IRGC leader Soleimani has been killed in targeted assassination near Baghdad

a reply to: Justoneman

That still doesn't make it 'US soil', not that difficult to follow unless you want to make it difficult to follow. Embassies are not situated on sovereign territory, it belongs to the host country.

a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm saying that a war with Iran will definitely kill more people on both sides than Soleimani ever could.

So which is truly the greater evil?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The 'new deal' wasn't until 1974 and onward, gold wasn't the issue,

Gold was the only real issue, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

As Henry Ford said a long time ago:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Gold was the only real issue, the rest is smoke and mirrors.

Yup, which is why the article you obviously didn't read mentions it a grand total of zero times.

It's okay, not everyone reads, I understand. Maybe give me another irrelevant quote.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm saying that a war with Iran will definitely kill more people on both sides than Soleiman ever could.

So which is truly the greater evil?

We're not at war.

Congress needs to declare war, there is no war.

Just tiny pieces of some dead terrorists.

And people are upset about that.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm saying that a war with Iran will definitely kill more people on both sides than Soleiman ever could.

So which is truly the greater evil?

Just to make sure I got this right, you're okay with a few American deaths if it avoids the possibility of war?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just to make sure I got this right, you're okay with a few American deaths if it avoids the possibility of war?

It really depends on who they are.



If it's Nick Cage and Cardi B. I'm good with it.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Bloodworth

Nobody is mourning Soleimani's death. If his death occurred in a vacuum devoid of political repercussions I think everyone on this site would say the world is better off without him. But his death will have political repercussions.

Can you honestly say the world is better off without him if his death ultimately instigates a war that leaves hundreds of thousands dead in the Middle East, including thousands of US soldiers?

That's why people take issue with this assassination of a political and military leader. Because all it is going to lead to is more death. And for what? A better fiscal year for the MIC.

Seems like there have been higher profile deaths that you would think would have caused more of a stir.

They cant have parades that chant death to America

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Justoneman

That still doesn't make it 'US soil', not that difficult to follow unless you want to make it difficult to follow. Embassies are not situated on sovereign territory, it belongs to the host country.

No but it is an "Act of War" officially to attack an Embassy according to the UN per the article I posted. Extra ordinary rule for an Embassy I should say. Therefore, retaliation and prevention are on the country under attack to decide how to handle the situation on the ground.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm saying that a war with Iran will definitely kill more people on both sides than Soleimani ever could.

So which is truly the greater evil?

Maybe Iran should have considered that when they proceed to commit acts of Terror in the name of a moon god.

originally posted by: Justoneman
No but it is an "Act of War" officially to attack an Embassy according to the UN per the article I posted.

I didn't say it wasn't. It's also incumbent on the host country to provide security for each embassy.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Xcalibur254

So we should have allowed Sulibooli (or whatever his name is) to have killed a few more Americans because now, with him dead, others might get pissed and kill more?

Is that what you're saying?

Kill them where? I thought Trump was pulling all troops out of the Middle East, because it was time for those countries to solve their own problems, and America wasn't going to risk U.S. lives any longer. And all his supporters (including on this site) praised Trump and claimed this was the RIGHT thing to do.

Fast forward a few months - troops have just been shifted around, MORE troops are being sent to the Middle East, and his same supporters are dancing in the streets at the size of Trump's balls, his assassination that will 100% lead to the loss of more American lives (and more troops in the Middle East will guarantee this), and possibility of war. Seriously, you can't make this crap up.

More proof that Trump's followers (by and large - there are a few exceptions), don't actually care if Trump follows through with any promises. Whatever he does, they are good with, even if it goes directly against what he has promised before. If he really had the balls you think he does, he'd actually follow through with getting American soldiers home, instead of doing whatever grabs him headlines, makes Obama look bad, or increases his chances of reelection.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: CitizenZero
Trump just now.

“ We took action last night to stop a war. We did not take action to start a war”

How is killing another countries top military brass not an act of war? It's illegal regime change just like Iraq.

Was he on Iraqi Soil as is the claim or not? Then the known terrorist was stupid. He exposed his terrorist buddies to being killed and paid his stupid tax.

No way it was wrong. Look at the citizens of Iran dancing in the streets. Look at the American Iranians on twitter celebrating DJT. Of course that will hurt the leftist narrative of the media so you have to dig, once again to know the truth. It is out there and it looks like we have created a huge void in the terrorist leadership in 30 days.

Him being invited to Iraq by the Iraqi forces doesn't make it any less of an act of war.

Obama wanted to hit Soleimani, but: twitter.com...

a reply to: fleabit

So you're saying you wanted the American embassy attacked and everyone killed.

Why?

Why do you hate America?

originally posted by: carewemust
Obama wanted to hit Soleimani, but: twitter.com...

Utter bs, the Obama Admin prevented Israel from killing him in 2015.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: DBCowboy
Just to make sure I got this right, you're okay with a few American deaths if it avoids the possibility of war?

It really depends on who they are.



If it's Nick Cage and Cardi B. I'm good with it.

You leave Nick alone!

originally posted by: mightmight

originally posted by: carewemust
Obama wanted to hit Soleimani, but: twitter.com...

Utter bs, the Obama Admin prevented Israel from killing him in 2015.

It's beginning to sound like his Admin's two favorite words were: "Stand Down"

Troops: Their hitting us here in Benghazi!
Obama: Stand Down!

Intel: Russia's hacking our election systems!
Obama: Stand Down!

Military: Soleimani is in the wild..we can hit him!
Obama: Stand Down!

originally posted by: tanstaafl
So we should just sit back and let them escalate? They killed an American. We retaliated.

That's like saying if a member of the US military killed a random Iranian, it would justify the Iranians assassinating the US Vice President.

There is such a thing as proportionality.

originally posted by: Bloodworth
Thousands of Iranians and Democrats mourn a astute military figure......

Again just another sign Of what a Democrat today

When trump called ms13 animals Democrats got upset

When trump kills an evil military leader in a foreign country with ties of attacking the American embassy....Democrats are upset.

Wtf are wrong with the present day Democrat,they have completely abandoned common sense.

It just proofs that a large majority of Americans are dumber than # . You Trump folks voted for Trump because he promised to bring your troops back home and get out of ME.
Now you're all over the place making up excuses for Trumps actions, while 3k us troops are getting deployed in ME as we speak.
If this was done by a Dem president you would be here doing exactly what democrats are doing.
But the thing is, both Dem and Rep have the same masters.
Every one of your presidents bows to the Saudi king and is influenced by the Israeli lobby.
I said it before. American foreign policy stays the same, no matter who is in the office. Only methods are different.
Obummer chose the quiet war by proxy and droning the # out of weddings and funerals.
The current president Camacho has a yuuuge ego and small hands so he likes to boast and brag when he blows # up.
But at the end of the day it's all the same.
More innocent people will die, while children and rest of the Trump family and the rest of the elite will live in luxury happily ever after