Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

Be like Nutella · 24-12-2012 5:41am #1

America tried to take out Castro and Saddam and other leaders for various reasons in the past. That is not debatable.

Why not take out Assad with so many dying by his forces and mostly innocent Syrian population? Could it not be argued on almost every level that this would be the right thing for America and its partners to do or attempt to do at this point? what are the barriers?

Assad in my opinion has shown that he is on a trajectory towards outright massacre. It could be argued that is what is happening already but I mean on a larger scale.

Assad has begun to use Scud B missiles recently which is of course a war crime in each instance. And there is genuine debate about the movement of his chemical arsenals which has caused many military analysts to write pieces about whether he may use Sarin or VX gas filled missiles or shells on his own people. Without purposefully engaging in fear mongering for the sake of it.. if he filled a Scud B missile with thickened VX and fired it at a public crowd of revolutionaries in Aleppo for instance he could massacre thousands... worse possibly than 'Chemical Ali' (Saddam's general) did to the Kurds at the end of the Iran/Iraq war which killed 5000+ people in one day.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

Every month since this whole thing began 22 months ago we've observed Assad's forces use more and more dangerous weapons from guns to shells fired into blocks of flats to helicopter gunship attacks to bombs dropped by MiG fighter aircraft to firing Scud missiles. This shows that Assad is willing to use almost any scale of weapon on his own people, thus far and his position becomes more untenable every day.

40,000 people have died so far. 100+ people were blown to pieces just hours ago when Assad's forces hit a queue at a bakery with missiles and I have watched the youtube video that are up which show the immediate aftermath of this attack and it is the single most sickening thing I have ever seen in my lifetime which motivated me to consider why the US shouldn't take this guy out... even though I am more than aware how complex such an issue is. I won't post the video but if you are genuinely interested to see what Assad is doing at this stage to his own peple then search YouTube for 'Assad MIG mass murder of Bakery' but you are warned.

Article about it

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/lethal-airstrike-on-syria-bakery-kills-many--report-578842.html

The US surely could find him and take him out with a strike or by inserting an elite team of some sort you/I would think.
It seems that either they can't or they won't because they believe they shouldn't because the resulting power vacuum would/could lead to a sectarian civil war which could take years to result in a stable leadership and then a transition to some form of democracy and that in the interim period AQ (who have been reported to be active in the civil war so far on some level) would gain members, collect arms and explosives and dig in to some part of Syria like they did in Yemen and North African regions and all of the resulting second tier effects of that.

Plus, on evidence of their past efforts to take out Saddam, Gaddafi, AQ leaders and Castro with multiple failures of both small scale sneaky methods and massive scale laser guided bombs it is conceivable they wouldn't be successful if they even tried anyway. The first barrier to taking him out would be to convince their partners (UK, France etc) that it was the right call and then completely side step all rules of war and the UN and risk making a mockery of the entire 'grouping for peace' effort since WW2. It COULD save 50,000 lives right now OR result in 50,000 lives lost in a protracted civil war between factions and Islamist grabs for leadership.... AQ attacks etc..

...and all of that may conceivably be less predictable on oil prices (which are all connected to everything no matter where the trouble is or the oil is in the Mid East as you know) and considering the current stage of the US trajectory out of its recession/depression the seemingly simple equation of Assad Dead = less innocent civilians dead is domestically politically untenable let alone internationally/legally acceptable especially when such an executive action (given that Obama couldn't seek Congressional approval) MAY not be considered in favor of American interests..... and could leave Obama open to future impeachment. It would require a rogue agent/suicide bomber/deniable asset of some sort to take Assad out and probably something as simple as turning somebody close to him into an asset and having him poisoned etc. They have attempted this before and failed.

Until Assad uses something like his VX and kills at least a thousand people in one single event (or a massive carpet bombing) and shocks the international community nobody is going to try and take him out even if conceivably a stealth bomber COULD fly over Syria right now and drop a laser guided bomb on his lap right now and prevent him from doing what he is destined to do by overwhelming logic when he is eventually pushed into a corner by the FSA or international force in Damascus which is where this fight can ONLY end.

It is also conceivable that Obama even if he decided it best to take out Assad may not be capable in his position to bypass the 'assassination act'

https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

and actually immunize any/every member of those in the chain of command who would carry out his order from the joint chief to the bomber/sniper/drone operator/whoever. You would be open to some sort of punishment no matter how you carried it out and there are those who never stop trying to find out who gave the order and how it came about whether or not public supported taking Assad out.

When all is said and done it could be argued quite well that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take out Assad no matter which way you look at it ... god knows the FSA certainly cannot do it.

Given all the elements in play as mentioned and the simple fact that Assad either gives up and goes to jail for life or dies massacring his own people in Damascus either by their hand or with international help - I would at least try to take him out, even if that attempt risked causing further unpredictable damage and second tier effects. It is surely better to attempt to prevent a massacre of thousands in an unfair fight between Assad's army and the rising forces when we know now that Assad WILL USE ALL FORCE AVAILABLE TO HIM when that eventuality comes along and that it will be innocent civilians who will suffer most casualties and not combatants.

Also don't forget that the Syrian people may want to try and execute Assad themselves if he tried to give up and leggit to the Hague where at least they wont execute him and he may not feel that he could do this successfully so may have already decided to WIN the war which he can't or die trying as he feels this is the better of two options and at least up to the point of dying trying he will be free and in power...as has been the fate of so many leaders in history.

It's a complicated one but should the Obama take Assad out or not?

A moral / political / philosophical / legal / geopolitical / economic conundrum .

Last thing about Assad to consider - I saw the last major interview with him by western media. He's a smart guy... his background is pure academic/scientific/professional he clearly comes across as a knowledgeable logic based thinker and he is pure anti-chaos. He may actually feel that this equation from a 'glorious fate' AND 'patriotic' stand point is a simple choice between him atop a pyramid of leadership and 40 years of order of some sort in his country between his father and himself OR a slide into chaotic bloodshed where the entire country's infrastructure and institutional reality is destroyed by what he sees as a sectarian minority struggle of a relatively small and weak bunch of terrorists verses the 40 years of WORK by his father and himself which pulled Syria out of global irrelevance to a quasi western style economy. I think that is the dynamic that Assad's actions represent up to this point. Any further step up in scale of massacre by any single actions of Assad's forces such as the use of Sarin or VX will signify the next phase of Assad's psychological fall and at that point NOT ATTEMPTING to take him out WOULD ...IMO...represent a monumental failure in American global leadership and the moral validity of international groups such as NATO and the UN. But remember that the US didn't attempt to take Saddam out until many years after he gassed Kurds so I'm not holding my breath.

