2 Headlines Trump Voters Will Ignore Because It Shows Trump's Assassination Was Just for Political Reasons

Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
He is a terrorist leader.He is DEAD. Good riddance.
and we got saddam. but we lost thousands of soldiers, had 35,000 wounded, killed 150,000 iraqi civilians, spent a hundred billion dollars or more, and lost the respect and trust of our allies and even more hate from almost all muslims.

it was bad for us...get it? that is why i am against it...get it?

and like i said, not one trump voter WILL ACTUALLY CONDEMN TRUMP AND HIS TEAM FOR LYING ABOUT WHY WE HAD TO ASSASSINATE THIS KILLER IN SUCH A PUBLIC, BLATANT, COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE WAY.
 
Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
Was the drone attack on Iranian general an assassination?

https://apnews.com › ...

Jan 3, 2020 - NEW YORK (AP) — After Friday's targeted killing of Iranian Gen. ... principles of international law,” Ravanchi wrote in a letter to the U.N. secretary-general. ... protocol of the Geneva Convention in 1949 saying “it is prohibited to ...Although the United States and Iran have long been adversaries and engaged in a shadow war in the Middle East and elsewhere, the U.S. has never declared formal war on Iran. So the targeted killing of a high Iranian state and military official by a surprise attack was “clearly an assassination,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, an expert in international law and the laws of war at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.


U.S. Allies Urge Restraint With Iran After Suleimani ...

https://foreignpolicy.com › 2020/01/07 › united-states-allies-restraint-iran-...

Jan 7, 2020 - States are distancing themselves from the U.S. assassination of ... Barring Zarif violates the terms of a 1947 U.N. headquarters agreement.
 
Sep 2016
25,898
22,051
My own world
And the ones the left must ignore:

Obama national security adviser says Trump ‘absolutely correct’ to kill Soleimani

Except nobody argued that Soleimani didn't deserve to be killed however doing it without an imminent threat was a contravention of international law. With no International law and no court to go to for arbitration there is no diplomatic or legal resolving of issues. What you get is only military escalations and no peaceful negotiations. Should the US find itself facing a country with nuclear weapons and that country deems the US a terrorist organization there will be no place to go to negotiate. The other country could point to this instance if there is a combat mission that kills purposely or accidently their military personnel. The US feels safe in breaking international law today but what about tomorrow when countries start popping up with nuclear weapons that are not what we would consider rationale.
 
  • Like
Reactions: llovejim
Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
What I said, if your could read through your drug-addled haze, is that you totally misstated Soleimani’s position and relevance.
In other words , read up and learn something before you spout off and prove how wrong you are.
Your “opinion” is totally misinformed.
bullshit, luca. what the hell do you know? you believe it is wrong to disagree with a former soldier!! what a maroon. we got saddam. he was without a doubt more in charge of Iraq than this clown was of Iran...did it help us or hurt us to use an invasion and occupation to get Saddam- try to think...then comment. it's worth a shot, luca.
 
Oct 2019
1,853
640
Earth
what combat zone? what are you talking about? the baghdad international airport is a combat zone? that is pretty funny.

no, you are confused about how the democrats voted....most democrats voted against the RESOLUTION...and the resolution did not call for an invasion!! and it was hinged upon Saddam allowing the inspectors back in, OR the president had the authority to use force. a month after the Resolution passed, which some democrats voted for because they believed it would force Saddam to allow inspectors back in and make an invasion less possible, SADDAM ALLOWED THE INSPECTORS BACK IN...the Resolution was then moot. but BUSH INVADED ANYWAY!! look it up.

Iraq War at 15: Who voted for it, who didn't, and where are they ...
https://medium.com › iraq-war-15-who-voted-for-it-who-didnt-and-where...

Mar 20, 2018 - Yesterday marked the 15th anniversary of the start of the Iraq War. There will be many incisive retrospectives of this disastrous decision and its legacy in lives lost, trillions wasted ...Iraq War Resolution- 215 Republicans and 81 Democrats voted for it. 126 Democrats, 6 Republicans, and 1 Independent (Sanders) voted against it.
Iraq is a combat zone. The general was from Iran, Iran is not (for our purposes) a combat zone. However, he was in Iraq, he doesn't have that protection, and his presence alone COULD have been treated as an act of war.

Exactly, the Democrats had their vote in 2001, the vote passed. The ONLY choice they have in the matter would be to entirely defund military in Iraq.
 

CtC

Mar 2019
14,556
5,256
California
Was the drone attack on Iranian general an assassination?
https://apnews.com › ...

Jan 3, 2020 - NEW YORK (AP) — After Friday's targeted killing of Iranian Gen. ... principles of international law,” Ravanchi wrote in a letter to the U.N. secretary-general. ... protocol of the Geneva Convention in 1949 saying “it is prohibited to ...Although the United States and Iran have long been adversaries and engaged in a shadow war in the Middle East and elsewhere, the U.S. has never declared formal war on Iran. So the targeted killing of a high Iranian state and military official by a surprise attack was “clearly an assassination,” said Mary Ellen O’Connell, an expert in international law and the laws of war at the University of Notre Dame School of Law.


U.S. Allies Urge Restraint With Iran After Suleimani ...
https://foreignpolicy.com › 2020/01/07 › united-states-allies-restraint-iran-...

Jan 7, 2020 - States are distancing themselves from the U.S. assassination of ... Barring Zarif violates the terms of a 1947 U.N. headquarters agreement.
Yeah ,yeah. Orange Man Bad. I get it. 3 years of this commie crap.
 
Sep 2016
25,898
22,051
My own world
Soleiamni was designated terrorist, head of a designated terrorist organization of a terrorist state.

Those are the only reasons you need to kill him.
See my previous post. A country's arm and military personnel can be deemed terrorists so that means the US military will not be safe in the future from being labeled by countries we see as not being rationale. What if they get nuclear weapons, then what?
 
  • Like
Reactions: llovejim
Sep 2019
1,211
1,711
dfw, texas
Iraq is a combat zone. The general was from Iran, Iran is not (for our purposes) a combat zone. However, he was in Iraq, he doesn't have that protection, and his presence alone COULD have been treated as an act of war.

Exactly, the Democrats had their vote in 2001, the vote passed. The ONLY choice they have in the matter would be to entirely defund military in Iraq.
Iraq is not a combat zone, you liar. good god. who are they fighting? what are you talking about? we lost 8 soldiers in all of 2019 in iraq, and you believe iraq is a combat zone? good god.