Related Posts
Wordle 515 5/6
⬜⬜🟨⬜🟨
⬜🟨🟨⬜⬜
⬜🟨🟨🟨🟨
🟨🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
Does Barclays give joining bonus???
Conversation Starter
Which office getting inaugurated on August 15?
Conversation Starter
Thoughts on new M3? 😍😍
Additional Posts in Politics
Pro
Chief
Chief
538 Analytics VS. RCP Avg?
Chief
Rising Star
Conversation Starter
Visual Storyteller
Rising Star
Chief
New to Fishbowl?
Download the Fishbowl app to
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
unlock all discussions on Fishbowl.
Illegally? No. Without regard for our larger foreign policy? Perhaps, but he doesn’t seem to have a clear foreign policy. Without the input of those who are responsible for input? Yes, but again: what else is new?
My frustration with all of us is this ennui about his behaviors. On this rare occasion, I am giving him the benefit of the doubt. This pass is not because I trust him but simply because Soliemani had to die sometime and probably at our hands. Excellent analysis (pro and con) in NYT. Worth reading all of the op-eds and articles.
But let’s not kid ourselves. If it had been done to us, we would consider it casus belli.
I cannot think of a similar situation. To my knowledge, the US does not skulk around with secret insurgency forces, we bust down the front door. If we did, the person leading it would be fair game.
Suleimani was a state actor. Meaning you cannot kill him without a declaration of war or in self defense.
Unless the Trump administration produces credible evidence that he indeed was on his way to kill americans then the strike was illegal.
Obama droned thousands of people. Hillary even wanted to drone Wikileaks founder. Did people on the left protest?
EY2 can count to two. Impressive.
If Iran killed the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in response, would you view that as a hostile but legal act?
There are a variety of treaties that the US is a party to. Not sure whether any would address this.
Wasn’t the attack on the embassy evidence enough? No not successful but if security broke down the protestors weren’t there to chat.
Not to mention the scores of American soldiers which were killed by forces he commanded in Iraq over the past 15 years.
Of course he had future plans to kill Americans - watch any of his speeches. I guess we can get lost in an argument on what “imminent” means but I think that’s ridiculous.
For sake of argument, let’s say imminent means within the next 30 days. For me, him heading into his office on Monday would include planning another attack in Iraq or Syria - check.
... Or have a global organization that sets some basic laws giving individual countries autonomy to act as long as it’s within certain agreed constraints. You know, like the society of laws we live in, but for countries instead of individuals.
The US helped found that after 1945. It’s called the United Nations.
And “State actors” has no meaning in countries like Iran. He was not governed by the President or the Consultative Assembly. Was a direct report to the Supreme Leader and had effectively unilateral purview over an armed force that operated in multiple countries. Doesn’t seem at all different from OBL or al-Baghdadi to me.
The latter is what started the last Iraq war, E1. Noting of course that the “proof” there was a lie.
The former is what happens in a world of laws. The US just has the most powerful military and makes laws unto itself. If we had the firepower of, say, Canada, we wouldn’t act unilaterally this way.
If this leads to war with Iran will republicans be ok with this? I’m not for a second going to act like he was a good person, very much the opposite. But I seem to remember a huge part of trumps campaign/policy/support was not more wars/bringing the troops home. Maybe I’m wrong.
Trump spoke out both sides of his mouth. No more wars in the middle east and he was also going to bomb the whole place up and take the oil.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=esHbIW2mVJg
The kill happened in Iraq so it's a grey zone in which the executive branch will get the benefit of the doubt.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ILLZqymJRZI
Let’s just say for a minute that going to the UN wouldn’t destroy chances of finding him again in future upon “approval”.
Russia would absolutely 100% veto (as would likely France). So do we not take action bc Russia said no?
On the positive side of that, guess then the lefts Trump/Russia collusion argument would improve
EY1, is this a joke question?