Iranian General Sulemain and others reported killed in Baghdad airstrike

[Yadryonych]

Well personally I have a number of issues with it:

• Assassinating somebody via airstrike AT AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT has it's own issues and repercussions, are the USA saying this is perfectly okay for states to do now?

Pretty much anything is okay for states, as long as it doesn't affect the electorate in the US in a negative way, since American electorate barely cares about outside world

[Somewhatconcerned]

Thanks even you are openly admitting this isn't about anything other than winning in 2020.

It's about a lot of things.

Sorry, nothing happens in a vacuum.

[Draco-Onis]

It's about a lot of things.

Sorry, nothing happens in a vacuum.

No it's about only that one thing because Trump's entire handling of Iran has been a complete shit show that has led to this. He pulled out of the nuclear deal without a plan then demanded regime change and for a guy who spend all of 2016 bashing Clinton, Bush for Iraq he has decided to pull us more into the middle east.

Of course I don't expect his supporters like you to hold him to his word since you've become adept at being deaf and blind.

[cubby]

It's about a lot of things.

Sorry, nothing happens in a vacuum.

Unfortunately, no, it's not. This is all about distracting from the Impeachment and the docs coming out about Trump's even more illegal activity. And it won't work, either - Trump is too short sighted to see that this is exactly what Pelosi needs to delay the delivery of Articles until after the Senate primaries.

[Draco-Onis]

If said general was in a territory occupied by Chinese or Russian forces, I'd basically shrug.

Iraq has a government which didn't give it's blessing to this and the people have become more and more anti US, this pretty much insures that the remaining US forces in Iraq will be kicked out by the parliament.

[cubby]

I think this will start a new war.

That wasn't your average terrorist leader, that was a diplomat and one that is loved in Iran. By UN definition that makes it an assassination.

US just took big step towards war. Iran just needs to respond in kind by killing some US troops and/or bombing that embassy.

Iran needs this war because of US sanctions their economy is going down the drain. Trump probably wants this war to try to get reelected. In US oil and military businesses want this war to make record profits and they have enough lobbyists to make it happen.

That's the vibe I'm getting from all this mess. I hope I'm wrong.

Agreed. And how this can be viewed as anything but an act of war is beyond me. We attacked Iran. Period. If someone had done this to the United States, we'd declare war on them.

[Dug]

A war will not secure his reelection. His base will go along with whatever he says but he needs independents and they're tired as fuck with the endless wars. There is no 9/11 for the nation to unite over and revenge boners to just ignore the fuckery of Iraq. Nobody gives a fuck about some embassy on the other side of the world.

[Hobb]

Trump is basically hoping for a 9/11 war to boost his stagnate approval rating.

It worked for Bush, though in that case we we're the ones attacked instead of the ones doing the attack.

[Yadryonych]

By UN definition that makes it an assassination.

When was the last time the US cared about the UN and its definitions?

US just took big step towards war. Iran just needs to respond in kind by killing some US troops and/or bombing that embassy.

Izrael has been assasinating iranian officials for years to no response. I highly doubt Iran would respond to the US

[Resurgo]

Agreed. And how this can be viewed as anything but an act of war is beyond me. We attacked Iran. Period. If someone had done this to the United States, we'd declare war on them.

yeah, and we've been attacked by Iran.

even if it's for the wrong reasons that we got here, I have to at least agree that the response was appropriate. I sure as heck am not going to forget the irony that the trumphadis put us right where they squealed Hillary would put us, because at the end of the day, the situation we've found ourselves in is literally one of our own making, the response is (grudgingly admitted) the appropriate one.

[Kiri]

Agreed. And how this can be viewed as anything but an act of war is beyond me. We attacked Iran. Period. If someone had done this to the United States, we'd declare war on them.

It probably won't be seen as one. For over a decade now, regardless of president, drone strikes have been cultivating the message that the US pretty much has the right to just kill people in other countries without it being considered an act of war. Just label them a terrorist or someone working with terrorists and it's not an act of war in the minds of many. Heck, you see enough people like that in this very thread. People in the ME are already used to that, too, that at any time a predator drone could come by and kill someone nearby. Or even the person themselves, since they aren't exactly always as cleanly executed as they were in this instance.
But sadly, that is okay to most people, both in the US and in other places. Because it happens far away, to people we are assured that deserve it. And because there is something very artificial about drone strikes, which helps remove the act further from the actor and make it more okay. Many won't see it as an act of war because of that. It has been cultivated as an acceptable way for extrajudicial killing in the 21st century. Even though everything about it should be terrifying to people. But "it could never be used against me/us" is just too strong a thought, I guess.

[Somewhatconcerned]

No it's about only that one thing because Trump's entire handling of Iran has been a complete shit show that has led to this. He pulled out of the nuclear deal without a plan then demanded regime change and for a guy who spend all of 2016 bashing Clinton, Bush for Iraq he has decided to pull us more into the middle east.

Of course I don't expect his supporters like you to hold him to his word since you've become adept at being deaf and blind.

You're right.

It's all Trump's fault. Iran's provocative actions have nothing to do with it, right?

He showed great restraint after all the oil tanker and drone incidents. This was beyond warranted. But continue to be outraged. Do you ever get exhausted?

