TFLYTSNBN wrote:I don't want to fight the quote structure, so I will just respond in sequence.
Killing General Sulinami is somewhat similar to killing Bin Laden. Both assasinations were morally correct. However; both assassination provoked consequences. One should consider consequences and evaluate them in context of the future threat.
Oh ffs.
That's like saying "dropping this rock in the ocean is somewhat similar to dropping that asteroid in the ocean. They're both solid objects and they're both landing in water and making a splash."
Ummmm... ok. Technically correct while masking the most critical difference. SCALE.
Assassinating a globally wanted criminal terrorist with no official state ties is a UNIVERSE different than assassinating a top Iranian government official, and so are the consequences. Yes it angered the Pakistanis but there was effectively ZERO chance it was going to provoke a shooting war with Pakistan since officially they were in support of the find and kill Bin Laden plan.
Fortunately it appears someone managed to sit on Trump last night and get him to not re-escalate things further this morning, hopefully bringing about what was probably the best case outcome of this entire situation Trump deliberately provoked. The Iranians openly bombarding US military positions and threatening the US with far more severe and widespread consequences if they responded... and the US backing down and letting them walk away.
Which is going to be a propaganda bonanza for Iran all over the region... and again, that was the BEST CASE outcome of what Mr. Very Stable Genius caused to happen. Assuming Trump doesn't do a 180, enter full tantrum mode, and still do something to make it even worse next.
The consequence of the assination was the election of a far more militant islamicist government that seems intent on provoking a nuclear war with India.
Oh please, the Pakistani elections were hardly a one issue event.
However; it was possible to kill Bin Laden without provoking those consequences. If President Obama was convinced that Pakistan's President would not act if the HE PERSONALLY revealed Bin Laden's whereabouts to him, a B-1 dropping a MOAB would have whereabouts far more discrete.
And potentially have never given positive confirmation Bin Laden was in fact on site and killed. Or that they didn't just oopsie bomb a bunch of civilians into charcoal.
You know, minor little considerations like that.
In the case of General Sulinami, he was an active, continuing threat. He was provoking a low intensity civil war within Iraq to increase Iranian influence with the obvious goal of domination. The vote by the Iraqi parliament when only Shia were attending without Sunni or Kurds dramatizes Iranian influence. Do you really think that the Suni and Kurds were outraged by his assination?
Killing Sulinami obviously pissed off the Iranians. They were already pissed off. Everyone on this board wants to blame Trump for the Iranians breaching the treaty.
Ahem. The Iranians DIDN'T breach the treaty. Trump did. You have been told this repeatedly. So yes, he gets the blame for the thing he did.
The capabilities that they are now revealing indicate that they were building the infrastructure to mass produce advanced centrifuges BEFORE Trump withdrew from the Treaty.
Which was permitted under the treaty. Again, as has already been explained to you. What the treaty put a lockdown on was enrichment beyond certain limits, which they were abiding by until Trump blew everything up with his typical diplomacy-by-tantrum-and-chest-thumping approach.
Iran was going to go nuclear just like Pakistan and North Korea.
Possibly at some date in the far future if negotiations over the next over 10 years of the deal failed to reach an understanding that extended the nuclear framework.
Trump decided, "hey, let's just skip those ten plus years the deal bought everyone, scrap all diplomacy, and provoke them into abandoning all nuclear restraints today!"
Yeah, that made things better.
Trump MIGHT be able to stop Iran from getting nukes, but probably can not. A nuclear armed Iran is far more problematic if Iran controls Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Too bad Trump has been actively handing them influence in all of the above areas his entire presidency. Which you were cheerleading up until this as I recall. So, so happy that you thought Trump was getting the US out of there. You had an entire thread devoted to how happy you were about it that is still sitting here on the front page of this forum.
