Israel: US Asks Iran to Not Sink an American Carrier, “Just Kill Some Troops Instead”

Your comment in the post I replied to included ad hom.

This board does't have any principle of exclusive right of response. And, I've been discussing the same issues.

I stand behind what I've posted to you

 

If you want to prove that we broke the law by taking out a terrorist go ahead.

 

Obtuse ?! .. das ist projection mine Frau ?? - secret code you can learn in chess language.

OK .. the Iranians can kill our people in high places - easily. You are so off the Farm -and you don't even know it.

Do you have any idea how easy it is to kill someone - of high status - having the resources of a Nation State at your disposal - and a rather large one in context.

Shall we count the 50 ways to leave your lover ? - never mind politicians - what about the financiers .. the real holders of power ... what if they start getting targeted . You are not on the page here. Some world where Iran can not take out near whomever they want - sans those with uber security - which is a relative few.

How about forms of terrorism that nation states could engage in .. but don't... because of the millennial covenant against these things.
care to list a few.. biological terrorism - stuff like that - into a cities water supply .. ouch.

Give your head a shake - not a good road .. wrong page.

Now when you take the bigger picture - you are not even in the same book. This covenant - that you are so wont to break -applies to relations between all nations.. it is not just about Iran. If you think Iran could do some dirty deeds .. what about Russia/China/India/Pakistan .. and so on.

A Saud oil site defended with the Patriot System - got hit by Iranian missile and drone technology - a heck of a long way away. Never mind what these other nations can do.. .. and this technology is becoming more generally available to any nation with cash.

You wail and whine about - "Iran is supporting Hezbollah" - part of the liberate Palestine movement - and yes its true - small arms stuff -but also humanitarian aid.

Not once has Iran been targeted with anything more sophisticated than a suped up firework - "rockets". If Iran really wanted to start a war with Israel - it would start giving Hezbollah the good stuff - and they would use it.

Or hey - in your no rules world - perhaps Russia should just arm the Palestinians ... the way that we armed Israel.

or .. how about Russia arm the Palestinians - the way that we armed Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria.

If I can suggest another page - from a different novel - how about we try and maintain some civility - starting with upholding some ancient and well studied codes of ethics.

Trump is now well aware of these threats .. when he sits across from our adversaries - and they discuss - and it so happens that the gal across the table says - "do you really want to go there" - you know what line is being crossed.

You clearly don't.

 

I would guess the legality would involve our rights of action in Iraq, and the issues of assassinating a high government official on a diplomatic mission.

 

LOL...So you want me to go find the text of the covenant that YOU think that we have broken. That makes sense to you? Look, I thought that you had a point that you were trying to make. If you dont care to make it, just move on. If you do, provide that text, and lets get into the weeds. I honestly dont care either way. You are the one humping my leg. Not the other way around.

What diplomat?

Except for the one where they insist that Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission, despite the fact that he is a military general and expressly NOT a diplomat.

Iraq was the function of a "one off action"? Hmmm. Your rationale is ummm, errrrr......nonsensi.....errr....interesting.

But we are in a state of conflict. Which if the dictionary is to be believed, makes my assertion 100% correct, and yours to be demonstrably wrong.


Look....I realize that you feel obligated to continue responding, but lets face it, this is not turning out well for you. STAY DOWN ROCK!

 

This sounds like a rant. If I broke you, I'm sorry. I sometimes forget how fragile some people, particularly those with fringe beliefs and ideas, can be.

Be well.

 

So you don't know if it's legal or not.

 

listen to you - tail between legs - desperate to salvage a lost position - go running from the playground name calling - to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial - projecting your failings onto others

get well !

 

The only thing that I have done is to ask you to actually provide a link and point to whatever text that you are asserting that we have breached within the agreement that you are referencing. It is not even a situation where I am denying that some text exists governing conduct. My request is more than reasonable, because how can we have an intelligent discussion about legalese without having the text of the legalese to which you are referring? I will provide you with SOME of the claims that you have made that require more specifics in order to be discussed.

"In reality - do we keep our covenants with the world ? Have not being doing a good job if it lately - Russia - China - and many other nations of the world one would think would outrank us - are doing far better - at keeping the code - that we have all agreed to."

"I did not create those Justifications - nor sign off on them - but the US did in conjunction with others."

"We are signatories to certain codes of conduct - in particular around war in this case. . justifications given are numerous"

"We are talking about terrorism/support for terrorism - meddling in the affairs of other nations - with respect to the international agreements we have signed."

When you look at the above statements by you, just provide the friggen link and what passages you feel we have violated. This isnt a trick. Its friggen debate 101. Why are you making such a big deal about this. yeesh. The above 3 can probably be covered by the same link and mostly the same passages. If you want to argue the points of an agreement, it is nonsensical to think that you do not have to produce the agreement and the parts that you think are violated.

Now the mac daddy from you that I REALLY am interested in seeing......

