At first glance, it appears that the United States assassinated a foreign leader.  The question is, is it worth it?  Iran will certainly respond very forcefully.  They could choose a cyberattack, or they could support major acts of terrorism in the United States, or any of a lot of other options.   And since we have now assassinated one of their top people, does that bring open season on our top people?  Will one of our top generals in the region be assassinated by a car bomb, or a suicide bomber?  And what happens then?  

I don't have any faith that the Trump administration has thought this through.  We've chosen to go down a road, and we don't know what's at the end of it.  Or if there even is an end to it.

This will no doubt strengthen the hand of the hard liners in Iran, and possibly unite the people of Iran against the United States.  This at a time when Iranians have been in the streets protesting against their government.  This will end those protests.  

At first glance, this looks like a major blunder by the Trump administration.

Of course they won’t be protesting their government, Marty. They were mowed down with machine gun fire the last time they did. Are these the protesters you believe will take up your banner of ‘Orange Man Bad’ and storm the ramparts against Trump’s imperialist aggression? Help me understand.

There's nothing in my post that is hard to understand.  

Yes, this was a bad guy.  But...

Assassinating a foreign leader means open season on foreign leaders, including American leaders.  This is a major escalation, and Iran cannot and will not back down.  Killing this guy makes him a martyr, and I don't think Iranians will be celebrating it any more than I would celebrate the killing of an American leader, no matter how much I detested said American leader.  The natural reaction is going to be uniting the people of Iran against the United States.  Even moderates in Iran, of which there are apparently many, will say it is not up to the United States to pick Iran's leaders.  

Would you tolerate the assassination of an American general by a foreign government?  

This is the kind of action that will reverberate for the next 30 years among middle easterners.  It's not something we can take back.  It's done.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  

Trump came into office decrying the endless wars in the Middle East.  What he did yesterday could very possibly get us involved in a bigger, wider Middle Eastern war than we have ever been involved in.   

The only way this is not a blunder is if Iran backs down, and that won't happen.  

Again, this is my opinion at the moment, as always subject to change.

---

At first glance, it appears that the United States assassinated a foreign leader.  The question is, is it worth it?  Iran will certainly respond very forcefully.  They could choose a cyberattack, or they could support major acts of terrorism in the United States, or any of a lot of other options.   And since we have now assassinated one of their top people, does that bring open season on our top people?  Will one of our top generals in the region be assassinated by a car bomb, or a suicide bomber?  And what happens then?  

I don't have any faith that the Trump administration has thought this through.  We've chosen to go down a road, and we don't know what's at the end of it.  Or if there even is an end to it.

This will no doubt strengthen the hand of the hard liners in Iran, and possibly unite the people of Iran against the United States.  This at a time when Iranians have been in the streets protesting against their government.  This will end those protests.  

At first glance, this looks like a major blunder by the Trump administration.

The US took out the foreign military leader who led an attack against the US outside his own country. It was a measured proportional response that avoided killing Iranian citizens. This is exactly what should be done. It was perfectly in the purview of the President to respond to an attack on the US, and such a response doesn't need congressional approval like the idiot who JackCity quoted implied. I would have applauded Obama had he done something similar in Libya. Do you hate Trump so much that you will resort to defending Sulaimani?

As far as your question, if Iran initiates a further attack on the US then the entire Iranian navy is turned into artificial reefs.

Hey Iran, want to try another attack on the US? Make my day!

That's how you see it, but the more relevant questions are, how do the Iranians see it, what are they going to do about it, and is that what we want them to do?  And what happens then?  

Have we really thought this through?

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Trump was asking, why are we even over there?  Now it looks like he has flipped from isolationist to war hawk, and is willing to spend another trillion dollars just like he criticized past administrations for doing.  We've already blown several trillion dollars over there in these endless wars.  Now we're going to do it again?  

I'm not defending the guy who got killed.  He was a bad guy.  But the relevant question is, does this action advance our national interest?  Or does it send us down another rabbit hole with trillions of dollars down the drain?

---

I guess Donald didn't get the message that we deal with these terrorists by sending them billions of dollars in unmarked bills by the palet on planes in the middle of the night.

Damn you, Don.

Clearly Trump needed a distraction from impeachment, so he killed one of the worst humans on the planet.

---

At first glance, it appears that the United States assassinated a foreign leader.  The question is, is it worth it?  Iran will certainly respond very forcefully.  They could choose a cyberattack, or they could support major acts of terrorism in the United States, or any of a lot of other options.   And since we have now assassinated one of their top people, does that bring open season on our top people?  Will one of our top generals in the region be assassinated by a car bomb, or a suicide bomber?  And what happens then?  