What can Obama do? What should Obama do?
If you were Obama would you do something to try and kill Assad now or IF he massacred >1000 of his own people in one attack?

Zillah · 24-12-2012 5:53am

Assassinating a foreign head of state, however despised, is not exactly within the Obama foreign policy brief. He's been struggling to make the world see a more reasonable, level-headed United States - unilaterally killing a President would somewhat spoil that.

Assassinating high profile people is also very very hard to do right, even in peace time. Assad is so heavily protected now that it might be impossible to kill him without airstrikes, it's not like they could arrange for a Mossad associate to slip something into his tea during Sunday lunch. Even if they managed to, say, gun him down or plant a bomb, the chances of getting away with it are slim to nil. Even if there were no witnesses or physical evidence, everyone would know it was the CIA/Mossad anyway - who else would be willing to try, or be even remotely capable of succeeding?

Be like Nutella · 24-12-2012 6:07am

Zillah wrote: »

Even if there were no witnesses or physical evidence, everyone would know it was the CIA/Mossad anyway

agreed

BlaasForRafa · 26-12-2012 8:14pm

Zillah wrote: »

Assassinating a foreign head of state, however despised, is not exactly within the Obama foreign policy brief. He's been struggling to make the world see a more reasonable, level-headed United States - unilaterally killing a President would somewhat spoil that.

Assassinating high profile people is also very very hard to do right, even in peace time. Assad is so heavily protected now that it might be impossible to kill him without airstrikes, it's not like they could arrange for a Mossad associate to slip something into his tea during Sunday lunch. Even if they managed to, say, gun him down or plant a bomb, the chances of getting away with it are slim to nil. Even if there were no witnesses or physical evidence, everyone would know it was the CIA/Mossad anyway - who else would be willing to try, or be even remotely capable of succeeding?

I doubt if Israel/Mossad want Assad dead. He's at least a known quantity whereas whatever replaced him could be even worse, for instance radical sunni islamists.

Also while the Syrians are infighting they aren't assisting Hezbollah and things are generally quiet on Israels northern border.

Fr Tod Umptious · 27-12-2012 8:35am

Zillah wrote: »

Assassinating a foreign head of state, however despised, is not exactly within the Obama foreign policy brief. He's been struggling to make the world see a more reasonable, level-headed United States - unilaterally killing a President would somewhat spoil that.

Assassinating high profile people is also very very hard to do right, even in peace time. Assad is so heavily protected now that it might be impossible to kill him without airstrikes, it's not like they could arrange for a Mossad associate to slip something into his tea during Sunday lunch. Even if they managed to, say, gun him down or plant a bomb, the chances of getting away with it are slim to nil. Even if there were no witnesses or physical evidence, everyone would know it was the CIA/Mossad anyway - who else would be willing to try, or be even remotely capable of succeeding?

Don't think it had anything to do with Obama and his policies.
I believe that there is some international convention that the US had signed up to that means a nation cannot go out and specifically target a head of another nation.

I can't remember them every going after Saadam but in the days before this was signed they did go after Castro

Be like Nutella · 27-12-2012 2:39pm

The US has attempted to kill foreign leaders many times since WW2 and has also passed many executive orders prohibiting it from doing just that. The problem is that certain US leaders have arbitrarily decided to ignore such orders when they believed they were not applicable such as in 'times of war' or in 'self defense'. Typical bullsh1t.

The US definitely tried to assassinate Saddam directly a number of times. In fact modern bunker busting bombs were developed exactly as a result of this because they failed to get Saddam after a number of direct assassination attempts on him in his palaces and other locations. The bombs were not penetrating deep enough into his hardened concrete bunkers. These attempts were explicitly counter to Executive Orders which banned assassination attempts by the US on any foreign leader.

"....n 1976, President Ford issued Executive Order 11905 to clarify U.S. foreign intelligence activities. The order was enacted in response to the post-Watergate revelations that the CIA had staged multiple attempts on the life of Cuban President Fidel Castro.

In a section of the order labeled "Restrictions on Intelligence Activities," Ford outlawed political assassination: Section 5(g), entitled "Prohibition on Assassination," states: "No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination."

Since 1976, every U.S. president has upheld Ford's prohibition on assassinations. In 1978 President Carter issued an executive order with the chief purpose of reshaping the intelligence structure. In Section 2-305 of that order, Carter reaffirmed the U.S. prohibition on assassination......"

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-04/justice/us.assassination.policy_1_assassination-prohibition-cia-lawyers?_s=PM:LAW

__________________________________________________________

Assassination attempts on Saddam Hussein:

"....On March 19, two F-117 stealth fighters dropped 2,000-pound bunker-buster bombs on the compound where Saddam was said to be meeting with top advisers. And on April 7, two days before Baghdad fell, U.S. aircraft dropped more bunker-buster bombs on a home in Baghdad in an attempt to kill Saddam. He escaped both times......"

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-12-14-saddam-profile_x.htm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/20/iraq.jamesmeek

______________________________________________________________

"....One told the New York Times that "intelligence indicated that there would definitely be senior leadership, including Saddam Hussein, at a meeting in that structure," which he described as a house. "But we just can't absolutely confirm . . . that he's dead."......"

