Iranian General Killed by US Attack

[Darwinianevolution]

Wyrdness said:

Darwinianevolution said:

Measured response is key in this. If Iran had responded by killing american personnel in international soil, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had pushed for terrorist attacks and had claimed their involvement in them, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. If Iran had threatened in a serious way the oil routes of the area, there would have been a need for a sterner reaction. As it is, the whole deal has ended with Iran throwing missiles in such a way not a single american has turned out dead or wounded. If both Iran and the US are happy to let things as they are now (the US dealt with one of the most dangerous terrorists out there and sent a message to Iran, and Iran tried to save face by throwing missiles to the US bases in a way that supposedly made the regime look "strong" in front of its population and didn't led to immediate war) then that's that. No need for invasion, no need for war.

And about those later points, this doesn't weaken the US position in the Middle East at all. If anything it strengthens it. The western allies of the US know about the threat of terrorism, Irak is not going to eject US troops (both because of its own instability and because they also are at odds with Iran), and if Iran ever actually went ahead with the war threats, both US and Saudi Arabia would gladly ally together to take it down.

Yet you say their general did all these things including killing Americans on foreign soil which you're saying calls for an invasion yet contradict yourself saying a measured response is needed for Iran so which is it mate as a General is part of the country. Just yesterday people like yourself were saying they won't do anything now today it's "It's a move to save face", you know why Iran attacked those bases? To call Trump's bluff he issued threats going on about if any US asset is attacked and guess what 2 were attacked that was the whole point to call out the US and say well I did it so what now. Iraq has already told US to remove their troops from their country right now the US is refusing to leave this flat out contradicts your outlook in fact everything in objective reality is contradicting your view here.

The US does not want war at any costs. No nation does. War is a last resort, and it would only do it if it is really be pushed into it. That doesn't mean they won't use the threat of it as a deterrent. The United States does not want another conflict, they'd rather take out the elements that are a threat to it directly, thus the drone attack instead of an invasion. Iran does not want war, they'd rather look "strong" in front of their population without risking the regime's existence in a war against the US. If the US knew that Solemini's death would have 100% caused a war with Iran, do you think they'd still had gone through with it? The same with Iran, if they knew the missile launches would've started a war with the US 100% guaranteed, would they have launched them? Both countries threatened each other with war, but neither one really wants it. And they are perfectly capable of saying the other's actions are acts of war while not really responding with actual war. If noone escalates this further, the bloodless missile attack and the extra sanctions are going to be the end of this.

And about Iraq's request to the US to remove the troops. Can you please link an article about it? I've been looking about Iraq's reaction and I've been unable to find that fact.