I don't have any faith that the Trump administration has thought this through.  We've chosen to go down a road, and we don't know what's at the end of it.  Or if there even is an end to it.

This will no doubt strengthen the hand of the hard liners in Iran, and possibly unite the people of Iran against the United States.  This at a time when Iranians have been in the streets protesting against their government.  This will end those protests.  

At first glance, this looks like a major blunder by the Trump administration.

So let me get this right.  This guy kills american soldiers attacks our embassy and your concern is that the protests against his regime will stop.  No mention of the fact that he was also coordinating the oppression of said protestors?

I don't think  popular opinion on the streets of Iran is relevant. One, we don't have personnel there, and two, the Iranians themselves tend to gun down protesters. Long term, it'd be nice if Iranians rose up and brought the mullahs to heel, but that shouldn't be our focus.

Mike Pompeo says that Iraqis who didn't like Soleimani are celebrating on the streets of Baghdad.  That's good.  But are there enough Iraqis with that opinion for us to keep our embassy and our support bases open in Baghdad?  That's where we should be focused.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Of course they won’t be protesting their government, Marty. They were mowed down with machine gun fire the last time they did. Are these the protesters you believe will take up your banner of ‘Orange Man Bad’ and storm the ramparts against Trump’s imperialist aggression? Help me understand.

There's nothing in my post that is hard to understand.  

Yes, this was a bad guy.  But...

Assassinating a foreign leader means open season on foreign leaders, including American leaders.  This is a major escalation, and Iran cannot and will not back down.  Killing this guy makes him a martyr, and I don't think Iranians will be celebrating it any more than I would celebrate the killing of an American leader, no matter how much I detested said American leader.  The natural reaction is going to be uniting the people of Iran against the United States.  Even moderates in Iran, of which there are apparently many, will say it is not up to the United States to pick Iran's leaders.  

Would you tolerate the assassination of an American general by a foreign government?  

This is the kind of action that will reverberate for the next 30 years among middle easterners.  It's not something we can take back.  It's done.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  

Trump came into office decrying the endless wars in the Middle East.  What he did yesterday could very possibly get us involved in a bigger, wider Middle Eastern war than we have ever been involved in.   

The only way this is not a blunder is if Iran backs down, and that won't happen.  

Again, this is my opinion at the moment, as always subject to change.

---

The US took out the foreign military leader who led an attack against the US outside his own country. It was a measured proportional response that avoided killing Iranian citizens. This is exactly what should be done. It was perfectly in the purview of the President to respond to an attack on the US, and such a response doesn't need congressional approval like the idiot who JackCity quoted implied. I would have applauded Obama had he done something similar in Libya. Do you hate Trump so much that you will resort to defending Sulaimani?

As far as your question, if Iran initiates a further attack on the US then the entire Iranian navy is turned into artificial reefs.

Hey Iran, want to try another attack on the US? Make my day!

That's how you see it, but the more relevant questions are, how do the Iranians see it, what are they going to do about it, and is that what we want them to do?  And what happens then?  

Have we really thought this through?

I have no doubt the Iranians will respond. But hold on a minute, I’m trying to remember the last time an American general machine gunned 1500 protesters in our streets. And if one did, I’m trying to think about how upset I would be if he were killed by a foreign power that I know would be sympathetic to my cause.

What you fail to realize is that most Persians are not uneducated and indoctrinated Muslim fanatics. Many are secular and have been trying to shrug off the iron-fisted rule of their theocratic government for years. I would be willing to bet that most of them are happy to hear this news. At least the families of the 1500 murdered in their own streets are.

This man was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the maiming of thousands more. He was in Baghdad to orchestrate more of this violence against Americans in the region. Should we have not taken action?

---

https://twitter.com/John_Hudson/status/1...5127186432


Thousands and thousands of innocent people will die because of this

---

https://twitter.com/medeabenjamin/status...6386101248

Thousands and thousands of innocent people were murdered by him.

Some people just need killin'.

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status...imani.html

---

The fact that JackCity thinks this man was beloved across Iran for killing hundreds of thousands in Syria just shows how out of touch he is.

---

There's nothing in my post that is hard to understand.  

Yes, this was a bad guy.  But...

Assassinating a foreign leader means open season on foreign leaders, including American leaders.  This is a major escalation, and Iran cannot and will not back down.  Killing this guy makes him a martyr, and I don't think Iranians will be celebrating it any more than I would celebrate the killing of an American leader, no matter how much I detested said American leader.  The natural reaction is going to be uniting the people of Iran against the United States.  Even moderates in Iran, of which there are apparently many, will say it is not up to the United States to pick Iran's leaders.  

