I would agree with that in principle, I thought that was understood. Although you and I might disagree on what constitutes a "major escalation".
I would agree with that in principle, I thought that was understood. Although you and I might disagree on what constitutes a "major escalation".
I think that depends on whether a bunch of terrorists are taking shelter in the places. Like IUcrazy I wouldn't hesitate to hit one but would the other.
They are basically doing everything possible to prevent diplomacy so we are left with the inevitable. Remind you of anything?
https://thehill.com/policy/internat...iplomat-visa-to?amp&__twitter_impression=true
This reminds me of the runup to the Iraq war like Apocalypse Now reminds me of Vietnam.
If terrorists are hiding somewhere, then it might be a legitimate military target. But that's not the discussion. It's whether a cultural target in and of itself would be acceptable. It shouldn't be, no matter what the target. There shouldn't be gradations of acceptable culture. If it's not a military target, then it's not a military target, period.
Would attacking Walmart headquarters count as a cultural target?
Btw, take a look at the darn Persepolis! Those ruins would make an amazing place for those darn terrorists to congregate! Wide open with no cover!
A
anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Guest
I'm not an expert on the laws of war, but I doubt it. At attack on Walmart headquarters might be illegal for other reasons, though. Cultural targets aren't the only prohibited ones.
A tip o' me hat to you, sir.Yeah, but if Ranger were willing to kick-in 900k, I’d bet you’d be willing to do it. An honorable man would stand by the meme he created. You strike me as an honorable man.
And besides, Ranger did say he’d fetch the tissues (see below)...
And that’s without even any involvement of the aforementioned 900k.
Sounds like a layup if you ask me.
I agree .... I really don't think hitting a cultural target would accomplish anything except making more people pissed as us.
Taking out Suleimani was the right thing to do. As Twenty and Ranger have noted he was responsible for the death of more than 600 Americans in Iraq. Many more were injured.
We are getting to the point where Fordow needs destroyed.
Israel is the one for the job.
We are getting to the point where Fordow needs destroyed.
Israel is the one for the job.
James Webb gives us a serious discussion of the implications of assassinating Soleimani and designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as terrorists.
No thinking American would support Soleimani’s conduct. But it is also indisputable that his activities were carried out as part of his military duties. His harm to American military units was through his role as an enabler and adviser to third-country forces. This, frankly, is a reality of war.
I fought as a Marine in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam War because of Vietnam’s propinquity to China, which along with the Soviet Union provided continuous support to the North Vietnamese, including most of the weapons used against us on the battlefield. China was then a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Its leaders continually spouted anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet we did not assassinate its military leaders for rendering tactical advice or logistical assistance. We fought the war that was in front of us, and we created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively through diplomatic, economic and other means.
Now, despite Trump’s previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the United States’ footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders — in Iraq, Libya and Syria — destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest long-term challenge: China’s military and economic expansion throughout the world.
At a time when our political debates have come to resemble Kardashian-like ego squabbles, the United States desperately needs common-sense leadership in its foreign policy. This is not a failure of the executive branch alone; it is the result of a breakdown in our entire foreign policy establishment, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even to many of our once-revered think tanks. If partisanship in foreign policy should end at the water’s edge, then such policies should be forged through respectful, bipartisan debate.
The first such debate should focus on the administration’s unilateral decision to label an entire element of a foreign government an international terrorist organization. If Congress wishes to hold Iran to such a standard, it should then formally authorize the use of force against Iran’s government. The failure of congressional leadership to make these kinds of decisions is an example of why our foreign policy has become so militarized, and of how weak and even irrelevant Congress has allowed itself to become in the eyes of our citizens.
I fought as a Marine in Vietnam. We had similar problems throughout the Vietnam War because of Vietnam’s propinquity to China, which along with the Soviet Union provided continuous support to the North Vietnamese, including most of the weapons used against us on the battlefield. China was then a rogue state with nuclear weapons. Its leaders continually spouted anti-U.S. rhetoric. Yet we did not assassinate its military leaders for rendering tactical advice or logistical assistance. We fought the war that was in front of us, and we created the conditions in which we engaged China aggressively through diplomatic, economic and other means.
Now, despite Trump’s previous assertions that he wants to dramatically reduce the United States’ footprint in the Middle East, it seems clear that he has been seduced into making unwise announcements similar to the rhetoric used by his immediate predecessors of both parties. Their blunders — in Iraq, Libya and Syria — destabilized the region and distracted the United States from its greatest long-term challenge: China’s military and economic expansion throughout the world.
At a time when our political debates have come to resemble Kardashian-like ego squabbles, the United States desperately needs common-sense leadership in its foreign policy. This is not a failure of the executive branch alone; it is the result of a breakdown in our entire foreign policy establishment, from the executive branch to the legislative branch and even to many of our once-revered think tanks. If partisanship in foreign policy should end at the water’s edge, then such policies should be forged through respectful, bipartisan debate.
The first such debate should focus on the administration’s unilateral decision to label an entire element of a foreign government an international terrorist organization. If Congress wishes to hold Iran to such a standard, it should then formally authorize the use of force against Iran’s government. The failure of congressional leadership to make these kinds of decisions is an example of why our foreign policy has become so militarized, and of how weak and even irrelevant Congress has allowed itself to become in the eyes of our citizens.
Latest posts
-
Trump supporter just lit himself on fire outside the courthouse...- Latest: Bulk VanderHuge
-
-
-
-