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Target-Hussein-U-S-bombs-Baghdad-apartment-in-2656507.php#ixzz2GG2anKY7

_______________________________________________________________

".....Any plot designed to assassinate the Iraqi president would not only violate a long-standing executive order, but also be "very counterproductive," Gates said in an interview. And Gates's successor as CIA director, R. James Woolsey, told a House committee Thursday that calls for the Iraqi leader's assassination were "extremely irresponsible."....."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/iraq/keyplayers/saddam021598.htm

________________________________________________________________

".....What does this mean for U.S. policy toward Iraq? U.S. law prohibits assassination, and it is unlikely that any presidential administration would seek to have such a rule overturned. At the same time, U.S. strategic bombing often appears to be a cover for attempted assassination. Indeed, in the case of the 1986 bombing of Libya, many believe that the United States targeted the Libyan leader himself, a belief that is sustained by the fact that Moammar Qaddafi’s home was bombed and one of his children killed. In its bombing raids on Iraq, the United States has also actively sought out targets where Saddam Hussein may be located....."

http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/articles_papers_reports/196.html

_______________________________________________________________

".....BAGHDAD, Iraq - The question of whether Saddam Hussein was dead or alive hung over the capital Tuesday after a U.S. warplane dropped four bunker-buster bombs and blasted a smoking crater 60 feet deep at a restaurant where he was believed to be meeting with his sons. ...."

http://www.bouwman.com/911/Operation/Iraq/Apr----8.html

____________________________________________________________

".....According to senior military officials, Saddam Hussein's Sons, and perhaps Saddam Hussein himself, were meeting in a Bunker Restaurant in the Al Mansour residential area of Southwest Baghdad, Iraq today at 3:00 AM in the morning, where they may have, along with 50 other Ba'ath Military leaders of the Iraqi Government, met their demise in the form of 4 Bunker Buster Bombs 2000 lbs. It is not known or may it ever be fully known exactly which leaders and which of the surviving Hussein regime family leadership were congregated. Even one of those bombs does not leave much behind. A huge crater is all that is left of the restaurant and the building behind it. Ground based intelligence reports at 1:00 PM through 8:00 PM in the evening, plus special forces surveillance and unmanned aircraft surveillance confirmed the meeting which took place among nearly 50 leaders of the Hussein regime, and Saddam's family. As a result of the surveillance, ground Intel, and local confirmation on the ground by 'intelligence leaks', Centcom called for a B1B attack on short notice to strike this "Target of Opportunity". Information released this evening at 10:00 EDT, is gradually getting the story to the public......"

http://www.acsa2000.net/Baghdad/

___________________________________________________________

"....Pentagon officials said Tuesday that it could be days before they know if Monday's bombing aimed at Saddam was a success.

Pentagon officials say they hope to cut off Saddam and his advisers from the rest of the country, if not kill or capture them outright.

American forces bombed a building where they suspected he, his sons and other leaders would be meeting Monday, while ground troops raided two of his palaces and destroyed statues of the Iraqi leader in his capital.

U.S. officials have not determined whether Saddam was inside the building in Baghdad's upscale Mansour neighborhood when four one-ton, satellite-guided bombs hit Monday afternoon. Workers must sift through the building's rubble to locate any remains, then test them, Defense Department officials said.

In a telephone interview with reporters at the Pentagon from an undisclosed location in the Persian Gulf, a member of the B-1B crew that attacked the Baghdad site said the bomber had just finished an aerial refueling over western Iraq when it got the order to fly to the target. Twelve minutes later it dropped the four bombs, said Lt. Col. Fred Swan, the B-1B's weapons system officer.

Swan said they dropped two standard versions of the 2,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munition, known as a GBU-31, and two special ``bunker buster'' versions that penetrate a target before detonating.

Of the intended target, he said he and the rest of the crew ``knew it was important,'' and ``might be the big one.''

``We thought it was, given every thing we heard,'' he said.

Swan said the crew was told by an airborne air controller that directed the B-1B to its target that it might be ``the big one.''

He said the B1-B crew did not actually look at the target after the bombs were released from an altitude of more than 20,000 feet. ...."

http://newsmine.org/content.php?ol=war-on-terror/iraq/saddam-hussein/hunt/us-escalates-attacks-on-leadership.txt

_______________________________________________________________

"....In 1981, President Reagan, through Executive Order 12333, reiterated the assassination prohibition. Reagan was the last president to address the topic of political assassination. Because no subsequent executive order or piece of legislation has repealed the prohibition, it remains in effect.

The ban, however, did not prevent the Reagan administration from dropping bombs on Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's home in 1986 in retaliation for the bombing of a Berlin discotheque frequented by U.S. troops.

Additionally, the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at suspected guerrilla camps in Afghanistan in 1998 after the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.

Following the September 11. 2001, attacks, the White House said the presidential directive banning assassinations would not prevent the United States from acting in self-defense.

According to an October 21, 2001, Washington Post article, President Bush in September of last year signed an intelligence "finding" instructing the CIA to engage in "lethal covert operations" to destroy Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda organization.

White House and CIA lawyers believe that the intelligence "finding" is constitutional because the ban on political assassination does not apply to wartime. They also contend that the prohibition does not preclude the United States taking action against terrorists....."

http://articles.cnn.com/2002-11-04/justice/us.assassination.policy_1_assassination-prohibition-cia-lawyers?_s=PM:LAW

Be like Nutella · 27-12-2012 3:04pm

Some of the 37 attempts here could be argued about... but if you put the effort into googling each attempt you'll quickly see the US has tried to assassinate many many leaders over the last 50 years with or without executive orders banning assassination of foreign leaders. In some cases I would argue they SHOULD HAVE taken the guy in question out if it potentially saved thousands of civilian lives, as do I argue that somebody should take Assad out before he unleashes total genocide against his own people while we all stand by and debate the complexities of fallout. In other cases the US acted illegally and immorally purely in its own interest simply because they COULD, as is true in so many instances of US foreign action in the last 50 years. Kosovo but not Rwanda, Iraq but not in Syria.... there never was a pattern of righteousness in US foreign policy... that is a concocted myth which helps US citizens feel better about themselves in their deluded world of irrational hyper patriotism there has only been pure concentrated capitalist selfishness in their actions and that can be supported with 100 examples. I regularly argue with my older brother about whether the US is a force for good in the world in the last 50 years and he constantly uses WW2 as his supporting example where they did good in the world and I do not disagree at all. However since then, there are countless examples where the US has done nothing but acted in its own perceived set of interests whether or not that allowed genocides to happen or not. I don't consider the US as any sort of character good or bad evil or righteous - it is simply a system led by various leaders who can be good or bad and mostly act in pure selfish interest. There's not simple truths about America and no character one can apply to it. It has no character and there is no pattern of good action. They have a chance now to show hhow 'brave' they really are and how capable they are at flexing their military muscle for good in the world IF they step in for the little guy in Syra and kick Assads ass before he fukin annihilates his own people with massive military force and chemical weapons and anything else he chooses to do... because he knows he's done for and he wont ever give up... nor will the small group of Alawite leaders around him in government. It's a very sad story which is only going to get worse unless the world shows it can act in unison to stop bad leaders murdering their own people which costs thousands of innocent non-combatant civilian lives.
_________________________________________________________________

Just some US Assassinations / Assassination attempts google threw up - if you want to argue any particular one I'll do that and duly concede if I'm wrong but don't tell me they're all conspiracy bullsh1t coz they ain't.

