US kills Iran's General Soleimani

[i know nothing]

For one we weren't even notified beforehand, another issue of trust and showing us how rewarding that special relationship is.

We don't know what happened behind the scenes, all we know is the result. For all we know, Trump himself may have had just a few minutes to make the decision himself, or he could have had days. It's all speculation and I don't think this will impact the relationship we have with the U.S. one jot.

On the surface, makes sense but America themselves have threatened disproportionate retaliation so surely this messaging should be applied to both sides.

No problem with that, I think that is pretty much what we are proposing.

Apologies, I was referring to Saudi Arabia with SA but this quote is poignant. Again nothing wrong with the statement on the surface until you realise the sheer hypocrisy of it. SA have been directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of civilians in Yemem, bombing the likes of homes, hospitals and schools (including a centre for the blind) and what did we do? Sell them weapons (including cluster bombs which have been illegal for years) and provide training. Once too much attention came to this, we decided to slightly scale things back with am embargo and still managed to sell a few illegal items - twice! So why are we still selling weapons and the best of friends with a nation that does the very thing we (correctly) accuse another of?

I myself do not understand our relationship with SA, I would have no problem stopping our arms trade with them. I agree with much of what you have written, but equally I would also point out that it doesn't mean the U.S. was wrong to take out the General.

I am all for restraint but I will eat my proverbial hat if anything we say makes one bit of difference with America considering they have acted unilaterally on so many issues.

Well I think part of the problem is thinking that a country should always approach other allies for advice/help in such instances, I don't necessarily agree with that stance, I think there are times you should take decisive action. This is such an instance for me and I hasten to add that I was pleased at how surgical it was, which to be fair to the U.S. is something I believe they do set out to achieve (even though they may fail on occasion).

 

[snips86x]

I think you misunderstand.

A lot of us are saying that actually, it's not OK for the US to behave like this. Regardless of who is President.

You can't be saying, "It's OK, they've always been like this. It's nothing new" and using that as a justification?

I've been following the news on this since it came out, I can't believe that the US think they still have the right to act like a bull in a China shop. They can't just go attacking on foreign soil like this, what exactly was he expecting was going to happen?!

As much as I hate the prospect of something bigger emerging from this, I'd have no problem with Iran getting their own back - but this has to stop. Their "war on terror" is beginning to sound like a joke now and they're just looking for excuses.

 

[i know nothing]

I think you misunderstand.

A lot of us are saying that actually, it's not OK for the US to behave like this. Regardless of who is President.

You can't be saying, "It's OK, they've always been like this. It's nothing new" and using that as a justification?

No, no misunderstanding on my part, I get that you are opposed to it. It is totally okay as far as I'm concerned and there is precedent which whilst you might disagree with it, shows that it is justified to take such action to defend yourself.

 

[FoxEye]

No, no misunderstanding on my part, I get that you are opposed to it. It is totally okay as far as I'm concerned and there is precedent which whilst you might disagree with it, shows that it is justified to take such action to defend yourself.

So the US is effectively occupying Iraq then. Just so we're on the same page.

Able to act autonomously without consent of Iraqi government.
Can refuse to leave.

And this is fine, you say.

e: If Russia was doing this in Iraq, I'm sure you'd be the first person to condemn them.

 

[i know nothing]

So the US is effectively occupying Iraq then. Just so we're on the same page.

Able to act autonomously without consent of Iraqi government.
Can refuse to leave.

And this is fine, you say.

e: If Russia was doing this in Iraq, I'm sure you'd be the first person to condemn them.

Non sequitur.

 

[FoxEye]

Non sequitur.

Cop out.

 

[i know nothing]

Cop out.

Eh? You make a fundamental mistake in your assumptions and I'm now guilty of copping out?

 

[Greebo]

No he didn't. I've already addressed this point, scroll up for my response.

I am pretty sure that launching missile strikes against newspapers and TV stations are also war crimes.............

 

[FoxEye]

Eh? You make a fundamental mistake in your assumptions and I'm now guilty of copping out?

They acted without consent of the Iraqis. This is known.
Trump has said they won't pull out unless the Iraqis pay them for money spent on US bases. This is known.
The violated a prior agreement to get consent for use of Iraqi airspace.
This was not an act of "defence", it was a retaliation. A provocation. A show of force. That the US might call it "defence" does not make it so. It was a drone strike near a civilian airport.

So far you've said all this is OK "because the US has set a precedent" that it's OK. They've never had to ask for permission since invading Iraq so why should they start respecting a foreign country's sovereignty now? Well, because they agreed to, and it's just not on to treat a foreign country as your own back yard.

So what part of that have I misunderstand then, eh?

 

[MookJong]

The reality is only about 0.5% of people in the West actually understand the complexities and dynamics of the situation in the Middle East.

I'm certainly not one of them and I like to think I'm pretty informed on the basics, taking a huge interest in the 91 Gulf conflict, Israel / Palestine, the 00s Iraq and Afghan conflicts and then of course Syria. But time and again it has been shown that we often understand more about the motivations of the "enemy" and less about the people they appear to be oppressing and that we think we are helping.

