Some wars are meant to be started

It was long overdue. The fucker had been killing Americans, allies, and his own people for decades before we crossed him off.
Add on that he was meeting with terrorist leaders in countries he was banned from, and that he was killed immediately after directing a strike that spilled American blood, and there's nothing illegitimate about the strike.
Really, killing him seriously crippled Iran's ability to project force, collaborate with terrorists, and even keep their own people in line.

and they will still have retaliation for it, doesn't have to be in the same week, month or even year.

Brother, they've been hitting us since '79. No point in trying to give General Fuckface undue credit, all we did was avenge 600+ dead soldiers and countless allies and civilians (Iranians too) that he killed.

bruh, and the US "avenged" 600+ dead soldiers and they still will have retaliation, if you think they won't, then fine, someone was killed, someone killed in retaliation, and they will kill as a result, and guess what bruh, they will kill again.

Yeah. Maybe we ought to hit them hard enough that they can't get back up, but I'll settle for crippling their ability to commit terror by proxy.

if someone killed one of your friends, or relative, or family down the street, you'd just sit back and not do anything?

We didn't kill a friend, relative, or family down the street. We killed a hostile terrorist commander responsible for countless murders, arming and supporting our enemy, and teaching terrorist fucks how to reduce my brothers to a red paste inside their trucks, Humvees, and Strykers, so that they can light little girls on fire and behead gays unopposed.
You wanna liken it to killing someone's brother? I say we just dealt with a killer who violated his restraining order.

oh, so you can positively say he had no family, no friends, no neighbours, interesting perspective.

No, I can positively say that he was a war criminal, a terrorist, and that killing him only benefits America, her allies, and all the civilians he would've gone on to kill and brutalize.

so you expect no consequences from killing him because you say he had no friends, family or neighbours then

I know that Iran would hurt us worse with him than they will without him. Because they've been hitting us for decades. Their national policy is "Death to America", and "Death to Israel". Retaliation isn't even a passing concern when an entity is already dedicated to burning you and your allies in nuclear fire.

As it is, he was the commander of Quds Force the mind behind modern IEDs and current terrorist tactics, and Iran's point of contact to most of their terror proxies and maybe North Korea.

so you're saying you'd sit back and do nothing if a friend of yours was killed, interesting.

My friends aren't terrorist commanders.

so you either accept that there will be a consequence, or you're a hypocrite to think there won't be

Here's the consequence: Iran will have less efficiency in carrying out the acts of terror they have been doing and will continue to do for as long as their current leadership is left allowed to.

you do realise that it just means someone else will step up and take his place, and will take revenge on his behalf. Or you think they won't because America has the last word in everything regarding the rest of the world?

That's the beauty of it. He personally built up relationships with those terror cells, it will take years for another to build up the goodwill necessary to just get the warlords in a room without killing eachother, much less coordinating them against coalition forces.
And his junior officers are inexperienced and lack his skill and charisma, as he was endlessly paranoid of being crossed off by an ambitious junior or even the Supreme Leader.
And as long as anyone wages war against us, America will always have the last word. Ask King George III, Chief Joseph, the Mexican army, France, Spain, Britain, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Reich, Noriega, the USSR, Saddam, Gaddafi, Bin Laden, al-Baghdadi, or any of their millions of followers who couldn't destroy us.

So if someone kills a leading US General, there's absolutely no one that can take their place right away, that's a pretty pathetic military system you have.

The Iranian system is nothing like the American system, brother. Ours is largely based on merit, experience, and competition.
Theirs is an oligarchy riddled with nepotism, backstabbing, distrust, bribery, and fanaticism.
There is no comparison. Imagine if the USMC hated the Navy, so they made it look like Soldiers killed Airmen because the Coastguard was getting too much attention, and then Trump decides to execute the Chief of Staff to put Kushner in his place, only for thousands of civilians to be burned alive by General Mattis because someone disrespected the image of Jehovah.
That's Iran.

seems you truly believe that killing the general, makes eveyone else go "oh well, no leader, lets go home now"

No. It deters further attacks, avenges countless dead, and cripples their ability to conduct business as usual (like training terrorists, and murdering civilians).
Are you even reading?

yes, cause it's deterred them in the past. Yes i read, you say it's ok to kill them because it's America and you're allowed to do that. You don't think anything else will happen afterwards, no consequences. You think removing the leadership of a foreign military force will never be replaced and it will disburse all combatants. If your friends are killed, you'll just sit back and say "oh well, that's the end", did i miss anything?

Either your reading comprehension is shit, I'm miscommunicating or you're being deliberately obtuse. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
@guest_ halp pleze? I don't expect you to side with me, but you're far more articulate than me. Maybe you can rephrase it?

the question posed was quite simple, do you believe there would be a retaliation, you firmly believe there wouldn't be, and i stated it was ignorant to think so.

