Which is precisely what it was, and worse done for Trumps personal reasons as a diversion.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
As I've clearly explained, Iran had effectively declared war on the USA, many times in fact. The USA President could and did act in its defence without Congress acknowledging that status existed. I don't agree with the action either, but it was legal defence.
And as I've shown there was no act of war against Iraq in this defence. Firstly the USA is already militarily in action within Iraq and long has been. Secondly Iraqi personnel within militant groups were the Iranian general's troops employed in the killing of Americans, thus involving Iraq in the killing of US military in multiple ways and leaving them open to retaliation.
This whole fuss is nonsensical anyway, being entirely due to the significance of the person killed. Why no equal international fuss about each and every one of the over 140 people killed by US drones in Pakistan, a country not at war with anyone other than India?
.
Last edited:
I dont think that is quite true OG. If Trump sent drones to everyone who he, d argued with or been insulted by skies would be full of them.
Trump merely gave go ahead on on an obviously preaaranged military operation. I cant see US military actually responding to a Trump request over a twitter insult.
Not too surprising there are lots of people in this world that thrive on bloodshed, until of course it's theirs being shed, and when the media present this as a legitimate action, the danger to peace it represents get ignored.
The question isn't the legitimacy so much as the reason behind this action.
The Choice is simply
Was it to stop another war?
Or was it to divert attention from Trump being impeached?.
What Clinches the choice for me, is that there are plenty of other mad generals able and willing to take this mans place and carry out his actions and make war with his death as an excuse.
Whereas
Trump really really, needs a war to avoid impeachment, he desperately need to look the avenging hard man to save his political career.
Good post flecc.
I wonder if its because its Trump gave go ahead. Obama signed off on many killings as did both Bush Junior and Senior.
Perhaps, but it sure as hell is convenient for him, as he stands to be impeached, too much so for it be a mere coincidence.
He simply had too much to gain personally to say no in my view.
I actually agree with a lot of this too. Not the bit about impeachmwnt. He couldnt care less about that. Was a stupid action anyway and wont get past house of Senates (doninated by republicans)(digging dirt on political opponents is normal nowadays, isnt it?)
But, this is why I, m in such a quandary. I agree with flecc's stance and much of yours and I sure as hell would not go and fight Iranians myself so why should I see any military personell put at risk post escalation.??
Last edited:
How to turn dereliction of duty into a "leap into the attack"
After the Civil service took action because he wouldn't give up his holiday
After the Civil service took action because he wouldn't give up his holiday
And we'd certainly have been on the receiving end.
Alex Salmond in particular for opposing Trump's Scottish golf course and refusing to stop wind turbines being built alongside, spoiling the view!
.
Oh he cares about it alright, his ego is badly bruised and like Boris he wants to be remembered as being top President of all time
We have international law for a reason. But the question now is who are we appeasing? The USA flaunted international law going after and killing Bin Laden in a neutral state. We ignored the international consequences of that, now the US repeats this with less obvious cause. Next time they decide to declare Arlene Foster is non acceptable and blow up her plane landing at Heathrow. (OTT of course , but for emphasis).
In the current climate, China,in particular, is coming across as the most internationally correct, followed by Russia! Not a good situation
Yep, all agreed. The Arlene Foster sounds plausible.
What about Gadaffi and Lockerbie? How did international law /community deal with that?
Just imagine if Qassem Soleimani had been in Russia, North Korea, China or even the UK. Can you see the USA taking that action in any of those countries? I think not. The impact on Iraq could be enormous but they are not strong enough to even eject USA from their own territory. Effectively it is an act of war against Iraq (even if the intended target was Iranian).
If our PM is in constant contact, why on earth doesn't he just come back?
Like Zlatan. I agree with much of this post. I also agree with your feelings on this subject and consider the killing a big mistake.
But in my posts here I'm only concerned with the legality in international law. On the basis of all that has previously been practiced and approved, it was clearly legally a legitimate defensive action against a justifiable military target.
International law is only ever tested by trials, and we know only too well that the choice of who to put on trial is very selective, such is the inherently corrupt nature of the nations involved.
.
I think something odd is happening with your posts, you'd already posted exactly this at 12.48, about 1.5 hours ago.
And I'd answered on this link
.
Actually I just checked and Trump is on dodgy ground with America Law for not consulting Congress beforehand and there was this
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/was-it-legal-donald-trump-order-killing-top-iranian-general-n1109961
An extract
""The U.S. government does not believe it is bound by human rights law treaties vis-à-vis our operations overseas," said Bobby Chesney, the James A. Baker III Chair in the Rule of Law and World Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin. "
Human rights?
What have Human rights to do with anything?
We're Americans ain't we?"
Imagine if they took out someone visiting this country..what then?
I don't think the impeachment worries him too much. He might find it embarrassing, but that is about all. It's only a Democrat stunt anyway and when it eventually gets to the next stage, he will be cleared.
The Iranian had to be stopped. We have dead and maimed servicemen as a direct result of arming, training and funding authorised by this man. Theoretical extradition applications and other "activity" wastes time and costs further lives. Action was needed in this instance, Trump took action, the man is dead. Let someone apply for his extradition now if they feel so inclined.
It's over, let's move on.
I disagree, Twitter is not where international law is decided.
The US president is the chief of their military. They presented this action to him for approval, he approved and they carried it out. Clearly at each stage it was not considered to be illegal.
As I've repeatedly shown, the general was a legitimate enemy target in the existing US war zone of Iraq, using existing US military resources there.
.
he is a professional soldier. I don't think punishment is the right word, assassination is.
Trump saw an opportunity and took it and as one would expect from him, without thinking about consequences or others.
I am not saying that the USA should not use its military might to defend its interests (pumping Iraqi oil), but getting down to making vulgar threats by tweets?
BTW, US law forbid assassinations.
Last edited:
I dont think he was on his holidays OG. He was aledgedly organising attacks.
I dont think his killing has helped but think its got to be accepted he was involved with state orchestrated terrorism,which it seems international law has little affect on.
Gadaffi was behind Lockerbie bombing in 1988. Things caught up with him in 2011.Thats not right either. Some would argue a drone should have been sent his way much earlier. How many lives would have been saved had he been killed in 1990 rather than 2011???Its not so simple OG.
How many deaths has Soleimani been responsible for, how many has killing him saved (or caused?)
Should Human Rights protect Gadaffi, Bin Laden, Sadam, etc etc. I, m not sure its there for their protection.