this isn't a moral issue, and the debate should not be about morals, and i'm not interested in discussing the issue with a bunch of self-righteous zealots that want to frame it that way.

this is purely a tactical issue.

and it was stupid.

woah, woah, woah.

listen.

maybe this guy soleimani was the guy that technically ordered the death of some personnel that are carrying forward with the continuing occupation of iraq; i'm actually not willing to place a moral value on an act of that nature, but i'm willing to acknowledge that it is probably true that he signed the papers.

but, you're not stupid enough to think that killing the leader of an organization does anything to undermine it, are you?

if they haven't already named a new commander, they'll do so shortly, and that new commander will carry on in the same role as the previous one.

so, nothing has been accomplished here, whether this is a bad guy or not. pointing to his crimes is really just a red herring - what he has done or not done has no logical effect on whether the decision to kill him was worthwhile or not, and you'd only think it does if you think in terms of retribution, that is if you're a part of trump's base of religious conservatives.

so, i'm not even interested in answering the question - and posing it, in context, is logically fallacious. it doesn't matter if he was a bad guy or not; even if he was the worst guy ever, it still does nothing to advance america's self interests in the region, and was still a dumb move.

if you want to take this organization out, you'll need to start a serious war. but, because this was wagging the dog, and the justifications are just sheer propaganda, that's not actually going to happen.

i get the feeling that i'm going to end up voting for the greens in the next election.again.

ford is any easy target. these are all third-rate candidates. somebody needs to step up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ontario_Liberal_Party_leadership_election

see, but this is what happens when you play political games over things like impeachment, forcing him to go out there and wag the dog.

i agree that this was reckless. but when you have a madman in a hostage situation, you don't egg him on like the democrats are doing. we knew he was reckless, and they should have adjusted to it; when a known lunatic does reckless things, you shouldn't be surprised.

ironically, the iranians can probably be expected to react rationally. retaliation would be stupid, and they know that. but, if there are any lingering questions about the iranians buying anti-aircraft systems from the russians, this provides tehran with a powerful argument. this otherwise does nothing to improve america's position, it merely makes them look rogue and untrustworthy (more so, i guess). it only helps trump with his base. so, as always, american short-sightedeness just ultimately plays into the russians' hands.

....which is the thing i'm actually concerned about regarding the democrats' political gamesmanship. the more they go out there and smear trump as a russian stooge (which is just silly. he's at worst a useful idiot.), the more they push him to react.

unfortunately, there does appear to be a broader strategy unravelling that is seeing trump align more closely with the saudis. the decision to pull back from syria and focus on iran seems to be being carried out in very close consultation with riyadh, who i might hazard a guess was kept more in the loop than the congress was. and, this is very worrying.

but, let us understand that what just happened is that trump tried to change the topic away from the impeachment. and, let us be clear-minded in understanding the consequences of playing political games with an irrational actor.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/03/us-lawmakers-not-told-attack-qassim-soleimani-top-democrats/

international law aside, because nobody seems to care anymore, why are they wasting time and money bombing iran?

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/02/soleimani-trump-iran-iraq-093102