MightySheep wrote:you can argue the ramifications arent worth the cost but theres no argument that it was somehow unjust
Ask the dead how much they care about how much "he deserved to die" when after they're killed by Iranian backed militias in retaliation. You can argue the ramifications aren't worth the costs, and by extension that it was unjust. I think it is
grossly unjust that far more people are going to die and suffer as a result of this assassination than if it hadn't been done at all. Foreign policy based on what
feels good instead of
pragmatic behavior is insane. The idea that the President's moral adjudications should supersede productive foreign policy is just a ridiculous position to have.
Potjeh wrote:They are not a threat to USA or Europe. Honestly these days I'd consider them a friendly country because they oppose Saudi Arabia and enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Are you unaware or purposely ignoring all of the attempts by Iran to either bomb or assassinate political opponents abroad in Europe and the United States? If you think Iran is a "friendly nation" despite being one of the leaders in state-sponsored terror. I mean they literally fund Hezbollah and Hamas for fucks sake.
MagicManICT wrote:@burinn: I keep trying to encourage people to wise up to politics and quit playing party lines. Maybe you can share with others if you find wisdom in my words.
Democratic institutions got us into this and they can get us out. We willfully elected someone with little to no foreign policy experienced and surrounded him with arguably the most warhawkish conservatives in the country. Frankly, blunders like this and the abandonment of the Syrian Kurds shouldn't be surprising to anyone. We're talking about the same man who proclaimed he'd kill the wives and children of terrorists in the Middle East to cheering crowds.
