« More on the Spat Between Rowling and the Trannies | Main | Ukranian Crash in Iran: A Missile or Something Else? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Charles N. Steele

Here's why killing Suleiman and al Muhandis is both justified and wise.

1. They attacked U.S. territory and were planning further attacks. That alone is enough for the president to act quickly, without Congressional authorization. That's an act of defense, not an act of war.

2. Iran has been sowing destruction throughout the world, and especially the Middle East. It's important that the worst of their high ranking military men realize they are in great danger if they continue; a the IDF Chief of Staff put it, they need to have "a feeling of despair and doubt in their ability..." They should feel defeated, not triumphant.

3. This is an extremely costly attack for Iran, and degrades their military, yet killed very few people. That's better than killing a few hundred cannon fodder or hitting a city with the attendant harm to civilians.

It's a great move.

If the Iranian regime responds with violence, hurt them much harder.

J. Reed Anderson

Not mentioned is the Obama administration directive that a sitting president can declare, by himself and extra-legally, that someone is a threat and then can kill or have that person killed. Obama did that to two American citizens sitting in a Yemeni cafe and, as they say, crickets from the left.

John Pepple

Yup, it's double standards all the time.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad

My Books