"You think that nations violating the millennia old covenant against assassinating each others leaders should be scrapped"

I cannot wait to see this covenent that covers everything from the early Roman Empire, Attila the Hun, The Crusades all the way to the overthrowing of our embassy in Baghdad a month or so back.

-You want me to state "how this relates to the overall discussion"? Well, these are all references that you have made and it related to the overall discussion because the best way to further this discussion is for us both to be looking at the specifics of the covenants to which you are asserting that we have violated.

 

You stand behind what you have posted? Good for you. I find this conversation boring. If all that you desire is to bicker, please move on. This is silly.

 

What part of "We are signatories to certain codes of conduct" - did you not understand.

You asked for example - I gave you examples - such as the UN security council charter that we signed.

Not complicated - for most

 

So you had no intention of....... never mind? What a shock.

I have made myself MORE THAN CLEAR. PROVIDE THE TEXT WITHIN THAT LINK SO THAT WE CAN DISCUSS. That is what I have asked you from the beginning. For crying out loud, you are asserting that we have violated agreements. Provide the agreement and point to what section or statement where you are alleging that we violated.

You are intelligent enough to understand that making claims, being called on those claims and then not being able to produce them does not make you look good in a debate, and it most certainly does not demonstrate that your point is correct. If you are OK with that, then so am I. Apparently we are done here. I am OK with that too.

 

Violation of what agreements .. this is what you quoted from me

you were claiming there was no code of conduct. I proved you wrong by citing codes of conduct we are signatories to .. such as the UN charter.

Arming the terrorist proxy army in Syria was a violation of codes to which we are signatories. Would you like more examples ?

 

He was a high governmnet official on a diplomatic mission.

Our asassination was a one-off action in that it didn't have anything to do with a strategy or plan. And, Trump didn't try to claim that it was.

We are not at war with Iran. Period. There is no question about that.

 

Iraq said it was not.

And, it's their country.

 

This is weird logic.

You're bored, so I should move?

You don't have to respond to my posts.

 

At no point have I been talking about Syria, but even if we pretend like that was a conversation I was having or disputing....WHAT friggen code? Just saying the UN Charter is not saying what code in the UN charter was violated. It would be equally stupid if I told you that you were violating the Constitution, and when asked for proof, I provided you a link to the Constitution without saying what part you violated.



Whatever. You are not going to support your claim with actual specifics. I get it.

This is stupid. At some point one needs to stop arguing with the village idiot because no one will be able to tell you apart. Lets agree to move on.

 

By high government official, you mean a military General that among other things is directly responsible and credited with the deaths of over 600 American soldiers AND the overrunning of our embassy just a week or two prior on top of shooting down our drone within the past year. Yeah...a great diplomat indeed! Sounds like this guy was likely your hero. Sorry for your loss.

Nobody has said that we are at war with Iran. You have a firm grip on the obvious.....congrats!

 

My position is that Soleimani was a terrorist who was killed appropriately by the US. Hardly a lost position; it seems to be the consensus except for a few fringe types who view him as a freedom fighter.

 

I must have missed the Iraqi courts weighing in on the issue.

 

Your position with respect to terrorism is not lost. That Soleimani acted as a freedom fighter in Syria over much of the last decade is demonstrable fact. Perhaps he also did some terrorist acts - you just have not managed to come up with any. .

Aside from the obvious appeal to popularity fallacy - you have failed to come up with any acts of Terrorism committed by Soleimani - but - even if you did - these pale in comparison to acts committed by some of our leaders - which is the central point that you seem desperate to avoid.

If killing of Soleimani was appropriate for his acts of terrorism - then to be consistent - you must also support killing of numerous of our leaders for their acts of terrorism.

You seem completely oblivious to the consequences of your position.

 

He was second only to the Ayatollah in Iran and was the right had man of the Ayatollah.

I keep hearing that exceptions can be made because we are "warring" - whatever the hell THAT means. So, I wanted to be clear about that.

 

Hassan Rousani, the President and head of the "diplomatic" wing of their government, may take exception with your characterization.

Solemaini is... err... was therefore arguably "Second", and inarguably a military General. A general that directs and assists rogue terrorist groups throughout the Middle East. A general that was in charge of Iran's military when it supplied sophisticated IED's that are widely credited with killing over 600 of our soldiers, and a General in charge when our embassy was just over run. I wanted to be clear about that. A diplomat indeed! (sarcasm)

It sounds like this guy was likely your hero. I am truly sorry for your loss.

 

LOL!!!

 

You seem to think that I disagree that this guy was a serious threat.

I have repeatedly refuted that.

As I have said, my concerns have more to do with the FACT that we continue to have no strategy or plan that is guiding actions such as this assassination. And, while we make claims about how we believe in the rule of la,w, representational government, humanitarian objectives, etc., and even use how good we are as justification for our actions, I don't see us presenting that as more than words in that area of the world.