I never said there wouldn't be. I said that the enemy has been hitting us for decades and that killing their general crippled their terrorist operations and military capability. For years, at least.
In actuality, that killing was our retaliation. For the hundreds of American heroes who will never return to their mothers, daughters, or homes.
Are we supposed to do nothing until they finally do nuke us or an ally?

ok, so there will most likely be a retaliation, cause it was a retaliatioin for a retaliation, takes communication to stop the cycle, not an assassination. To them, the US made him a hero, a matyr

Please, the Persians hate the regime more than we do. They've barely averted an uprising, and that was with the general killing his own civilians in droves.
You're right about one thing though, the cycle needs to stop. The regime wants America, Israel, and all of the west to burn. The regime wants a new caliphate over the entire world. So the regime has got to go. You don't use "communication" to halt their brand of genocidal fundamentalism. Those jerks subjugating and murdering their own people in droves won't be happy with any compromise, and no righteous people can compromise with fanaticism.

Sorry I’m late. It seems y’all finally found the stumbling block. To be fair- I do not think famousone wasn’t being articulate- I think that there was just a misunderstanding as famousone never said there wouldn’t be retaliation- just that retaliation wasn’t a major concern to him- or in his opinion, the possibility of retaliation is outweighed by the strategic benefits of taking out a major military leader.

I agree with Iccarus- that if you cut the head off a hydra- a new one just grows. Sometimes- the power vacuum created allows an even worse threat to emerge. We’ve seen this before. BUT- sometimes the loss of a key person can cripple or even destroy a movement or elements of it.

Will they retaliate? Well... maybe? Probably? When you assassinate a man from across an ocean- emotions are complex no? Anger, outrage- all likely felt. Perhaps fear too. That’s a message. Laws, consequences, morality, logistics be damned- if someone pisses you off enough- you’ll kill them.

Now- escalation depends on how that message is received. If the people in power “get the message” then they will likely be much more conservative in directly pissing off the USA. They may find OTHER ways to retaliate- but there is a lot of game theory here. In such contexts of military politics- a heavy question is who has more to lose, who is willing or able to lose more, who can do more damage to the other?

The problem with “bombing into the Stone Age” is that while it DELAYS retribution- it cements and likely intensifies it much of the time. We saw this after WW1- a broken and resentful Germany started a renewed and magnified war within decades- after WW2 a point was made to rebuild and try to mend relations- and so far almost a century later... it worked better. Once you take everything but a persons life- life is all they have to lose, but it is also all they have to gamble for a future for them or their kids.

THIS IS NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE US ACTIONS- but a practical analysis. Iran MAY retaliate, there has been animosity to the US for foreign policy and its allegiance to Israel etc. for decades- all that has really been missing is the opportunity and ability to enact meaningful losses.

But say the opportunity and ability have existed all along- then why hasn’t Iran acted on their words and hostilities? Either they cannot do it, or they have so far decided that the costs of doing so would be too high. The death of one man angers people- but doesn’t change those practical facts.

We have entered a new age of global conflict- an extension of proxy wars fought past- except instead of using foreign nations as puppets to fight battles- now sovereign nations can enable or even create and run non uniformed militaries and militias to carry out acts of war in their interests.

How do you retaliate against a government or a nation for the acts of a small group of people under no flag? It’s a seed planted long ago- but growing and being cultivated since WW2. Now it’s coming into bloom and governments aren’t prepared to deal with the political mess of organizations tied to civilian benefits and even governments- whom are often local folk heroes. To control them is to lose control of the people often or the military- so governments are finding ways to use them.

Killing one man within a government- legality and morality asides- sends a message- these people have no home to invade, no flag to burn. No uniform to identify them so we can fight them on the field of open combat. But if you pull some bullshit and ignore them, tacitly or explicitly allow them to operate- or enable and direct them- someone will pay. It’s a “come to Jesus” moment of “get your shit together.”

In other words- the larger message is intended to be that the administration won’t just accept a shrug and a “they aren’t our military- can’t help you...” they will hold someone accountable- and if it comes to it- they will find them and kill them anywhere in the world.

Right or wrong- at least it was one guy and a handful of collateral damage instead of a mass bombing of mixed targets that would have severe impact on civilians just trying to live life and largely not interested or directly involved in any of the politics.

Iran MAY retaliate- but... as famousone says- if ONE of the countries doesn’t make serious policy changes- that was almost inevitable anyway. But it ends in escalation- a bombing leads to a deployment, leads to a campaign, leads to a war.... we all recall Afghanistan, Iraq, Vietnam perhaps? Win it or lose it- a lot of people die. Blow up two buildings and get 200 villages blown up- Ball is in their court.

I ask for clarification, and I get neat political and historical analysis to go with it. I love reading your input, brother.
Even when we disagree, it's insightful.

It’s good to see you again. I know it’s been awhile. Hope you’re staying safe. If we agreed on everything- it would get mighty boring- but as you say, seldom is it not a good read when I see you in a comment. Stay safe.