1949 - Kim Koo, Korean opposition leader

1950s, 1962 - Sukarno, President of Indonesia

1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premier of North Korea

1953 - Mohammed Mossadegh, Prime Minister of Iran

1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader

1959, 1963, 1969 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia

1960 - Brig. Gen. Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq

1950s-70s - José Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life

1961 - Francois "Papa Doc" Duvalier, leader of Haiti

1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo (Zaire)

1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic

1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam

1960s-70s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, many attempts on his life

1960s - Raúl Castro, high official in government of Cuba

1965 - Francisco Caamaño, Dominican Republic opposition leader

1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader

1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile

1970 - Gen. Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile

1970s, 1981 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama

1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence

1973-83 - Various Tupamaros in Uruguay (at behest of US)

1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire

1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica

1980-1986 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life

1982 - Ayatollah Khomeini, leader of Iran

1983 - Gen. Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan Army commander

1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua

1984 - The nine comandantes of the Sandinista National Directorate

1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanese Shiite leader (80 people killed in the attempt)

1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq

1993 - Mohamed Farah Aideed, prominent clan leader of Somalia

1999 - Slobodan Milosevic, President of Yugoslavia

2002 - Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, Afghan Islamic leader and warlord

2003 - Saddam Hussein and his two sons

2011 - Muammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya

Cork boy 55 · 27-12-2012 5:52pm

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but I am pretty sure the vast majority of USA opinion polls show that the USA people are against any sort of intervention in the Syrian civil war.

ElChe32 · 27-12-2012 5:56pm

The thing is that Israel want a dictator in Syria, they don't want some religious nut to run the place and place a fatwa on destroying Israel. Simple fact is, there aren't enough natural resources in Syria for an international intervention i.e. American interference. So no I doubt Obama should/could take out Assad.

Cork boy 55 · 27-12-2012 6:37pm

Liquidating Assad may not end the war and might even make it worse IMO

The Assad regime is not as centralist as this.
Assad is in many ways simply a figurehead with the old oligarchs and senior Baath party heads and elder family/clan member running the show
The regime inner circle consist of thousands of people.
The Baath party, certain shia alawite clans two in particular, the Various military elite units , Intelligence agencies, The shabia overloads, the vile core of the air force.
And he also does have a powerbase of several million people, of course many of them support the regime for various reasons such as fear of opposition or protection of personnel wealth, or have just found themselves on wrong side of fence/history and and on and on.
I estimate about 20% of the population supports regime at this stage to some degree
Most of the Shia, a fair chuck of the christians and the lot of connected or upper class sunnis, and the druze appear to be loyal, The Syrian Palestine population are split . The kurds are playing a blinder so far and appear to be neutral and have taken over largely their own towns and districts.

Who would replace Assad? , his older brother maybe, injured in July, he is a total die hard headcase. There is videos of him shooting at people and filming mangled corpses on his mobile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_al-Assad
In other words it could be someone worse.

The Liquidation of Assad would introduce a new dynamic into conflict
I imagine it would be a major physiological blow to regime and boast for rebels
and could be a tipping point event. Wars are weird things and can move in strange directions A western assassination of Assad could well backfire
It could be the signal for regime to GO CHEMICAL something I doubt it will do at this stage not on a large scale anyway or it could cause complete regime collaspe

The regime could strike back with its SAM-5 it tactical ballistic missiles it's chemical
It air power it terror ability
The NATO base Cyprus is in its range, It has some options it is not a cornered puppy.

The idea of a single sliver bullet a hellfire a tomahawk sailing away and ending the war by Liquidating Assad is not feasible or logical. The operation would IMO
Have to consist of taking out entire regime C&C, air force, Air defense command, tactical missile capacity and seizing with ground troops the chemical sites.
A major conflict of the size of 2003 or 1991 Gulf wars
In for a penny in for a pound. The Yanks & the world does have the stomach for it or the Money. Then the post regime chaos that follows we don't know what that's going to look like

I doubt it(killing Assad on his own) would end the war not for some months anyway, it is not some sliver bullet and may make things worse.

There's also the point that killing Assad is a very difficult thing to do I believe he spends 95% of his time in the SAA C&C bunker inside in mount qasyun
or the The 4th Armoured DivisionHQ, The Division has a military base in the South of Damascus, which covers about 35 square miles and includes several mountain bunkers. You might you need a nuke to get him.

Be like Nutella · 27-12-2012 6:49pm

ElChe32 wrote: »

The thing is that Israel want a dictator in Syria, they don't want some religious nut to run the place and place a fatwa on destroying Israel. Simple fact is, there aren't enough natural resources in Syria for an international intervention i.e. American interference. So no I doubt Obama should/could take out Assad.

but that sounds like you're just echoing a cynical perspective i.e. not what you think but the way you think the US thinks... and in that case I'd half agree but what do you think yourself? If you were Obama would you try n take out Assad before he massacres 50,000 more Syrian civilians? .... purely on a moral basis... in other words what is the RIGHT thing to do? As I said I'd like to see somebody take Assad out at this point.

ElChe32 · 27-12-2012 6:57pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

but that sounds like you're just echoing a cynical perspective i.e. not what you think but the way you think the US thinks... and in that case I'd half agree but what do you think yourself? If you were Obama would you try n take out Assad before he massacres 50,000 more Syrian civilians? .... purely on a moral basis... in other words what is the RIGHT thing to do? As I said I'd like to see somebody take Assad out at this point.

Absolutely agree with you, but I'm afraid feck all gets done on morals. And coming from an international relations background when you deal with Geo-political organizations there is so much red tape to work around before anything gets done...hence my cynical pessimistic outlook. Yes Assad needs to go, yes he needs to go before more are massacred, but Israel don't want it to happen, Russian won't intervene (well apart from arm Assad) so feck all will be done. A truly sorry state of affairs.