- - - Updated - - -

yeah, and we've been attacked by Iran.

even if it's for the wrong reasons that we got here, I have to at least agree that the response was appropriate. I sure as heck am not going to forget the irony that the trumphadis put us right where they squealed Hillary would put us, because at the end of the day, the situation we've found ourselves in is literally one of our own making, the response is (grudgingly admitted) the appropriate one.

Bingo! You get it.

[Edge-]

TLDR: Seems like there may be legal backing for this strike, and if so then that's fine. It will depend on the briefing to the Senate that's being arranged, and the eventual House briefing that should happen.

Congress long ago ceded their authority to authorize strikes to the Executive and hasn't wanted it back since, because they don't want to be saddled with that responsibility should their decision prove unpopular and lead to their loss in the next election. But then they complain about not being told ahead of time when they don't need to be, legally, even if they should be. They can take that authority back if they want, they choose not to, both Democrats and Republicans.

The bigger concern for me is the lack of good-faith operating by the administration (predictable and unsurprising), the lack of any coherent strategy when it comes to Iran, and the fact that our NSC is a fucking empty husk and that Trump probably isn't getting the best advise and options/contingencies he could be to deal with the situation.

But we needed to strike Iran eventually after the endless provocations. They're not going to war with the US, that's bluster and they know they can't fight a war militarily or economically. We'll likely see the Straight closed down and oil prices go up, but we needed to address Iran's bullshit eventually. Striking a commander (even Sulemain) that was in a foreign country allegedly coordinating with/organizing strikes with local militia forces against US citizens and our embassy is probably one of the least-bad ways to bloody their nose a bit.

I'm not remotely convinced of all this "WWIII" nonsense, the world is far too interconnected now for full-scale hot world wars. But the irony of Trump making this strike in light of his previous "warnings" about Obama doing just this isn't lost on me, and I'm still not confident in the administrations ability to handle this overall situation.

Edit: Yes, I know Trump stupidly withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal contributed to this. But realistically, even with the deal Iran was going to continue to provoke and we'd likely run into a situation like this eventually. That's not to excuse Trump withdrawing from the deal unilaterally and functionally abandoning our global partners, but that deal was never a "cure-all", even if it was solid and allowed for progress with the relationship.

[Draco-Onis]

You're right.

It's all Trump's fault. Iran's provocative actions have nothing to do with it, right?

He showed great restraint after all the oil tanker and drone incidents. This was beyond warranted. But continue to be outraged. Do you ever get exhausted?

Do you ever get tired of defending an amoral idiot? Again he walked away from the Iran nuclear deal the original sin that lead us to this keep burying your head in the sand seems you got your hole reserved for life.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Do you ever get tired of defending an amoral idiot? Again he walked away from the Iran nuclear deal the original sin that lead us to this keep burying your head in the sand seems you got your hole reserved for life.

I'll defend his actions on a case by case basis, like any sane person would. And this was appropriate.

[Draco-Onis]

I'll defend his actions on a case by case basis, like any sane person would. And this was appropriate.

And a sane person would look at the entire situation which started when he walked away from a nuclear deal that Iran wasn't violating and conclude it is a fucking shit show with no plan or strategy just reaction.

[Endus]

Well personally I have a number of issues with it:
Assassinating somebody via airstrike AT AN INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT has it's own issues and repercussions, are the USA saying this is perfectly okay for states to do now?

This is my biggest issue as well.

This wasn't a wartime air strike on a strategic target. This was a political assassination on the soil of an ostensibly friendly nation, targeting a civilian complex, filled with innocent bystanders.

Would you guys shrug if Iran launched an air strike on Heathrow Airport in the UK, killing Mike Pompeo, US Secretary of State? Would that just be business as usual, or would both the US and the UK get rightfully pissed the fuck off at the attack, likely sparking outright war?

If they'd hit this guy's plane in the air over Iranian territory, I'd be worried about the long-term consequences in the region, since it's going to inflame sentiments. Attacking Baghdad International Airport with an airstrike? For a target you're taking out for vengeance, not because of any imminent threat? Fuck right off. This is an act of war not just on Iran, but on Iraq as well, and any nation who had a citizen in Baghdad International at the time of the strike should be rightfully furious at Trump's actions.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll defend his actions on a case by case basis, like any sane person would. And this was appropriate.

What part of attacking an allied nation's major international airport was "appropriate"? Would you have struck Pearson International in Toronto if Suleiman's plane were there, instead?

That's an act of war against the nation whose airport that was. Not just Iran. That's what you don't seem to get.

[Shalcker]

As far as i see most logical conculsion would be finally expelling US forces from Iraq (either through government/parliament or through continued and increased harrasment).

[cubby]

I'll defend his actions on a case by case basis, like any sane person would. And this was appropriate.

Have you ever condemned his actions on this forum? Care to link? We'll wait.

By all account this was an overt act of war, as the United States was not attacked directly. That being said, there is certainly legal justification for this action being found (and I'm guessing presented to Congress today and/or within 48 hours). It will still greatly backfire.

I also have to wonder what information the DoD has that they obviously can't share with us. Something more than "there he is!" must have transpired to cause our reaction.

[caervek]

TLDR: Seems like there may be legal backing for this strike, and if so then that's fine.

Dunno about fine, if the US tries to fabricate some legal grounds to say this was okay/justified/etc then it will cause more harm than good with the international community. IMO the damage is already done so the white house should just own it, after all what is anyone gonna do about it?