(01-03-2020 10:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-03-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Seriously, did anyone notice that the strike that killed the general was on Iraqi soil, and also killed the deputy commander of an Iran-backed militia in Iraq? Does anyone really think that Soleimani and al-Musahni were simply sharing yoga schedules, talking about grandkids, and eating crumpets when they were together?

I don't think anyone thinks that - have you seen otherwise? The news I've listened to/read indicates the strike was predicated on an imminent threat posed by Soleimani to US citizens in the region. From what I have heard, the imminent nature of the threat allows POTUS to act unilaterally.

I've been seeing Soleimani compared to one of the Joint Chiefs or the VP, which is why the strike is so consequential. Iran will almost certainly respond in some manner.

I guess having your Joints Chief or the VP on the ground in a hostile country actively planning hostile activity isnt such a great idea.

And yes, Iran probably will serve up an action in some manner. That seemingly has been the status quo for the last 12-15 years. Certainly was the action in the attack on the US Embassy.

Tell me something that is new. That is, aside from the fact that their Joint Chief or the VP who was on the ground in hostile territory *wont* be doing that anymore.