Would you tolerate the assassination of an American general by a foreign government?  

This is the kind of action that will reverberate for the next 30 years among middle easterners.  It's not something we can take back.  It's done.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  

Trump came into office decrying the endless wars in the Middle East.  What he did yesterday could very possibly get us involved in a bigger, wider Middle Eastern war than we have ever been involved in.   

The only way this is not a blunder is if Iran backs down, and that won't happen.  

Again, this is my opinion at the moment, as always subject to change.

---

That's how you see it, but the more relevant questions are, how do the Iranians see it, what are they going to do about it, and is that what we want them to do?  And what happens then?  

Have we really thought this through?

I have no doubt the Iranians will respond. But hold on a minute, I’m trying to remember the last time an American general machine gunned 1500 protesters in our streets. And if one did, I’m trying to think about how upset I would be if he were killed by a foreign power that I know would be sympathetic to my cause.

What you fail to realize is that most Persians are not uneducated and indoctrinated Muslim fanatics. Many are secular and have been trying to shrug off the iron-fisted rule of their theocratic government for years. I would be willing to bet that most of them are happy to hear this news. At least the families of the 1500 murdered in their own streets are.

This man was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the maiming of thousands more. He was in Baghdad to orchestrate more of this violence against Americans in the region. Should we have not taken action?

I understand what you're saying.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm not here to go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.  I'm just waiting for more facts and further developments.  Until then, my opinion is what it is.

---

I have no doubt the Iranians will respond. But hold on a minute, I’m trying to remember the last time an American general machine gunned 1500 protesters in our streets. And if one did, I’m trying to think about how upset I would be if he were killed by a foreign power that I know would be sympathetic to my cause.

What you fail to realize is that most Persians are not uneducated and indoctrinated Muslim fanatics. Many are secular and have been trying to shrug off the iron-fisted rule of their theocratic government for years. I would be willing to bet that most of them are happy to hear this news. At least the families of the 1500 murdered in their own streets are.

This man was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans and the maiming of thousands more. He was in Baghdad to orchestrate more of this violence against Americans in the region. Should we have not taken action?

I understand what you're saying.  I don't necessarily agree with it, but I'm not here to go back and forth, back and forth, back and forth.  I'm just waiting for more facts and further developments.  Until then, my opinion is what it is.

He orchestrated the killing of 608 US Soldiers with thousands more injured since 2003. That in itself is enough to kill this man.

Nevermind the hundreds of thousands in Syria he helped Assad murder.... Iranians right now are happy to hear this news - they were recently protesting with some signs saying "No Money, No Gas, Screw Palestine" they are sick of Iran meddling in other nations affairs when their own people starve.

---

What is Iran going to do, instigate an assault on our embassy? Finance terror attacks against us? Attempt daily to compromise our society with cyber warfare? Threaten to close the Straits with their fishing boat navy? Try to obtain the Bomb? Sabre rattle at their neighbors and Israel? Cut off our supply of their oil?

Sorry, I meant "what else are they going to do besides what they've been doing for decades?"

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Of course they won’t be protesting their government, Marty. They were mowed down with machine gun fire the last time they did. Are these the protesters you believe will take up your banner of ‘Orange Man Bad’ and storm the ramparts against Trump’s imperialist aggression? Help me understand.

There's nothing in my post that is hard to understand.  

Yes, this was a bad guy.  But...

Assassinating a foreign leader means open season on foreign leaders, including American leaders.  This is a major escalation, and Iran cannot and will not back down.  Killing this guy makes him a martyr, and I don't think Iranians will be celebrating it any more than I would celebrate the killing of an American leader, no matter how much I detested said American leader.  The natural reaction is going to be uniting the people of Iran against the United States.  Even moderates in Iran, of which there are apparently many, will say it is not up to the United States to pick Iran's leaders.  

Would you tolerate the assassination of an American general by a foreign government?  

This is the kind of action that will reverberate for the next 30 years among middle easterners.  It's not something we can take back.  It's done.  The toothpaste is out of the tube.  

Trump came into office decrying the endless wars in the Middle East.  What he did yesterday could very possibly get us involved in a bigger, wider Middle Eastern war than we have ever been involved in.   

The only way this is not a blunder is if Iran backs down, and that won't happen.  

Again, this is my opinion at the moment, as always subject to change.

