General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI think we should make an exception to the ban on assassination for Assad if he used chemical
weapons. If the whole point of this exercise is to deter the use of chemical weapons by tyrants, which is indeed a good goal, then why not punish the actual user? Assad used the weapons (presuming the intel is right) and thus it is Assad who should be punished not some nobodies at a Syrian air base. I can't think of anything that would be a greater deterrent to the likes of Kim of Korea, and the leadership in Iran, than the lifeless body of Assad.
leftstreet
(36,112 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)leftstreet
(36,112 posts)arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I would.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)If that is Obama's objective, which he says it isn't thus far, he needs to present that as part of the debate and objective.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Screw it, kill em all.....
Am I right?
dsc
(52,166 posts)if the intel is right. If is a conditional word, the is the, intel is the stuff that Kerry et all have been quoting, is means in this case equal to, and right means correct. So the sentence means under the condition that what Kerry et all have been saying equals correct then Assad should be assassinated. I am sorry my words were so confusing.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Scratch that, we're still screaming about Bush and Dick. We continue to say that they should be in The Hague for the lied that led to the last warS.
orpupilofnature57
(15,472 posts)like the pictures of the poisoned, which is actually the only proof of the whole matter .
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I would expect it could only come from UN Security Council....and Russia is sure to veto. Plus, Assad's brother, who might replace him, is reported to be as bad or worse.
dsc
(52,166 posts)it is about deterrence. Dead low level officers in Syria will not deter those in Iran or Korea. A dead Assad, even one replaced by an another Assad, would be a humungous deterrent.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)So naturally, the follow-up question is "who succeeds him?"
And of course, a unilateral decision to assasinate a head of state, even a brutal one, opens up the possibility of Obama being charged by the ICC with violating the Geneva Convention.
dsc
(52,166 posts)I care about dictators not using chemical weapons, now if as a side effect of assassination, a Syrian Lincoln or Washington comes forward then all the better, but regardless I think assassination is the only reasonable option if the chemical weapons have been used.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Assad's replacement could likely be worse. You simply can't make a knee-jerk rash action...any action should be analyzed for what the possible reaction and blowback will occur. Just saying kill Assad without thinking of the consequences is the thought process of juveniles.
dsc
(52,166 posts)then he likely would use chemical weapons as well and then meet the same fate.
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)As neither country is a party to the Rome Statute.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)I would be very surprised if the CIA hasn't been giving intel and other logistic support to the rebels for some time. There have been various assassination attempts on Assad henchmen and I am sure the CIA was at least peripherally involved - but far enough away to plausibly deny it.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Assassination can't be an option.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)Why is assassination more unethical than a bombing campaign that might kill innocent civilians?
dsc
(52,166 posts)except replace might will almost certainly will.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)The next guy be worse or be better or the country could disintegrate........
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Its a solution of an immature mind.
neverforget
(9,436 posts)KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)It worked for the Underpants Gnomes.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If the next leader is worse, then couldn't he or she also be assassinated?
If the next leader is better, then wouldn't that be a good thing?
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)You'd have to start wondering who was next back down the line.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)What if the generals were acting on someone else's orders, say Bandar Bush?
What if the rebels were the ones who used sarin?
What if we kill a guy who may never have been our ally, but was innocent?
Once someone's dead, there's no bringing him or her back. Ask Saddam Hussein who sold him chemical weapons, if we could.
BOG PERSON
(2,916 posts)Jefferson23
(30,099 posts)DearAbby
(12,461 posts)what good is a deterrent if you don't make those who used such tactics, pay dearly? Didnt we do this before in MUNICH? What due process did he give those people? But then again, what moral ground do we stand on, we we ourselves are harboring war criminals, and ignoring a war crime. War under false pretenses. IRAQ sticks out like a sore thumb, we must lance it, clear the wound. Otherwise the world will always look upon us with doubts, UK being the latest example.
I really welcome this debate, and it will be watched worldwide. What are we the people going to show the world? Who is AMERICA?
KurtNYC
(14,549 posts)dsc
(52,166 posts)just ask bin laden.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Which was the legal argument used to justify it.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Emperors and kings led their armies into battle. It's a tradition that should be revived.
Especially in democracies, where we can always elect a new guy. There is no issue of running out of heirs to the throne.
LittleBlue
(10,362 posts)Hence the reason why we prohibit assassinating leaders. I'm totally against this.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)How insane is it to think that the ONLY answer to horrific violence, is escalated violence?
The stupid burns.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)"I've got an idea!"
"What are the consequences?"
"You're an idea hater!"
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... over and over. It's insanity, on a loop.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)We just GOTTA believe we were RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.
sibelian
(7,804 posts)So...what's wrong with you?
ananda
(28,876 posts).. along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)like, if it didn't have any stabilizer
I'm guessing the insertion teams and drone "carriers" would either have to wait for all the Saudi planes to be shot down, or we battle our way from Jeddah and Dammam into Riyadh...
of deterrence...
It hardly (if ever) works.
At least not with psycho/sociopaths, who believe they are above the rules of society and arrogant enough to think they'll never be caught.
States with the death penalty, for example. If deterrence actually worked, there would never be another capital crime committed in them.