Be like Nutella · 27-12-2012 7:13pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Liquidating Assad may not end the war and might even make it worse IMO

The Assad regime is not as centralist as this.
Assad is in many ways simply a figurehead with the old oligarchs and senior Baath party heads and elder family/clan member running the show
The regime inner circle consist of thousands of people.
The Baath party, certain shia alawite clans two in particular, the Various military elite units , Intelligence agencies, The shabia overloads, the vile core of the air force.
And he also does have a powerbase of several million people, of course many of them support the regime for various reasons such as fear of opposition or protection of personnel wealth, or have just found themselves on wrong side of fence/history and and on and on.
I estimate about 20% of the population supports regime at this stage to some degree
Most of the Shia, a fair chuck of the christians and the lot of connected or upper class sunnis, and the druze appear to be loyal, The Syrian Palestine population are split . The kurds are playing a blinder so far and appear to be neutral and have taken over largely their own towns and districts.

Who would replace Assad? , his older brother maybe, injured in July, he is a total die hard headcase. There is videos of him shooting at people and filming mangled corpses on his mobile.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maher_al-Assad
In other words it could be someone worse.

The Liquidation of Assad would introduce a new dynamic into conflict
I imagine it would be a major physiological blow to regime and boast for rebels
and could be a tipping point event. Wars are weird things and can move in strange directions A western assassination of Assad could well backfire
It could be the signal for regime to GO CHEMICAL something I doubt it will do at this stage not on a large scale anyway or it could cause complete regime collaspe

The regime could strike back with its SAM-5 it tactical ballistic missiles it's chemical
It air power it terror ability
The NATO base Cyprus is in its range, It has some options it is not a cornered puppy.

The idea of a single sliver bullet a hellfire a tomahawk sailing away and ending the war by Liquidating Assad is not feasible or logical. The operation would IMO
Have to consist of taking out entire regime C&C, air force, Air defense command, tactical missile capacity and seizing with ground troops the chemical sites.
A major conflict of the size of 2003 or 1991 Gulf wars
In for a penny in for a pound. The Yanks & the world does have the stomach for it or the Money. Then the post regime chaos that follows we don't know what that's going to look like

I doubt it(killing Assad on his own) would end the war not for some months anyway, it is not some sliver bullet and may make things worse.

There's also the point that killing Assad is a very difficult thing to do I believe he spends 95% of his time in the SAA C&C bunker inside in mount qasyun
or the The 4th Armoured DivisionHQ, The Division has a military base in the South of Damascus, which covers about 35 square miles and includes several mountain bunkers. You might you need a nuke to get him.

Very well said. One of the most informed posts I've read on the issue, anywhere, you obviously know your Syrian military structure and rising. I know there are hundreds around him in power as you say with varied interests of their own and that the secondary effects of killing Assad could cause any number of things to happen/unfold... I agree with you. But, looking from the outside in... Assad is on a one way road to massacring his own people in greater and greater numbers. You know this. So if we all know that that is what is definitely going to happen then the international community is at a clear decision point right now which is different to 12 months ago. Bashar Assad and his cronies WILL massacre any number of Syrians with overwhelming force if necessary (and yes ... possibly even his chem weapons... however unlikely it seems from a political standpoint it is still a major risk otherwise Military analysts in US think tanks wouldn't be writing pieces on how to neutralize these stockpiles intelligently as I'm positive the US military is too) so who's going to do something about it?

Is this actually down to how important Syria is/is not regarding natural resources etc? Is it better to do little or nothing rather than risk infusing further chaos into the equation? Quite Possibly... but we've seen this before. We all sit around doing nothing and arguing our way out of trying to help innocent civilians until mass graves are dug up for decades!

On the other hand as I and you have said it may not actually be easy to take him out physically anyway. In fact I'm sure it's not easy at all. They tried hard to kill Saddam and failed miserably. They literally had not got the right weapons for the job. Nobody is going to use a nuke no matter what happens so it's down to a cruise strike or laser guided bunker buster like the M.O.P. and then there is obviously going to be collateral issues.

Killing Assad would surely be a tipping point in the rising and if you armed the rebels and imposed a no fly zone then that whole combination would surely be the right thing to do IF we know now that doing nothing will definitely result in many more civilian massacres... and I believe we know that now for sure hence I think it is better to try and have an impact to sway fate in the right direction rather than sit back and possibly watch a massive massacre take place involving 100,000 or more dead non combatant innocent civilians. I don't believe it would be per-emptive. And I know that terrorists COULD get their hands on some of the weapons you gave the rebels and that the lesson of the mujaheddin and AQ in Afghanistan is fresh in peoples minds. I still think even with the complexity of the situation this guy needs to go down and the FSA can't do it on their own.

Cork boy 55 · 28-12-2012 12:49am

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Very well said. One of the most informed posts I've read on the issue, anywhere, you obviously know your Syrian military structure and rising. I know there are hundreds around him in power as you say with varied interests of their own and that the secondary effects of killing Assad could cause any number of things to happen/unfold... I agree with you. But, looking from the outside in... Assad is on a one way road to massacring his own people in greater and greater numbers. You know this. So if we all know that that is what is definitely going to happen then the international community is at a clear decision point right now which is different to 12 months ago. Bashar Assad and his cronies WILL massacre any number of Syrians with overwhelming force if necessary (and yes ... possibly even his chem weapons... however unlikely it seems from a political standpoint it is still a major risk otherwise Military analysts in US think tanks wouldn't be writing pieces on how to neutralize these stockpiles intelligently as I'm positive the US military is too) so who's going to do something about it?

Is this actually down to how important Syria is/is not regarding natural resources etc? Is it better to do little or nothing rather than risk infusing further chaos into the equation? Quite Possibly... but we've seen this before. We all sit around doing nothing and arguing our way out of trying to help innocent civilians until mass graves are dug up for decades!

On the other hand as I and you have said it may not actually be easy to take him out physically anyway. In fact I'm sure it's not easy at all. They tried hard to kill Saddam and failed miserably. They literally had not got the right weapons for the job. Nobody is going to use a nuke no matter what happens so it's down to a cruise strike or laser guided bunker buster like the M.O.P. and then there is obviously going to be collateral issues.

Killing Assad would surely be a tipping point in the rising and if you armed the rebels and imposed a no fly zone then that whole combination would surely be the right thing to do IF we know now that doing nothing will definitely result in many more civilian massacres... and I believe we know that now for sure hence I think it is better to try and have an impact to sway fate in the right direction rather than sit back and possibly watch a massive massacre take place involving 100,000 or more dead non combatant innocent civilians. I don't believe it would be per-emptive. And I know that terrorists COULD get their hands on some of the weapons you gave the rebels and that the lesson of the mujaheddin and AQ in Afghanistan is fresh in peoples minds. I still think even with the complexity of the situation this guy needs to go down and the FSA can't do it on their own.

