War is a ***** and we've been at war with their radical leadership since the 70s. Killing radical terrorists is nothing but a positive in the long run. Sure, some people will scream for retaliation but those are the same people who wouldn't hesitate to cut an Americans head off. No, the death of a radical is absolutely no loss to this world.
So why did Reagan do the Iran Contra Affair?
If you want to discuss something else, by all means go find or start that topic.
The Deterrent targeting of Soleimani was justified, legally and strategically.
“If a war be made by invasion of a foreign nation, the President is not only authorized but bound to resist force by force. He does not initiate the war, but is bound to accept the challenge without waiting for any special legislative authority.”
US Supreme Court in the Civil War-era
Prize Cases more than 150 years ago. It has been the law of the United States as long as there has been a United States. It reflects the venerable law of nations, derived from natural law and long preexisting our republic.
When there are forcible threats to the United States, the president has not merely the power but the obligation to repel them. That is why there is an Office of the President. The Framers grasped, in a time of dire peril to the nation, that national security cannot be achieved by committee. A single chief executive, the president, was necessary to marshal the might of the nation with dispatch when America was under siege.
The Terrorist Iranian Commander, Soleimani was taken out near the airport in Baghdad,
along with Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, the deputy chief of the Iranian-backed Popular Mobilization Forces (PMF) in Iraq. The PMF make up one of several networks that Soleimani and the mullahs forged on the model of Hezbollah, their longtime terrorist faction in Lebanon — indeed, the outfit al-Muhandis directly led is known as the Hezbollah Brigades, or Kata’ib Hezbollah.
Targeting Soleimani: Trump was justified, legally and strategically
Good Fortune Follows The Bold