I think we should make an exception to the ban on assassination for Assad if he used chemical

[dsc]

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]

1. The WH has stated they don't want regime change n/t

[arely staircase]

5. Actually Obama said Assad needs to go over a year ago. nt

[leftstreet]

6. Guess he changed his mind n/t

[arely staircase]

11. I'm sure Obama has tried to kill Assad in every plausibly deniable way he can.

I would.

[morningfog]

42. Need to go != will act to implement regime change.

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]

2. What if another actor made it look like he used them?

Screw it, kill em all.....
Am I right?

[dsc]

4. that is why I wrote the oh so confusing words

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]

10. All I know is that we would've been screaming

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]

3. Ugly, but more honorable than victimizing the innocent,

like the pictures of the poisoned, which is actually the only proof of the whole matter .

[HooptieWagon]

7. Thats not an exeption we can make.

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]

8. It isn't about replacement

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]

12. OP proposed unilaterally assasinating Assad.

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]

14. I don't particularly care who replaces him

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]

16. Thats the problem with your argument.

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]

28. If he is worse

then he likely would use chemical weapons as well and then meet the same fate.

[tritsofme]

21. ICC has no jurisdiction over America or Syria.

As neither country is a party to the Rome Statute.

[arely staircase]

9. I have a feeling we have tried that already.

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]

13. Situational ethics are unethical

Assassination can't be an option.

[ZombieHorde]

29. Why are situational ethics unethical?

Why is assassination more unethical than a bombing campaign that might kill innocent civilians?

[dsc]

31. that is my precise point

except replace might will almost certainly will.

[neverforget]

15. Who replaces Assad?

The next guy be worse or be better or the country could disintegrate........

[HooptieWagon]

17. Obviously those advocating assassination aren't thinking that far ahead.

Its a solution of an immature mind.

[neverforget]

19. Step 1. Bomb Syria; Step 2. ????? Step 3. MIC profits

[KurtNYC]

25. Hey. Don't knock it.

It worked for the Underpants Gnomes.

[ZombieHorde]

30. Hasn't Syria already disinteregrated?

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]

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

You'd have to start wondering who was next back down the line.

[Octafish]

20. Really? The Drone Solution?

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]

22. lynching is wrong n/t

[Jefferson23]

23. What makes you think you can do such a thing under international law? n/t

[DearAbby]

24. I would have to agree with this.

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]

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

[dsc]

27. we are already assassinating leaders of al quida

just ask bin laden.

[HooptieWagon]

33. They aren't heads of state.

Which was the legal argument used to justify it.

[FarCenter]

32. Wars should be between heads of state, not between masses of citizens.

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]

34. That would open up our leaders to legitimate assassination

Hence the reason why we prohibit assassinating leaders. I'm totally against this.

[99Forever]

35. What is wrong with our society?

How insane is it to think that the ONLY answer to horrific violence, is escalated violence?


The stupid burns.

[sibelian]

37. Lots of opinions, no thinking.

"I've got an idea!"

"What are the consequences?"

"You're an idea hater!"

[99Forever]

39. The same bonehead mistakes...

... over and over. It's insanity, on a loop.

[sibelian]

41. But if we stop it MEANS WE DID A BAD THING.

We just GOTTA believe we were RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

[sibelian]

36. Mm-hm. First World War.

So...what's wrong with you?

[ananda]

38. I like the idea of capturing him and bringing him up for war crimes.

.. along with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, et al.

[MisterP]

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

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...

[pipi_k]

43. The myth

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.