Heh, it's apparent that one of us is more informed than the other on these matters.
Out of curiosity, why do you think I don't know anything? What is it you think you know about my experience and knowledge? You haven't actually countered any fact I've presented.
And you respond to the argument I made with a diversion into a diatribe about our lying government lying about lies and our bigly lying president lying about lies for personal enrichment:
And there it is. You can't separate your analysis of current events from your disgust with Trump.
Do you think maybe, just maybe, you could concede that in this particular case, Trump did something reasonable? (If it makes you feel better, you could attribute it to luck, broken clock right twice per day, blind squirrel and a nut, etc.)
I have no expectation that you'll start using the word correctly, but it'd be a step in the right direction if you'd start spelling it correctly.
I can't really tell if you're pretending like you know what you're talking about.
Regarding the UN -
For one thing, UN resolutions are products of its member nations, which act in ways they perceive to be to their own benefit. In matters of morality and ethics, I care little what the UN says, influenced as it is by China, Russia, and various other despotic regimes. That Syrian President Assad called it a "treacherous and cowardly act of aggression” means little to me.
And concerning the UN's response, it's instructive to read the rest of the quote from Agnès Callamard (the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions): “outside the context of active hostilities, the use of drones or other means for targeted killing is almost never likely to be legal.” Her obvious yet unstated assumption here was that General Soleimani was NOT engaged in active hostilities. Does it change your opinion of the event to know that he was involved with directing the local Iran-proxy militias that attacked our embassy?
The simple truth is that he was a uniformed member of a military actively engaged in hostilities against the United States.
Additionally, in assessing anything the UN ever does, you have to remember why it exists in the first place: to reduce the odds of small conflicts turning into larger ones. Its structure is hardwired to almost universally condemn any military action for any reason anywhere in the world, ever. There is some value to this, but it's a mistake to interpret UN resolutions as the fruit of some kind of collective moral or ethical consciousness.
Bottom line, Soleimani was actively engaged in planning, directing, and executing attacks on the United States and our allies in the region. Killing him was absolutely appropriate. If you want to talk about the strategic wisdom of doing so right now, and what might happen next, that's a separate discussion. But all you've said so far is "orange man bad" and "US bad aggressor" and "assasination" ... that's just bias, not argument.
:
