Trump ordered US drone strike that killed Iran general Qassem Suleimani

I did read it. No mention of any ransom paid by the US for Otto.

 

You are teaching that giving money to the leading global terrorist state is justified. That's despicable.

 

Source, or just your 2cents about how "that works"?

 

Ironic.

 

Isn't it.

 

You made the claim so the burden of proof was on you.
You said: "I do want the conflict between Iran and the US to be settled once and for all. And right now, the only way to settle it is through war."

My question was clear. I will repeat it. "extrapolate that thought. I'll start. The US bombs Iran and kills millions of people. Then what happens?" I clearly asked you to give me YOUR scenario as to what YOU think will be the chain of events following a US invasion of Iran. All you've done is provide me with a bunch of article links for the opinion of other sources.

I've only opened the very first link, from The Hill and the very first sentence of the link that you have provided proves my point.
"President Trump has said that a U.S.-Iranian military conflict “wouldn’t last very long,” implying that the U.S. would emerge triumphant with minimal costs."

The second paragraph in The Hill article;

"A conflict likely would begin with an Iranian provocation that trips U.S. tolerance, triggering an attack to deter Iran from further provocations. Iran would see this as disproportionate, and the response would quickly escalate. This would be a “fight tonight” war, without a weeks- or months-long buildup of U.S. forces; the U.S. would fight with what it has in the region.extrapolate that thought. I'll start. The US bombs Iran and kills millions of people. Then what happens?

So go ahead, you explain to me how a war with Iran would go. Tell me in YOUR thoughts and words and not a bunch of gobbledegoop from multiple sites. Come on, you can do it, think!

 

We didn't "give" them any of our own money! The US returned THEIR money. Why is this so very difficult for you to understand?

 

First, read though at least the first article, since you me go through the trouble of giving you various expert opinions on how such a war would go. Their opinions and the scenarios they outline should carry more credence than what you or I would have to say.
Second, I already mentioned: this idea that the US bombs Iran and kills "millions" isn't realistic, unless you are suggesting the US will intentionally target civilians (and use nukes to boot).

 

You have thoughts, and you can type. Try that. I don't want their opinions because most are based on a lethal provocation by Iran. I want your opinion. And FYI, nobody is going to use 'nukes'.

 

I assume you're referring to Adolf Eichmann. He didn't have a "free hand," either.

 

Well, I prefer to keep my thoughts on hypothetical war scenarios to myself. Suffice it to say: my thoughts see the US either have to leave the region or, alternatively, have to basically re-start the draft (or use nukes). Otherwise, I see Iran prevailing when all is said and done, meaning US forces will be out of the areas Iran wants them to be evicted from.

 

Then you really should try to refrain from statements such as, "I do want the conflict between Iran and the US to be settled once and for all. And right now, the only way to settle it is through war."

Clearly, it's your opinion that war is the only way out, that's a very broad statement and doesn't bring any critical thinking or strategy into the equation. Many wars have been avoided through diplomacy, but diplomacy is not what either Pompeo or Bolton espoused. They wanted regime change for the past ten years or more, no matter how they achieved it and no matter what the cost to the US would be.

 

Ah, but a much smaller crowd showed up for his funeral.

 

If I felt there was room for diplomacy, and that would have lasting and fruitful results, I would definitely espouse that route. I just don't see that to be the case. And for that reason, I do see war as the only course left. Better for Iran to wage it now when much of the population is unified and determined and before the US chips away at it further, than when later when it might make for easy prey and fall victim to the "implosion" agenda of the US/Israel.

 

There was, it was the Iran deal and Iran was monitored and found in compliance with the JCPOA nuclear deal. People are foolish to believe that a US and Iran war will involve only these two countries. There will be a host of countries involved including Russia and the EU.

 

The Trump administration has already claimed that the US would target cultural sites. Do you believe the US wouldn't target civilian sites as well? Any major target in Iran has millions of civilians. Could anyone be so naive to believe that this general that the US assassinated wasn't replaced immediately by another general made from the same mold as Soleimani?

 

Funny stuff. You think that the Ayatollah used the money to feed the poor and for cultural enrichment ????

 

Obama apologist. ^^^^

 

Of course he did. You think Hitler designed the gas chambers.

 

From what I've read Soleimani was an indispensable man, of the stature of George Washington for the US.

 

Facts son, just facts. Sorry you're not too familiar with that concept.

 

Nobody in Iran is indispensable.

 

Somehow, I have my doubts about your expertise.

"And that’s now the problem Iran faces. I do not know of a single Iranian who was more indispensable to his government’s ambitions in the Middle East. From 2015 to 2017, when we were in the heat of the fighting against the Islamic State in both Syria and Iraq, I would watch Soleimani shuttle back and forth between Syria and Iraq. When the war to prop up Bashar al-Assad was going poorly, Soleimani would leave Iraq for Syria. And when Iranian-backed militias in Iraq began to struggle against the Islamic State, Soleimani would leave Syria for Iraq."


https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/a...assem-soleimani-its-indispensable-man/604375/

But when facts don't fit your narrative, sneer at the facts, I guess.

 

Esmail Ghaani has succeeded Soleimani as commander of the Quds Force. Likely one of his first duties will be to oversee whatever revenge Iran intends to seek for the U.S. killing of his longtime friend Soleimani. He had served as Soleimani’s deputy commander since 1997 – and the Treasury Department says he has used his power to direct funding toward terrorist groups like Hezbollah. The name and face of Iran's terrorism has changed but not their mission. Nothing was accomplished by the US with this assassination.

 

The fact is that neither Carter, Reagan, 41, Clinton, or 43 gave hundreds of millions of dollars to a terrorist nation. Obama did. That is despicable. Obama has blood on his hands just as does Soleimani.