Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Shadowferal]

Probably has a lot to do with not trusting them. Information could easily be slipped to screw up these types of things.

To be fair, considering how far-reaching and connected this guy was, I wouldn't have been surprised if the airstrike missed had Iraq been informed.

[caervek]

The attack on the embassy warranted a response, against Iran.

Why?

Seriously, protesters/demonstrators set up outside embassies all over the world in response to perceived injustices on a pretty monthly basis, this isn't magically super special because it's the US embassy. And even if it was the protesters/demonstrators who threw stones at the embassy were Iraqi not Iranian, attacking another country wouldn't be justified in any case.

Does this mean that the next time British demonstrators cause trouble outside the Chinese embassy in London that China should be allowed to use it as an excuse to assassinate a US general in the UK? It's the same ball park.

[Skroe]

This is the biggest issue at the moment, IMO. This is not the first time we've made move in Iraq without giving them a heads up, the previous time being Trumps visit to the troops. We should absolutely have given them the heads up and ideally at least gotten the all-clear from them.

George W Bush and Barack Obama only played lip service to Iraqi sovereignty. That Trump doesn’t bother is little surprise. Just think how many times the US has increased and decreased forces in Iraq since 2010. You think we’ve ever asked them? You think they ever bothered passing a new Status of Forces agreement like the one that expired in 2010? No we just did it. We dropped the pretense.


This is the ongoing failure of the US enterprise in Iraq. A state so weak it can’t really be called a state. That the US didn’t ask in this case really is just the latest in a long line of reality-recognizing behavior on our part. This is after all the country whose Us trained and equipped troops Mass surrendered rather than fight ISIS, requiring the US to rely on militias.

If anyone has any ideas how to strengthen Iraq’s central government, let the US gov know because it’s been a big fat 15 year failure.

[Combatbutler]

And now no nation state will dare attack a US embassy for some time, because who knows, we might drone one of their generals in retaliation for it. That is how things should be. Deterrence restored. And all it cost was one evil bastard getting blown to hell.

Of course they will, just less obvious, this solved absolutely nothing, except pouring oil in the fires. Iran despises the US and with very valid and good reason, you guys just gave them more ammunition, all the US managed was create a martyr, while reinforcing the gung ho stereotypical US behavior.

[Skroe]

Why?

Seriously, protesters/demonstrators set up outside embassies all over the world in response to perceived injustices on a pretty monthly basis, this isn't magically super special because it's the US embassy. And even if it was the protesters/demonstrators who threw stones at the embassy were Iraqi not Iranian, attacking another country wouldn't be justified in any case.

Does this mean that the next time British demonstrators cause trouble outside the Chinese embassy in London that China should be allowed to use it as an excuse to assassinate a US general in the UK? It's the same ball park.

The Iranian backed militia wasn’t outside the embassy. They broke in and sacked a nice chunk of it before withdrawing as US reinforcements arrived. That doesn’t happen and is no minor deal.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course they will, just less obvious, this solved absolutely nothing, except pouring oil in the fires. Iran despises the US and with very valid and good reason, you guys just gave them more ammunition, all the US managed was create a martyr, while reinforcing the gung ho stereotypical US behavior.

please like Iran needed an excuse. Iran didn’t get some kind of magic nuff from us knocking off one of their guys.

They were going to do things anyway. But now they know the consequences of it.

The US is unabashedly in the right for doing this. Whether or not there is a strategy is another debate.

[Shadowferal]

pfft...Trump and Putin had a phone call a few days ago...and we see this.

I guess Putin needed oil prices to rise.

[Breccia]

Not only did Trump initiate a war with Iran without Congressional consent, he didn't even tell them he was doing it beforehand at all. McConnell basically read about it on Twitter like everyone else.

[beanman12345]

Not only did Trump initiate a war with Iran without Congressional consent, he didn't even tell them he was doing it beforehand at all. McConnell basically read about it on Twitter like everyone else.

It was on Iran state tv first which is how everyone found out about it. Irans people knew before the gang of 8.

[Kaleredar]

I was told by the trumpeters in the 2016 election that Hillary was the unilateral warmonger who was going to start a war with Syria and therefore couldn’t be trusted whilst trump would be sure to make good deals to bring peace to the region.

But trump unilaterally ordering an assassination on a ranking member of a sovereign nation is totally fine?

[Skroe]

Not only did Trump initiate a war with Iran without Congressional consent, he didn't even tell them he was doing it beforehand at all. McConnell basically read about it on Twitter like everyone else.

This is not a war with Iran and Trump doesn’t have to ask Congress. He will if he wants to engage in a strikes in Iran though. With Quuds Force declares a terrorist group last year, this strike falls under the War on Terror AUMF (the one I’ve wanted repealed for years). Basically the fact he was a “terrorist” superseded his military affiliation.

