OK, US troops are in Iraq with Iraqi permission, fighting people who are trying to overthrow the Iraqi government. Soleimani is an Iranian general. If we aren't already at war with Iran, why is an Iranian general in Iraq killing American troops? You are trying to justify Iranian aggression against US troops in Iraq, while decrying US efforts to protect it's own people there. I would love if it every foreign soldier and militant left Iraq today -- including Iranian proxies -- but until that happens, America has a responsibility to protect it's people. If your son was in the Marines in Baghdad right now, you'd be a lot happier this guy is dead, wouldn't you?
I have a nephew in the US who is draft age. Do you think I want him dead? But at the risk of repeating myself, there will be no full on war against Iran. If Trump was going to go to war, he would have already. His focus has been on extricating the US from these conflicts, not increasing American presence in them. Unless Iran does something really, really stupid, neither of us need to worry about an invasion of Iran as long as Trump is in the White House. I am sure of it.
Why would I do that when I'm not in favour of Americans going and fighting in Iran in the first place? I don't want war against Iran any more than you do, but there are ways of achieving peace that involve a bit of violence, and I will support targeted strikes against warmongers as long as they're legitimate targets and there is little or no collateral damage. Remember, Trump recently called off a retaliatory strike against Iran because he was told it would result in the death of 150 Iranian troops. Think about that, when you think about describing him as a warmonger. Does that sound like a man who wants to wildly go to war, and damn the consequences?
America's strike on Soleimani severely damaged Iran's capability to cause more death and more destruction, and I am fully in favour of that. Why aren't you?