On this subject I don't think we can have an intellectual conversation. You either feel that the US was right in taking the opportunity to kill a terrorist leader that had been and was currently planning to take American lives or you don't.
Not a lot or wiggle room there.
I completely disagree. Whether or not the US was right is only one issue. This thread isn't even directly about that.
- First of all, this is a complicated issue. You can believe that the assassination was the right decision and still accept the risks and costs to the US for doing it. You can believe that the assassination was the wrong strategic move and still believe that the US was morally right. Or you can believe it is morally wrong. Or you can look at the arguments on both side and say **** it.
I think intellectual honesty means admitting the valid points on the other side. I think that the assassination was strategic mistake... I think the added risk of war isn't worth the benefit and that it hurts our influence. I have no problems admitting that there are valid reasons for the assassination
. He was the head of a terrorist group and killing him puts pressure on Iran.
- Secondly, you can work to understand the strategic situation no matter what you opinion of the assassination is. I believe that all out war would be very bad for the US and worse for Iran (but that's how asymmetric war works). I think both sides want to avoid a full war.
Iran needs to draw a line. They can't let an assassination of a top leader go unanswered any more than we can. The question is where the new line is drawn.
- It is ridiculous to think that there are only two points of view. This is a complicated set of issues. Thoughtful people will make up their mind independently on each issue rather than falling lockstep in to one ideological camp or the other.