Obama does not want to do anything, The American public does not want to do anything , The UN is blocked by Putin, and the rest of the world won't do much unless America leads.
I reckon if Obama was not in power if it was john McCann or if this was not an election year (the escalation in regime war crimes correlated exactly with the USA presidential election campaign,) we would have seen whole different response

We are where we are, what Should POTUS do now?

Well what does the USA want?

Desirable outcomes

End of Syrian Baath party and Assad family rule in Syria

End to Major/heavy combat(I think we are sadly going to see low level intensity violence a feature of Syria for some years to come)

Syria stays together as a single state? (some Machiavellian analyses might suggest the balkanisation of Syria is a good thing) I think they are wrong certainly not in a time of war and chaos. No breakaway Druze or shia or kurd state, perhaps a federal solution is the answer to Syria demographic mosaic

.

All foreign fighters go home on both sides

Chemical weapons stay not used in a secure location and end up being handed over to UN

Conventional weapons which could be of use to terror cells
end up in new army control (SAM MAPADS, high spec anti-ship anti-tank missles, high spec sniper rifles, bob making equipment like high spec plastic explosives and detonators and such etc)

Government institutes especially the SAA stay intact despite regime change.

Syria not end up dominated political by hardline Islamist groups
The militant Islamist side of the revolt has been growing in Strength since revolt began If we look at just one of the factions the Al nursa front
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Nusra_Front
They have been terror-listed by USA
In January they had 500 fighters now its estimated they have between
5000 and 10,000
there are scores of different factions within the insurgency
most under the FSA umbrella appear to be resonable
Some of those outside it are clearly dangerous
There are fifty shades of grey here it is hard to work out just how many Militant Islamists there actually are and what their post-war intentions really are. One thing to note is the longer the war goes the worse the regime
gets the bigger the Islamist groups are getting and the worse their behavior as population is brutalized.
We have to hope that many of the fighters in these groups joined
for other reasons than the core idea(gulf money, better organised, better weapons, more active against regimes than average FSA unit etc)

Syria not end up as a Somalia type situation(militias, crime, al quada, no real government

Return of refugees

Syria not end up as a exporter of war and terror to rest of middle east

Syria not end up with mass sectarian warfare like Lebanese civil war

Democracy and freedom

Syria friendly with Israel, hostile to Iran/Hezbollah(LOL)

Punishment of major war criminals

Access to Syrian intelligence data

Avoid USA involvement in War especially boots on the ground

Don't spend USA money

Going through the list you can see that it might have been better for regional stability and short term US interest if they had backed assad at start
with conditions LOL

So the solution the USA cannot and should not let the regime be totally defeated and collapse.
Obama needs the regime to agree to a conditional surrender not collapse in total defeat, chaos and sectarian warfare that it manifested.

How?

BLUFF it , BLUFF an intervention, Cock the shotgun so the burglar hears it and legs it.

Move assets into the region troops, planes, ships, ramp up rhetoric and propaganda, Say that unless regime surrenders with these conditions the Yanks are coming in as many words either in public or private hint that soon you will began arming rebels , making plans for a NFZ etc
Once the regime realize that the choice is between total defeat and a honorable surrender it might choice the Latter and kill/ditch the Assads itself.
Play chicken with the regime and win even if you lose you lose nothing
The conditions could be the amnesty for war crimes and asylum for however wants it. The regime clearly fears the USA note how it was tested the USA by slowly increased the type of weapons used.

If the bulk of the responsible units of the SAA merge with the FSA then the extremists on both sides can be marginalized in post war syria

Be like Nutella · 28-12-2012 7:04pm

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Move assets into the region troops, planes, ships, ramp up rhetoric and propaganda, Say that unless regime surrenders with these conditions the Yanks are coming in as many words either in public or private hint that soon you will began arming rebels , making plans for a NFZ etc
Once the regime realize that the choice is between total defeat and a honorable surrender it might choice the Latter and kill/ditch the Assads itself.
Play chicken with the regime and win even if you lose you lose nothing
The conditions could be the amnesty for war crimes and asylum for however wants it. The regime clearly fears the USA note how it was tested the USA by slowly increased the type of weapons used.

If the bulk of the responsible units of the SAA merge with the FSA then the extremists on both sides can be marginalized in post war syria

Great post... that makes sense.... and I hope that's the move that's in play - threats need to be believed so I assume that would include Obama making very tough threatening statements in the media soon or with the next massacre similar to the Bakery Massacre. Obama needs to sell the idea of major military muscle flexing to Americans first though...
Maybe an act in Congress? would that be the way to go? How to sell the 'bluff' intervention without sounding like Cheney/Powell/Rummy did years ago? Surely the world views this as a totally different set of circumstances and would support a strong US position on the Syria regime?
When are Russia going to get off the fence? what would it take?

..and would the international community really agree to amnesty for all the shot callers in Syria? I suppose it would be a small price to pay for ending the massacres.

Would there ever be a situation where Obama would literally pick up the phone and speak directly to Assad and lay down the law as it were?

asherbassad · 30-12-2012 5:01am

Cork boy 55 wrote: »

Someone correct me if I am wrong here but I am pretty sure the vast majority of USA opinion polls show that the USA people are against any sort of intervention in the Syrian civil war.

Tell them that the Loch Ness monster is about to come to get them and the majority of Americans will want Scotland (if they can even pronounce it or find it on a map) nuked.

Assad? Dead?

They're doing a wonderful job in other parts of the world where they don't effing belong:

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/12/26/yemen_air_attack_civilians_dead?page=0,0

Be like Nutella · 30-12-2012 8:14am

ok fair enough but IF they have the power to stop a bad MF like Assad then they have the responsibility to do that... in my view. Yet I know that foreign policy doesn't work like that. Hence the hypocritical space between the rhetoric of the great US and the truth about acting in selfish interest. I still have faith that a great US CAN emerge. This is that opportunity IMO.

Jonny7 · 30-12-2012 6:57pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

ok fair enough but IF they have the power to stop a bad MF like Assad then they have the responsibility to do that... in my view. Yet I know that foreign policy doesn't work like that. Hence the hypocritical space between the rhetoric of the great US and the truth about acting in selfish interest. I still have faith that a great US CAN emerge. This is that opportunity IMO.