[Combatbutler]

please like Iran needed an excuse. Iran didn’t get some kind of magic nuff from us knocking off one of their guys.

They were going to do things anyway. But now they know the consequences of it.

The US is unabashedly in the right for doing this. Whether or not there is a strategy is another debate.

The US had a right to react, you just overreacted plain and simple, but then again we are talking about the same nation that has a habit of blowing other nations to pieces, without any kind of concrete plan and half assing any kind of "rebuilding" effort, toppling governments across the globe, if they don't align with US interests and then electing human waste to oversee the most deadly nuclear arsenal of the planet.

The US is unabashedly in the right for doing this. Whether or not there is a strategy is another debate.

This is a two way street, the US and UK started this chain reaction back in the day.

[Endus]

Why?

Seriously, protesters/demonstrators set up outside embassies all over the world in response to perceived injustices on a pretty monthly basis, this isn't magically super special because it's the US embassy. And even if it was the protesters/demonstrators who threw stones at the embassy were Iraqi not Iranian, attacking another country wouldn't be justified in any case.

Does this mean that the next time British demonstrators cause trouble outside the Chinese embassy in London that China should be allowed to use it as an excuse to assassinate a US general in the UK? It's the same ball park.

This wasn't protestors setting up outside the embassy.

This was attacking the embassy, forcing their way in, sacking it, and setting fire to part of it.

That's a step too far. Possibly justified in their minds, by the USA's own escalation of violence, but this is how escalating hostilities work out; each side feels it needs to redress a wrong with more violence.

And I'm not arguing that the response against Iran needed to be immense. I'm saying they're the ones encouraging this, and should have been the target. Not the Iraqi civilian international airport.

[Skroe]

It was on Iran state tv first which is how everyone found out about it. Irans people knew before the gang of 8.

Trump should have informed the gang of 8. But the law does not require it.

Add it to the list of post trump reforms that will need to be laws because we can’t count on informal arrangements anymore.

[Moadar]

I was told by the trumpeters in the 2016 election that Hillary was the unilateral warmonger who was going to start a war with Syria and therefore couldn’t be trusted whilst trump would be sure to make good deals to bring peace to the region.

But trump unilaterally ordering an assassination on a ranking member of a sovereign nation is totally fine?

Hey we havent seen how this ends yet. This could be aggressive negotiations to an awesome deal.

[Endus]

please like Iran needed an excuse. Iran didn’t get some kind of magic nuff from us knocking off one of their guys.

They were going to do things anyway. But now they know the consequences of it.

The US is unabashedly in the right for doing this. Whether or not there is a strategy is another debate.

Would you agree that China would be in the hypothetical right to launch an air strike against a major US international airport, to take down one of their enemies who was on US soil?

Because that's the equivalent, here.

[Yadryonych]

I was told by the trumpeters in the 2016 election that Hillary was the unilateral warmonger who was going to start a war with Syria and therefore couldn’t be trusted whilst trump would be sure to make good deals to bring peace to the region.

But trump unilaterally ordering an assassination on a ranking member of a sovereign nation is totally fine?

To be fair, Trump didn't start a single war during his presidency, unlike many presidents before him. maybe someone told him that not bombing some new country every now and then is not how one is being re-elected

[Stelio Kontos]

That's your debt to yourselves. Big difference compared to let's say Greece, Italy or Spain who literally have either sold or are about to sell their right to manage the country and livelihood of their citizens to foreign power.

Europe hooray, right? Go ask any Greek how that feels, being literally sold into indentured service for life.

Feels bad, man. Seeing your country turned into a debtor's colony and predatory foreign companies come in and buy everything at deep discounts.

[Kaleredar]

Hey we havent seen how this ends yet. This could be aggressive negotiations to an awesome deal.

A deal that he may then unilaterally decide to pull out of for no reason?

[Moadar]

A deal that he may then unilaterally decide to pull out of for no reason?

2000 IQ maneuvers bro. Turnips plans cant be understood by mere mortals.

[Skroe]

The US had a right to react, you just overreacted plain and simple, but then again we are talking about the same nation that has a habit of blowing other nations to pieces, without any kind of concrete plan and half assing any kind of "rebuilding" effort, toppling governments across the globe, if they don't align with US interests and then electing human waste to oversee the most deadly nuclear arsenal of the planet.



This is a two way street, the US and UK started this chain reaction back in the day.

In retaliation for sacking an embassy, this is certainly not an overreaction. We can debate as to if it is wise but looking at these responses (beyond just yours), I don’t think folks grasp exactly how much of a big deal that is. In a world where that is normalized, international relations only happen at a distance.