 

[FoxEye]

The reality is only about 0.5% of people in the West actually understand the complexities and dynamics of the situation in the Middle East.

What chance that Trump and his cronies feature in that 0.5%

I know he says he understands things "better than anyone else", but I have a really hard time believing that, for some reason.

 

[MartinPrince]

Trump didn't specifically mention "cultural sites", but did write about sites important to Iranian culture, that these sites are all linked to the Iranian revolution of 1979 and would include mouthpieces of the Iranian regime like newspapers and broadcasters.

You do realise you're splitting hairs and also adding to Trumps words. He did not mention anything about these sites being linked to the Iranian Revolution of 1979...

Listening to the World Service, even those informed observers that support Trump's action say that targeting sites important to Iranian culture (aka cultural sites) would constitute a war crime.

 

[i know nothing]

They acted without consent of the Iraqis. This is known.
Trump has said they won't pull out unless the Iraqis pay them for money spent on US bases. This is known.
The violated a prior agreement to get consent for use of Iraqi airspace.
This was not an act of "defence", it was a retaliation. A provocation. A show of force. That the US might call it "defence" does not make it so. It was a drone strike near a civilian airport.

So far you've said all this is OK "because the US has set a precedent" that it's OK. They've never had to ask for permission since invading Iraq so why should they start respecting a foreign country's sovereignty now? Well, because they agreed to, and it's just not on to treat a foreign country as your own back yard.

So what part of that have I misunderstand then, eh?

I've said it's okay for the U.S. to defend themselves and that using a drone to take out the Iranian General is okay, yes I have said that and I stand by it. It's okay with me that youre not happy with that.

 

[Dis86]

Yes see bellow



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc^tfw





The English language isn't your strong point yes? See above.

Funny having better understanding on it while is my third language. (fourth if you count Ancient Greek which learned before English).

I think you need to brush up on your English.

 

[FoxEye]

I've said it's okay for the U.S. to defend themselves and that using a drone to take out the Iranian General is okay, yes I have said that and I stand by it. It's okay with me that youre not happy with that.

So when the US agreed to get permission from the Iraqis to use their airspace, that basically wasn't worth the paper it was written on, was it?

Should that encourage trust in the US and its agreements?

Should people be willing to commit to agreements with the US, like the Iran nuclear agreement? Or does the US behave in a way which makes it really hard for ME countries to believe anything they say?

 

[i know nothing]

You do realise you're splitting hairs and also adding to Trumps words. He did not mention anything about these sites being linked to the Iranian Revolution of 1979...

Listening to the World Service, even those informed observers that support Trump's action say that targeting sites important to Iranian culture (aka cultural sites) would constitute a war crime.

I think I was quite clear with what I wrote regarding my own personal speculation as to their meaning. Ultimately we shall have to wait and see won't we? With any luck it won't happen.

 

[i know nothing]

So when the US agreed to get permission from the Iraqis to use their airspace, that basically wasn't worth the paper it was written on, was it?

They have their permission do they not? They fly drones/planes everyday I believe.

Should that encourage trust in the US and its agreements?

Yes and no, depends which side of the fence you're on and how you would interpret the law and under which jurisdiction.

Should people be willing to commit to agreements with the US, like the Iran nuclear agreement?

That's a question for the Iranians and how they see the future. They would need to examine their own conduct as well as their adversary's.

Or does the US behave in a way which makes it really hard for ME countries to believe anything they say?

Or you could turn that around and ask does the ME behave in such a way that the U.S. finds it hard to believe anything they say. I know which side I would choose, doesn't mean I accept everything without reservations though.

 

[Lord-Jaffa]

Yes see bellow



https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1213593975732527112?ref_src=twsrc^tfw





The English language isn't your strong point yes? See above.

Funny having better understanding on it while is my third language. (fourth if you count Ancient Greek which learned before English).

And lets not forget. Trump yesterday said that they will destroy 52 sites of Iranian (Persian) cultural heritage.
Hmm let me remember, which other organisation did just that..... but of course. ISIS.

Please show where it was said that all 52 targets were sites of cultural heritage.

We will all wait, probably forever, for your proof.

 

[MookJong]

What chance that Trump and his cronies feature in that 0.5%

I know he says he understands things "better than anyone else", but I have a really hard time believing that, for some reason.

NeoLiberals think they have it all sewn up, that if we all just join a big corporate global world we will find peace. I used to think this too, but have become a lot more skeptical this isn't true or possible and actually you would probably have to enforce your own blend of oppression to achieve it. The Adam Curtis documentary The Trap covers this quite well.

The world is too complex to govern from afar IMO.

 

[FoxEye]

They have their permission do they not? They fly drones/planes everyday I believe.
<snip>
Or you could turn that around and ask does the ME behave in such a way that the U.S. finds it hard to believe anything they say. I know which side I would choose, doesn't mean I accept everything without reservations though.

Not the Iraqis have said they did not grant permission for this operation and the US action violates their agreement.

That's why they so ****** and are considering chucking the US out (if they even can).

You're basically prepared to justify any actions the US takes on the grounds that you have decided they are the good guys and the ME countries are the bad guys.

There's no point in discussing this further tbh.