You're supporting military intervention in Syria?

Be like Nutella · 30-12-2012 7:11pm

well to a certain degree yes. I think an international force could impose a no fly zone backed up with a complex plan to help the rising and marginalize the islamist jihadist elements of the rising by funneling weapons to the right people. I aslo think Assad should be taken out by a missile or bomb or whatever coz he is on a one way road to all out massacre. I know he's not the lone shot caller but killing him could turn the tide and stopping the regime from using MiGs on its own people would be good too. The chem weapon stocks needs securing and threats need to be made and supportable so all assets necessary should be moved right into play immediately and conversations had directly with the regime to let them know that IF they massacre their people they're fuked.

burgermasters · 30-12-2012 7:11pm

I agree, i also think in some ways the big guy (AMERICA) Should stand up for the small guys ie freedom for all? For example so many countries today still under an occupation like northern Ireland Scotland and many more to be honest! So i am left thinking its all a load of b+++ s++++ because there is no such thing as freedom there countries need to pull out of what is not there land and unite as allies to take out those who kill the people they want to rule to me that's what needs to be done but can only be done by those who truly value and believe in freedom for all not hypocrites who think that it is one rule for some and a different rule for them! Just my opinion.

teddy_irish · 01-01-2013 6:58am

I posted 2 materials but let me try to answer the question - "Should Obama kill Bashar Assad" that way: Obama should protect Bashar Al-Assad. I don't like the alternative of the clip shown below.

Australian Islamist: We Will Establish a Caliphate, Instate Sharia, Make Arabic Official Language

This video footage shows an Australian (naturalized citizen originally from Hebron) Islamist Ismail al-Wahwah, an adherent of the Wahhabi version of Sunni Islam, from the Hizb ut-Tahrir (Party of Liberation) Islamist party, giving a talk in Australia to what seems like an audience of young Islamists. The second person to the speaker's left is Australian Islamist Musa Cerantonio.

Al-Wahwah gives a very blunt and dark picture of the intentions of their like-minded people regarding their intentions for the world, on how they intend to take over the world, establish an Islamic Caliphate, implement strict Shariah law, and make Arabic as an official language.

Here's the kicker: these are the same type of people that the West is currently hailing as "freedom fighters" in Syria. Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the major religious/political parties to which many Jihadis in Syria subscribe.

Source: Memri TV

Be like Nutella · 01-01-2013 5:14pm

I find that clip and others like it which I have seen many of ... to be quite scary alright. But if you're saying that the end of the Assad regime will end in a State such as this guy describes there is no basis for that and to say otherwise is pure scare mongering based on one clip.

To be honest I can actually empathize with the pure hatred and vengeance that spews from the mouths of this guy and others like him. History shows the west... France / UK / US as having done the most horrendous things to the people they have ruled and exploited selfishly over hundreds of years and all that blood and hatred still flows in the lands they used to bleed dry of resources and wealth.

These guys learn their history and hate the west because of it ...and it is hard not to empathize with that position when you see what foreign people have done to their lands, their leadership, their wealth, their systems of living, their families and tribes and heritage. However, vengeance and extremist jihadist bloodshed that teaches Islamic young men to fight 'the infidels' wherever they are..... is not right. It is not moral it is not what most Islamic people believe is the central message of the Koran and it is not what most Islamic people in the world consider the correct future of Muslims in the world so this message of hate is a marginal one and needs to be continued to be marginalized. How do you do that? In my book you achieve that by knocking the regimes which destroy their own people like the Assads off their perch on behalf of the people and open their eyes to a future of freedoms.... not necessarily a western modern life we live here... but which ever future they want - democratically. You do this because you know that order and prosperity only increases with the increase of democracy in the world whether that sound idealist or naiive or not... you aim for this and you trust in people to work it out themselves. You certainly don't find one hateful jihadist extremist video clip showing a very marginal figure who wished to impose a Third Reich of HIS version of Islam and expect me to believe that this is the wish of the fighting Syrian people right now who want nothing but to get rid of the Assads and find a future for themselves.... Islamic structured or not. There IS and SHOULD BE major efforts to marginalize the more extreme players in the Syrian rising to stop them from power grabbing and having their minority voice amplified by pure violent action of which they traditionally resort to more readily. People want freedom... nothing can stop that.

I don't believe that an ultra vengeful anti-western Islamic Caliphate such as this guy describes is the WISH of the majority of rising Syrians or the majority of rising Muslims right across the countries of the Arab spring and to say so or fear monger others to believe that this is the great risk in helping them overthrow the evil they live under is to be lazy and avoid the complex hard work involved in debating all the details involved in assisting rising Arab spring countries.

There will always be people like this guy. He talks like he knows everything and spews relentless hate sprinkled with inaccurate historical facts and vengeful bile and all he wants is to be in power and to be followed and listened to when he's just a dick speaking to vulnerable young men who probably lost a family members to a fukin drone or something.

clairefontaine · 01-01-2013 7:10pm

I am so utterly confused by this conflict. Who are these rebels? Are they Muslim brotherhood? Is the US now arming the same people who crossed the border to kill Americans in Iraq? Isn't this really an Arab League problem rather than a US problem since its a civil war. Also wouldn't assassinating a leader in the ME leave a power vacuum there for Al Q to fill?

Did this conflict start because they wanted better economy and more freedoms? Well arent we making it pretty impossible for Assad to do much about a better economy with all these sanctions we have placed on Syria?

Also, most US citizens are armed, and if the country took up their arms out of their basements and garages and attacked the White House, I doubt Obama wouldn't have a second thought about taking them all out. [My speculation.]

Be like Nutella · 01-01-2013 7:30pm

clairefontaine wrote: »

Also, most US citizens are armed, and if the country took up their arms out of their basements and garages and attacked the White House, I doubt Obama wouldn't have a second thought about taking them all out. [My speculation.]

Just a thought here, but I'd say you've had second thoughts about that comment on reflection. Think about what you said there.

clairefontaine · 01-01-2013 7:33pm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Just a thought here, but I'd say you've had second thoughts about that comment on reflection. Think about what you said there.

Well try to imagine it, if a large number of citizens took up arms and started shooting at the US government what do you think the US government would do?

If the same thing happened in the US that happened over there [not that it would- just hypothetical] how do you think the US government would deal with it? I dont think they would sit there and just let the bullets fly do you?

