Trump ordered US drone strike that killed Iran general Qassem Suleimani

Trump has shown a lot of restraint with regard to Iran. He just told them not to kill any American civilians. An American civilian contractor was killed. That was all the reason Trump needed, although there were many other legitimate reasons to take out the general. Trump hit back hard. Trump has a different attitude about use of force than the previous administration. He is neither an appeaser nor an apologist.

His campaign promise was that use of the military, if needed, was to "Go in, kill the enemy quickly, and get out." I am doubtful about the "get out" part, but we'll see.

 

[

That quote (accurate or not) doesn't change the facts about General Soleimani's role and portfolio, which didn't include domestic security.

 

This attack was an aggressive response to the naval maneuvers Iran had with China and Russia around a week ago. Trump is following Netanyahu's policy of not showing weakness or else Iran will attack. (As if Russia isn't able to control Iran). Netanyahu's policy of not showing weakness has faltered continuously, otherwise Israel would have peace with its neighbors - which it doesn't. As the saying goes; 'one should judge the tree by the fruit it bears'.

As for those who have forgotten:

 

so you are saying there was direct evidence that this general killed an American and ordered it? Please show me the link. Because what I know about generals one guy dying is a failure especially a civilian. A battle hardened general won’t even waist his time unless it was a complete successful message. Now military generals are awakened not just hardliners but all of them.

 

How do two killings amount to a policy?

 

WITH China and Russia. But what are our allies saying. Nothing because they have nothing to say they are all shocked and weighing their options.

 

What's your opinion of Iran's domestic security? They do a good job? Is that the proper way to keep your people in line?

 

I guess calling Soloemani a terrorist is Washington's latest addition to its New Orwellian Dictionary:

Terrorist = One who fights terrorists.

 

It's a lot better than ending up like Syria - which is exactly what Washington wants.

 

What are our allies saying? Nothing, they're just pulling their troops out of Iraq - and that says a lot.

 

Really? How do you think the rest of the world would react to the U.S. using nuclear weapons in response to Iran sinking a couple of boats in the Gulf? How would Americans react?

 

Propaganda.

 

And no nukes are not an option at all. Iran has allies and if you mess with their money and resources god help us. Not only that Iran isn’t an island the fallout will affect our allies and again god help us that we will be held account

 

The situation didn't happen overnight. Iran was escalating aggression weeks ahead of the general's death. It was the civilian's death which "tripped the trigger" to authorize killing Soleimani.

"Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley told a small group of reporters on Friday that within the last 90 days Kata'ib Hezbollah, aka KH, an Iranian-backed militia, organized a sophisticated campaign against U.S. and coalition forces that increased in intensity, culminating with the Dec. 27 attack on the Iraqi base near Kirkuk that killed a U.S. civilian contractor and wounded several U.S. and Iraqi forces.

It was "designed and intended to kill, and [Soleimani] approved it," Milley said. "I know that 100 percent.""

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/sol...litary-base-killed-american/story?id=68056126

 

Unlike a lot of other things being said here, this may be true. Except the word 'civilian' isn't really all that apt in describing a civilian contractor working for the military. The 'civilian' part of the description only refers to his employment relationship. Otherwise, he was killed while working with and alongside US military forces who were the target of the attack (and several of whom were injured). And those US forces should not be in Iraq. They have been involved in mischief against Iran and Iranian backed forces in Iraq, including in attacks against them over the past several months.

 

Again they came to the table and negotiated with us during the last administration. The ones with good sense said hey let’s do it against the advice of those who could never trust America. But they did they thought because America elected a black president maybe we can. We walked away and destroyed any opportunity of further diplomacy and for what? After the period of time they agreed to with inspections we had every opportunity to prepare strategically in those years to counter just in case. New technology new allies but now it war with no umbrella to cover ourselves or our allies. Trump boasted they haven’t engaged in war in years. That just means we had influence but now we forced their hands and forced them to make moves immediately around the world. I really don’t want to see what they are capable of merely just because we are more capable or not.

 

Don't blame @The Scotsman. You forgot to hand out decoder rings.

 

Your analysis would be more reassuring if you had evidence that his replacement 'will save lives'. This is what happens when a military genius with dodgy feet makes decisions without listening to his inferior military, strategic and political advisers who between them must have had a inkling of the fall out. When was it that Trump said he would surround himself only with the 'very best' ?. The "Yes men" surrounding Trump may be subservient but their not stupid. I've noticed Pompeo is careful to give all credit to Trump. That old adage 'Give him enough rope' comes to mind. What Trumps aides have failed to do is provide him with the uncomplicated notion that in assassinating this guy all the years of intelligence gathering by USA, Canada, UK and Australia in building up a in depth profile of this man ceases to have any value.
Better the devil you know.
Can

 

We gave money to North Korea? When?

 

my advice is to the UN. Give them a seat at the table all they ever wanted was respect and to be taken seriously. Just like a child that lashes out because you tell them they are nothing and never will be nothing. Try respect and the funding to terrorist would become less and less.

 

Really?. Check out the labour party manifesto then see how it matches very closely the Democrats proposals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/21/world/europe/corbyn-labour-manifesto.html
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...immigration-healthcare-where-candidates-stand

 

Why are you interfering in Lebanon? You have no right to stick your nose in Lebanon.

Yet you think it's okay for Iran to do just that.

You aren't going to kick America out of the Middle East. Get over it.

 

I agree, an oppressive dictatorship that keeps the people in line with with brutally-violent repression is a much better situation for Muslim countries than the chaos of trying to force upon them the democracy that they can't handle, and don't want.

 

You live on Mars?

 

Obviously.