General Discussion

DearAbby

(12,461 posts)

24. I would have to agree with this.

Sun Sep 1, 2013, 02:41 PM

Sep 2013

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?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I think we should make an exception to the ban on assassination for Assad if he used chemical [View all] dsc Sep 2013 OP

The WH has stated they don't want regime change n/t leftstreet Sep 2013 #1

Actually Obama said Assad needs to go over a year ago. nt arely staircase Sep 2013 #5

Guess he changed his mind n/t leftstreet Sep 2013 #6

I'm sure Obama has tried to kill Assad in every plausibly deniable way he can. arely staircase Sep 2013 #11

Need to go != will act to implement regime change. morningfog Sep 2013 #42

What if another actor made it look like he used them? NightWatcher Sep 2013 #2

that is why I wrote the oh so confusing words dsc Sep 2013 #4

All I know is that we would've been screaming NightWatcher Sep 2013 #10

Ugly, but more honorable than victimizing the innocent, orpupilofnature57 Sep 2013 #3

Thats not an exeption we can make. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #7

It isn't about replacement dsc Sep 2013 #8

OP proposed unilaterally assasinating Assad. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #12

I don't particularly care who replaces him dsc Sep 2013 #14

Thats the problem with your argument. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #16

If he is worse dsc Sep 2013 #28

ICC has no jurisdiction over America or Syria. tritsofme Sep 2013 #21

I have a feeling we have tried that already. arely staircase Sep 2013 #9

Situational ethics are unethical Motown_Johnny Sep 2013 #13

Why are situational ethics unethical? ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #29

that is my precise point dsc Sep 2013 #31

Who replaces Assad? neverforget Sep 2013 #15

Obviously those advocating assassination aren't thinking that far ahead. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #17

Step 1. Bomb Syria; Step 2. ????? Step 3. MIC profits neverforget Sep 2013 #19

Hey. Don't knock it. KurtNYC Sep 2013 #25

Hasn't Syria already disinteregrated? ZombieHorde Sep 2013 #30

Would be a dangerous precedent given that the US used depleted uranium in Falluja. dipsydoodle Sep 2013 #18

Really? The Drone Solution? Octafish Sep 2013 #20

lynching is wrong n/t BOG PERSON Sep 2013 #22

What makes you think you can do such a thing under international law? n/t Jefferson23 Sep 2013 #23

I would have to agree with this. DearAbby Sep 2013 #24

So then what would you have others do in your name if it wasn't Assad? If was AQ, what then? KurtNYC Sep 2013 #26

we are already assassinating leaders of al quida dsc Sep 2013 #27

They aren't heads of state. HooptieWagon Sep 2013 #33

Wars should be between heads of state, not between masses of citizens. FarCenter Sep 2013 #32

That would open up our leaders to legitimate assassination LittleBlue Sep 2013 #34

What is wrong with our society? 99Forever Sep 2013 #35

Lots of opinions, no thinking. sibelian Sep 2013 #37

The same bonehead mistakes... 99Forever Sep 2013 #39

But if we stop it MEANS WE DID A BAD THING. sibelian Sep 2013 #41

Mm-hm. First World War. sibelian Sep 2013 #36

I like the idea of capturing him and bringing him up for war crimes. ananda Sep 2013 #38

okay, but only if we do the same for King Abdullah if Ghouta turns out that it was the rebels MisterP Sep 2013 #40

The myth pipi_k Sep 2013 #43