Iran's Top Terrorist Taken Out By The U.S.

[CountValentine]

Thankfully, I don't think too many are confused about the difference between war and an act of war. Most people wouldn't call someone drunk because they sipped an oz of beer, which is indeed part of the process of getting drunk. Most people here have been saying these escalations will not become a war, and that seems to be likely.

To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.
 

[Dan]

To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.

None of which means we are at war.

[Ergel]

To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.

So you are grateful he is a coward?
Honestly, I usually find you to be sensible. But you are like a bull in a china shop in this discussion

[CountValentine]

@CountValentine You really think he is a coward for not responding to the missile strike?

NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.
He is a coward for being a draft dodger. If you know anyone that serve in the US military ask them if they consider a draft dodger a coward.

[CountValentine]

So you are grateful he is a coward?

Give me time to respond to one question before asking another. 

[whYME]

To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.

So in other words they didn't do any real harm, everybody gets to claim victory, and we all go back home and argue about impeachment again.

So remind me again why this is all so terrible?

[as2]

To have a war you need two participants. US started with an act of war, Iran responded with an act of war. Trump decided to back down and I am grateful he came to his senses after this major blunder.

Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?

[CountValentine]

Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?

You mean by proxies?

[PlatinumGuy]

Mob storming an embassy is very different from ballistic missiles attacking US forces.

[as2]

You mean by proxies?

Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?

[aygart]

NO!!! It was the right thing to do and in the best interest of the US.
He is a coward for being a draft dodger. If you know anyone that serve in the US military ask them if they consider a draft dodger a coward.

So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?

[CountValentine]

None of which means we are at war.

I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is dumb enough to commit an act of war but Trump would not bite? 

[CountValentine]

So when you called him a coward it had nothing to do with his not responding to the missiles?

Seriously, no.

[whYME]

Not involving myself in this argument, just honestly wondering...Didn't Iran attack the US embassy (twice?) prior to this attack? Wouldn't that be the initiating act of war?

Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.
(and then when they sent a few missiles to Iraq Trump saw the harm they caused and got all scared of their tremendous military might and backed down like a coward.)

[CountValentine]

Still genuinely wondering, not stoking the flames, but why would that make a difference? I don't think anyone questioned who was behind those attacks. Can war not spur from proxy attacks?

It gives them deniability and something the members here love, word games.

[whYME]

You mean by proxies?

Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.

Had he been killed in Iran (which never would've happened) it would be a whole different ball game.

[CountValentine]

Apparently in the anti-Trump world Iran & Suleimani were just sitting around minding their own business when all of the sudden, out of the blue, Trump decided to randomly kill Suleimani because he wanted to start WW3.
(and then when they sent a few missiles to Iraq Trump saw the harm they caused and got all scared of their tremendous military might and backed down like a coward.)

Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?

[whYME]

Wait Trump been president for 3 years and all of a sudden he decides to take out this bad guy? The 3 previous years he didn't kill anyone?

It must be because he wanted to divert attention from impeachment, considering how impeachment has been killing him in the polls and decimating his fundraising.

[CountValentine]

Well to be fair, Suleimani was killed while in Iraq in the company of said proxies.

Had he been killed in Iran (which never would've happened) it would be a whole different ball game.

So killing a government official outside their country is not as serious as killing them in their country?

[Dan]

I think I got it now. What you meant was that Iran is smart enough to commit an act of war, without casualties that would compel Trump to bite? 

ftfy