castro got mad and offed JFK. I believe it, too.

I guess I'll go up and vote for -- it's okay. Because this sort of thing is one of our strengths. The drones, the satellites, the pinpoint aiming of Cruise missiles, in one window and out the other --- we can do this, they probably can't.

Okay, I said, probably. Presidents would have to think about what happened to JFK.

Russia has been doing this with internal enemies, going after them in London and elsewhere.

It is more defensible than heavy city bombing...… and maybe more persuasive.

 

[jc456]

Soleimani was a combatant ...

So, more of the 'war on terror' bullshit? Everybody's a combatant and the theater of war is everywhere. Unending, ubiquitous war. I'll pass.

Killing Soleimani does not mean an unending, ubiquitous war is obviously certain. THAT it bullshit.

The war on terror logic is what implies unending, ubiquitous war.

Where's the UN in stopping the terrorists? Especially the state run ones like Iran who are a part of the UN? Why aren't they thrown out?

 

[Olde Europe]

If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception.

It would appear, Iran doesn't give a rat's posterior on the "exception" you have to take:

The Iranian Parliament approved a bill Tuesday designating the entire U.S. military and Pentagon terrorist organizations after the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.​

And it's perfectly unclear why they should.

 

[jc456]

If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception.

It would appear, Iran doesn't give a rat's posterior on the "exception" you have to take:

The Iranian Parliament approved a bill Tuesday designating the entire U.S. military and Pentagon terrorist organizations after the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.​

And it's perfectly unclear why they should.

so? what are they going to do about it? They would have to fight outside their country in another country. not smart at all. let's meet the mice and mice.

 

[Ken Mac]

If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception.

It would appear, Iran doesn't give a rat's posterior on the "exception" you have to take:

The Iranian Parliament approved a bill Tuesday designating the entire U.S. military and Pentagon terrorist organizations after the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.​

And it's perfectly unclear why they should.

*shrug*

Not surprising. They have continually fucked with the US and other countries through terrorist proxies. Should we continue to let them kill innocent people? He was a fucking terrorist actively killing innocent people

 

[Ken Mac]

If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception.

It would appear, Iran doesn't give a rat's posterior on the "exception" you have to take:

The Iranian Parliament approved a bill Tuesday designating the entire U.S. military and Pentagon terrorist organizations after the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.​

And it's perfectly unclear why they should.

so? what are they going to do about it? They would have to fight outside their country in another country. not smart at all. let's meet the mice and mice.

They have already been making attacks outside of their country. They are a state sponsor of terrorism.

 

[Circe]

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

Well, it's a part of war --- a pretty normal part, really. Remember recently when Maduro of Venezuela was reviewing troops and there was an attack by drones dropping bombs? Killed seven soldiers --- didn't get Maduro, though, darn it. I wonder if we did that --- they never did find out.

Some things about war-fighting get X-ed out by treaties (temporarily and limited in time and space) like gas attacks in WWII and hitting cultural targets in WWII, and bioweapons more recently and nukes. Nothing like that is permanent and often the reason they are set aside is the blowback: gas hit both sides, so did bioweapons, and nukes make the territory uninhabitable, and war is often about gaining territory. Assassination was set aside by major powers for awhile, but it has just come into play again: that's what this assassination means, yeah.

Any power gets to decide for themselves what they want to use as weapons --- they always have, always will, and this restraint about not using nukes will NOT last: all weapons are eventually normalized. So now assassination is, again. The Romans had the Praetorian Guard against that; we have the Secret Service. You don't have to support anything -- it's not up to you, or me.

 

[Dragonlady]

If we claim the right to enter other countries and dispose of people we consider criminals, that entitles other nations to do likewise. Would you be ok with that?

This is a good thread topic. I can remember when Congress publicly promised as U.S. policy never to assassinate leaders again -- because of Kennedy's assassination. We had been doing a lot of that, or trying to. And it is thought Castro got mad and offed JFK. I believe it, too.

I guess I'll go up and vote for -- it's okay. Because this sort of thing is one of our strengths. The drones, the satellites, the pinpoint aiming of Cruise missiles, in one window and out the other --- we can do this, they probably can't.

Okay, I said, probably. Presidents would have to think about what happened to JFK.

Russia has been doing this with internal enemies, going after them in London and elsewhere.

It is more defensible than heavy city bombing...… and maybe more persuasive.

So you're fine with the Iranians having put a price on Trump's head, and if he's taken out, it's OK because the Iranians think he's a criminal.

