What remains true is that there were plenty of other options rather than murderous act of war.
The US could have pulled out of Iraq, and we could have utilized diplomacy. Iraq is not our nation, we are not responsible for the common good there. Their government is responsible for their common good.
Too bad. it would all be much easier if he didn’t have to balance competing loyalties.
Yes, it is. Our embassies are extensions of our country.
The host country determines what they will allow.
Right. Just like the attack on the embassy in Benghazi was caused by an offensive movie.
That you define it as an act of war doesn’t make it one, and if it did you give too little significance to this:
www.bild.de
Yes facts are facts. To say Trump used force against Iran to bolster re-election is a far far stretch here from the facts. Sounds more like a talking point for liberals than the facts.
If it is not war, then it is simply murder, which goes against the ten commandments and Gospel values.
The Iraqi government is that which has the responsibility for the common good in Iraq. We wouldn’t want Iraq to be in charge of the common good here in the US if they had people working here.
The US did not get permission from the Iraqi government. There were Iraqi officials killed.
You keep trying to make this a moral evil simply because you disagree with the action. As you surely (ought to) know one may kill in self defense, which is not war and is not murder. Find another objection.
The US is in Iraq with their permission, and it is our government that is responsible for the safety of our citizens.
A terrorist is a terrorist.
As I’ve said elsewhere, the timing is all wrong given the election is a year out. There will be no spin left to spin on this in a year. This was done (good or bad) on it’s merits alone. They just went too far with the embassy attack, a severe miscalculation by Iran.
If you are suggesting that I said that, you are completely mistaken.
It’s the other way. I disagree with the action because it is a moral evil, which it is.
This would never meet the criteria of self-defense in any court of law. By your reasoning, if Soleimani’s people had found out about American plans to kill him at the airport, his killing of our leaders would have been just. I hope you see how much this is against the precepts of the Gospel. Much more could have been done instead of assassination.
Are you familiar with “an eye for an eye”? Did Jesus tell us to kill in response to killing?
A “terrorist” is still a person. While we are not to allow enemies to kill us, we are to use whatever means possible before resorting to war. Please explain how this act complies with just war doctrine. None of the people killed, as far as I know, were convicted terrorists, and the death penalty is also disallowed.
The only reason Soleimani hadn’t killed any of our leaders is that he lacked the ability to do so.
About all that was left for us was surrender.
If you maintain that killing Soleimani was an act of war then you must surely admit that attacking our embassies was equally an act of war, a war that Soleimani and his cohorts initiated. That makes him a casualty of war, and with him eliminated that may well make his successors much more circumspect about attacking us again. So there you are, the greatest threat to peace has been eliminated.
This is an argument about the justice of punishment; it has nothing to do with the criteria for war or self-defense.
Iran was at war with us, whether we publicly declared it or not. The action we took was not indiscriminate, but targeted at the specific individual responsible for years of carnage.
If, as you continue to insist, this is about war, then the criteria regarding trials and punishment do not apply.
We could have contacted them and met with the Iraqi leadership to negotiate a way of existing there together, some boundaries of action.
Not true. We could have negotiated through the Iraqi government.
Possibly.
If Iran retaliates in kind, or escalates, you will be wrong. Now the US is being ordered out of Iraq by Iraqi government.
See box, Canada, Egypt, Saudi Arabia have also designated them as a terror group.
The crucifixion of Jesus was also part of God’s providence, and He brought tremendous good out of the evil that was done to Jesus. Yet woe to him by whom the Son of Man was betrayed. It not turn out so well for Judas.
Believing in this is akin to believing in unicorns. Negotiation is not always possible. Do you not believe Iran meant it when she called us the Great Satan and preached Death to America?
The legitimacy of our act is to be determined by what idiocy Iran initiates? Ours was a measured, limited response to repeated acts of aggression, and a warning that further acts may well be met by “disproportionate response”. Most people know better than to antagonize someone bigger than you. Hopefully this will include Iran.
I’m pretty sure that the most ineffective means of ending aggression is to do nothing.
It has been proven that the way that the US and others have conducted the war, terrorism has increased.
https://www.cato.org/publications/p...k-lessons-us-foreign-policy-failed-war-terror
This is false. By your statement, Iran should respond to our aggression with more aggression because to do otherwise would be ineffective.
Okay, you do not believe in other means of dealing with these issues other than war. This goes against the CCC, but that’s your choice.