---

The US took out the foreign military leader who led an attack against the US outside his own country. It was a measured proportional response that avoided killing Iranian citizens. This is exactly what should be done. It was perfectly in the purview of the President to respond to an attack on the US, and such a response doesn't need congressional approval like the idiot who JackCity quoted implied. I would have applauded Obama had he done something similar in Libya. Do you hate Trump so much that you will resort to defending Sulaimani?

As far as your question, if Iran initiates a further attack on the US then the entire Iranian navy is turned into artificial reefs.

Hey Iran, want to try another attack on the US? Make my day!

That's how you see it, but the more relevant questions are, how do the Iranians see it, what are they going to do about it, and is that what we want them to do?  And what happens then?  

Have we really thought this through?

In the run-up to the 2016 election, Trump was asking, why are we even over there?  Now it looks like he has flipped from isolationist to war hawk, and is willing to spend another trillion dollars just like he criticized past administrations for doing.  We've already blown several trillion dollars over there in these endless wars.  Now we're going to do it again?  

I'm not defending the guy who got killed.  He was a bad guy.  But the relevant question is, does this action advance our national interest?  Or does it send us down another rabbit hole with trillions of dollars down the drain?

Except that's the difference with Trump, at least so far. Responding to an act of war by another country does not make him a "war hawk." And make no mistake, the Iranian led attack on the US embassy in Baghdad was an act of war against the US. How would you have responded, by sending more pallets of money to Iran?

There was no need to spend trillions on the response to 9/11. Most of that was spent rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan after they fell. The US could have (and should have in my opinion) just carpet-bombed Kabul into a wasteland after the Taliban refused to turn over Bin Laden and said "next time Islamic terrorists attack the US it's Mecca." That would have saved the trillions of dollars and a lot of American lives. Let the Middle East dictators hate us as long as they fear us to the point that they're afraid to attack again or give shelter to the terrorists. It worked with Libya, until Obama helped them overthrow Qaddafi, so we have actual historical evidence that this would indeed advance our national interest.

And killing an opposing military leader in a military action is not an "assassination" in any normal sense of the word, so you are just parroting the spin of the hate-filled Left. If an American general was killed by a military response in (say) Afghanistan then I would mourn him, but consider it a normal part of the war.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

The attack on the Embassy was a US Deep State attack against Trump by Obama's Iranian pals.

---

I have no sympathy for Iranian leaders. Their people (general population) highly favor an open and friendly relationship with the US and other western countries but their leaders continue to dictatorship and terrorist rule only resulting in further sanctions depleting their economy and well being. The quicker their leadership is changed, the better.

---

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

---

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

Meaningless nobody.

You need to get out and research beyond anti-American propaganda.

---

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

There are a lot of fun topics for alternate history out there, but one of the best is "what if Eisenhower refused to let the CIA toy with Iran in 1953?"

People forget that from 1953 to 1979, Iran was very friendly to the US and looked out for our interests.  Iran did not participate in the 1973 oil embargo, for instance. But other than that, Iran mostly got along with the Saudis and the other Arabs. 

If we had left Mossadeq in power in 1953, he or his heir would have probably participated in the 1973 embargo.  And the conflicts Iran has with the Arabs may have flared up sooner.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

Meaningless nobody.

You need to get out and research beyond anti-American propaganda.

No, man, that’s Zach. You know, Zach!

---

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

There are a lot of fun topics for alternate history out there, but one of the best is "what if Eisenhower refused to let the CIA toy with Iran in 1953?"

People forget that from 1953 to 1979, Iran was very friendly to the US and looked out for our interests.  Iran did not participate in the 1973 oil embargo, for instance. But other than that, Iran mostly got along with the Saudis and the other Arabs. 

If we had left Mossadeq in power in 1953, he or his heir would have probably participated in the 1973 embargo.  And the conflicts Iran has with the Arabs may have flared up sooner.

Iran would actually be the perfect fit as US ally in that region. If you ignore the fact the US still hates everyone it hated from the cold war period

---

https://twitter.com/zachjcarter/status/1...71682?s=19

Meaningless nobody.

You need to get out and research beyond anti-American propaganda.

It doesn't matter who he is.
He has his facts right.
The US really did all that stuff.
But he's neglecting to mention all the stuff Iran did over the years.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

To keep this in perspective...

750 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division have deployed in response. As someone who had a loved one deployed to Iraq back in the day, this is no joke. No matter the reasons for what led them to be deployed, they on their way to an uncertain future with their friends and families unable to do anything but watch and pray. They won't want to watch the news yet they won't be able to help themselves because they want to know what's going on more than they fear what's going on.

---

Of course loyal Trumpettes have themselves convinced the Buffoon in Chief has the nation's best interest at heart, instead of his.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley