Soleimani 'negotiated de-escalation with Saudis when he was killed'

"Iranian IEDs" are also called EFP's (Explosively Formed Penetrators). The dead general and his Quds were supplying them to the ACF (anti-coalition forces) in Iraq. These EFP's changed the game when it came to armored vehicles. This was a bad guy - https://www.stripes.com/news/middle-east/soleimani-s-legacy-the-gruesome-high-tech-ieds-that-haunted-us-troops-in-iraq-1.613460

Yes I had comrades that were killed or injured by IEDs that were either emplaced by Iranian or Saudi backed militias. Yeah I said Saudi based cause Sunnis also killed many of our American and NATO allies. Don't assume just cause I question the strategy of this military action means I support Iran. I just don't support any military action that results in deployment of more troops into the region to become future targets to the IEDs and EFPs by all anti-US militias and terrorist groups.

MAJ James Woods - "Iranian official"!!??!!! Put down the NYT for a minute and see if you can say the following word: "Terrorist".
And it doesn't matter why he went to Iraq in the first place, he led an attack on the US Embassy, threatened (again!!) the lives of American citizens and Servicemen, he deserved to have his a$$ blown up!!!
As I said before, you're letting your TDS cloud your judgement about everything....frankly, RP is the one place where we shouldn't be discussing whether or not the President of the United States should or shouldn't be protecting the men and women of the United States from Terrorists!!! SMH

LTC Tom McNew - Put down the bias for a moment and call him what he was "Iranian government military official". He had an official title in a foreign government. He was a "state actor" not a non-state actor like Bin Laden or Al-Baghdadi. Calling him a terrorist doesn't change that. What if Iran, Russia, China, North Korea, or any other adversary start labeling our political and military diplomats "terrorists" and then act out claiming that individual was plotting activities that threatens them. When was the last time a government of any kind targeted an official member of another government with a directed military strike that didn't lead to a war or a military/political coup? You're the LTC, I'm sure you know your military history of world events.
We could've easily targeted Kim Jong Un the two times he left the safety of his country and put an end to the imminent threat of North Korea developing nuclear weapons and long range missiles. So why haven't we? Less likelihood of his assassination leading to a war.

MAJ James Woods - RIGHT! An "Iranian MILITARY official"...MILITARY.
If the Commander of US SOCOM was in England leading a group of people in an attack on the Chinese Embassy and the Chinese Military - under the direction of the Chinese president - killed the SOCOM CDR, do you think that there would be people in China screaming about what a horrible thing that had been done to a "US official"!?!?!?!

LTC Tom McNew - Well considering China is a Communist country where the president doesn't need the permission of it's legislature or it's people to do anything your hypothetical is FUBAR.
You mean if the Commander of CENTCOM or our Joint Chiefs of Staff was to meet with a leader(s) to encourage an attack against an embassy or an uprising of violent protests against a government then it would be okay for that government to target that military leader? Well that's not realistic hypothetical cause that kind of coordination is beneath them. So lets say it was a senior COL or BG from the special ops community sent to make that coordination, would it still be okay for the foreign government to target them? Sounds like you're saying yes.

I'm listening to the Iraqi PM who has a major stake in this political situation. It doesn't matter what you and I think of Iran. If the Iraqi PM says this Iranian foreign military official was in Baghdad to meet him and we 1) knew it and used it to our advantage or 2) didn't know it and got our intel from else where; should we wonder which one it was?