 

[Circe]

It's really Russia taking the lead on assassination as a part of war-fighting, not us. All their poison attacks on internal enemies ---- in London.

 

[Circe]

So you're fine with the Iranians having put a price on Trump's head, and if he's taken out, it's OK because the Iranians think he's a criminal.

Oh, we're already there. The moment we hit that guy, there was a price on Trump's head. But CAN they do it, you know? Our Secret Service protected Obama (the first black president and quite a target) for eight years and Trump for three now --- they're good. I never thought they could protect either, but they did.

Look, it's not a moral issue, IMO. It's war-fighting, that's all, and now assassination is part of that. War is an evolved part of the human genome, that's why we have always, always done it. War changes. We no longer use swords, for instance. Trump decided to assassinate this guy as retaliation for their armed mob attack on the Embassy, and I'm sure he knew they'd come after him; they haven't hit him yet, maybe they won't. I'm sure they've been trying to.

 

[jc456]

If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception.

It would appear, Iran doesn't give a rat's posterior on the "exception" you have to take:

The Iranian Parliament approved a bill Tuesday designating the entire U.S. military and Pentagon terrorist organizations after the killing of Gen. Qasem Soleimani in Iraq.​

And it's perfectly unclear why they should.

*shrug*

Not surprising. They have continually fucked with the US and other countries through terrorist proxies. Should we continue to let them kill innocent people? He was a fucking terrorist actively killing innocent people

but he didn't need to die. remember that, he was supposed to be allowed to continue to kill. It's what the left wanted. they are flipping us off for him being dead. Can you believe that? hly fk, they have flipped their loop!!

 

[jc456]

So you're fine with the Iranians having put a price on Trump's head, and if he's taken out, it's OK because the Iranians think he's a criminal.

Oh, we're already there. The moment we hit that guy, there was a price on Trump's head. But CAN they do it, you know? Our Secret Service protected Obama (the first black president and quite a target) for eight years and Trump for three now --- they're good. I never thought they could protect either, but they did.

Look, it's not a moral issue, IMO. It's war-fighting, that's all, and now assassination is part of that. War is an evolved part of the human genome, that's why we have always, always done it. War changes. We no longer use swords, for instance. Trump decided to assassinate this guy as retaliation for their armed mob attack on the Embassy, and I'm sure he knew they'd come after him; they haven't hit him yet, maybe they won't. I'm sure they've been trying to.

well they have been doing that for centuries before the US existed.

 

[dblack]

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

 

[jc456]

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

naw, you just didn't like that's who he was. hmmmmmmm

 

[dblack]

Seriously? And they can just make that determination for themselves, like we just did?? I could never support that. That's nuts.

Well, it's a part of war --- a pretty normal part, really.

We're not at war with Iran. That's my biggest complaint here. We can't allow a President to order ad hoc killings because he can't convince Congress to declare war.

 

[dblack]

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

naw, you just didn't like that's who he was. hmmmmmmm

???

 

[Ken Mac]

He was on the list of known terrorists of many countries, not just ours. I would estimate that he has terrorized over a dozen countries. You seem to be missing some information.

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

You build a strawman, I build a strawman. *shrug*

My point is are you ok with the asshole to continue killing people? Because that shit wasn't going to stop without termination.

 

[Ken Mac]

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

naw, you just didn't like that's who he was. hmmmmmmm

???

I'm with you on that one brother.

 

[dblack]

So, is this a "yes" - you're ok with other nations doing the same thing we just did? It sort of sounds like you're hedging, but I can't quite tell.

If a nation takes out a known terrorist that has killed many people and is planning for more attacks, I have no problem with it. If you want me to agree that if Iran looks at our military folks as terrorists, then I'll have to take exception. Iran is a known terrorist nation to the US and is on the list of such. I happen to take the side of the US in the acton taken. You, seemingly, do not. *shrug*

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

You build a strawman, I build a strawman. *shrug*

My point is are you ok with the asshole to continue killing people?

Nope. I've said that several times.

Because that shit wasn't going to stop without termination.

Bullshit. Lots of ways to solve any problem. Pretty much every time someone tells you that "xxx" is the only way - they're trying to fuck you.

 

[dblack]

You're right. I don't. I think it was a terrible mistake that will cost us dearly. I hope I'm wrong.

Since I answered your question how about answering one of mine?

Are you ok with that terrorist fuck killing civilians of other nations ON THEIR SOIL through terrorist actions?

Of course not. That's a strawman.

naw, you just didn't like that's who he was. hmmmmmmm

???

I'm with you on that one brother.

I know, right? I sure can't parse gibberish.