It's a civil war isn't it?

Be like Nutella · 01-01-2013 7:54pm

I just think that there is no similarity between the two things is all. And a rising in the US does not make any sense in that there is nothing to rise against. There is no autocratic oppression by the leadership in fact many leaders within the US government structure would like a smaller government role... anyway it's not worth debating as there is no chance in hell of any sort of rising in the US as much as people like to consider it in their fervent imaginations. There is so little chance of any sort of armed rising by the US population against its government that considering what Obama would do to quell it makes no sense as it is the character of the leadership which would determine any sort of aggressive put down of any rising and as I say the character of the US government and how it treats and has treated its population shows us that there is no chance in hell they would annihilate their own people or cause their own people to rise up in the first place. 'Occupy Wall Street' is about as antsy as they get (unfortunately in some respects:)

On a purely weirdly logical basis if every gun owning American NOT in the military rose up simultaneously and arrived by magic in Washington to somehow physically take over power by arresting the president and suspending the current government (magically, somehow) AND IF we assume that the entire US military were to try and put down such a massive rebellion effort using all force available then obviously the military conflict would be a short massacre by the military. 50 Million gun toting Americans could not beat the US military as stupidly obvious as it is to state or argue.

There is no situation ever where one can imagine a US president massacring its own rising population.

Assad on the other hand is part of a family legacy of oppressive and brutal action towards its own people over more than 40 years and which has shown an increasing propensity to massacring its own people using whatever scale of weapons it finds useful for that and as such I feel Assad will continue to increase his massacre of Syrian civilians until a point where the international community and by that I mean militarily the US will be forced to act to take him out of leadership as part of a complex and comprehensive plan to re-start Syria. The thread title served to focus minds on how important it is/is not to take his regime down, protect it as you say or replace it intelligently by supporting righteous elements within the rising Syrian population. 40 Thousand dead so far and he hasn't even warmed up yet. He could massacre that many in 3 days of bombing IF he chooses. The only question is; will Obama let him!

clairefontaine · 01-01-2013 8:06pm

Thanks for the clearer picture and I can see why what you are saying makes sense. [My general point was that in a civil war against your government, your government is going to fight you back-if the US didn't' have options for secession and things got too tightly regulated than it might be more of a possibility I imagine, or be like Washington State and just ignore federal law like it doesn't exist ahem POT SMOKING college students I'm talking to you.]

On the other hand, is Assad a direct threat to the US, if not then ideologically wouldn't it be hard for Obama to justify an assassination? Doesn't legally or UN wise the people have to do this themselves because the US is not in direct war with him?

Also, what would it solve? The US got Bin Laden, and spent a lot of money doing it-money it doesn't have, but that is more symbolic than anything else, it's not as if it has changed anything in the war on terror. That is not to say that the symbolism isnt important, but where do you stop? And this is not the US' war.

asherbassad · 02-01-2013 3:22am

Be like Nutella wrote: »

America tried to take out Castro and Saddam and other leaders for various reasons in the past. That is not debatable.

Why not take out Assad with so many dying by his forces and mostly innocent Syrian population? Could it not be argued on almost every level that this would be the right thing for America and its partners to do or attempt to do at this point? what are the barriers?

Assad in my opinion has shown that he is on a trajectory towards outright massacre. It could be argued that is what is happening already but I mean on a larger scale.

Assad has begun to use Scud B missiles recently which is of course a war crime in each instance. And there is genuine debate about the movement of his chemical arsenals which has caused many military analysts to write pieces about whether he may use Sarin or VX gas filled missiles or shells on his own people. Without purposefully engaging in fear mongering for the sake of it.. if he filled a Scud B missile with thickened VX and fired it at a public crowd of revolutionaries in Aleppo for instance he could massacre thousands... worse possibly than 'Chemical Ali' (Saddam's general) did to the Kurds at the end of the Iran/Iraq war which killed 5000+ people in one day.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/world/meast/syria-civil-war/index.html

Every month since this whole thing began 22 months ago we've observed Assad's forces use more and more dangerous weapons from guns to shells fired into blocks of flats to helicopter gunship attacks to bombs dropped by MiG fighter aircraft to firing Scud missiles. This shows that Assad is willing to use almost any scale of weapon on his own people, thus far and his position becomes more untenable every day.

40,000 people have died so far. 100+ people were blown to pieces just hours ago when Assad's forces hit a queue at a bakery with missiles and I have watched the youtube video that are up which show the immediate aftermath of this attack and it is the single most sickening thing I have ever seen in my lifetime which motivated me to consider why the US shouldn't take this guy out... even though I am more than aware how complex such an issue is. I won't post the video but if you are genuinely interested to see what Assad is doing at this stage to his own peple then search YouTube for 'Assad MIG mass murder of Bakery' but you are warned.

Article about it

http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/lethal-airstrike-on-syria-bakery-kills-many--report-578842.html

The US surely could find him and take him out with a strike or by inserting an elite team of some sort you/I would think.
It seems that either they can't or they won't because they believe they shouldn't because the resulting power vacuum would/could lead to a sectarian civil war which could take years to result in a stable leadership and then a transition to some form of democracy and that in the interim period AQ (who have been reported to be active in the civil war so far on some level) would gain members, collect arms and explosives and dig in to some part of Syria like they did in Yemen and North African regions and all of the resulting second tier effects of that.

Plus, on evidence of their past efforts to take out Saddam, Gaddafi, AQ leaders and Castro with multiple failures of both small scale sneaky methods and massive scale laser guided bombs it is conceivable they wouldn't be successful if they even tried anyway. The first barrier to taking him out would be to convince their partners (UK, France etc) that it was the right call and then completely side step all rules of war and the UN and risk making a mockery of the entire 'grouping for peace' effort since WW2. It COULD save 50,000 lives right now OR result in 50,000 lives lost in a protracted civil war between factions and Islamist grabs for leadership.... AQ attacks etc..

...and all of that may conceivably be less predictable on oil prices (which are all connected to everything no matter where the trouble is or the oil is in the Mid East as you know) and considering the current stage of the US trajectory out of its recession/depression the seemingly simple equation of Assad Dead = less innocent civilians dead is domestically politically untenable let alone internationally/legally acceptable especially when such an executive action (given that Obama couldn't seek Congressional approval) MAY not be considered in favor of American interests..... and could leave Obama open to future impeachment. It would require a rogue agent/suicide bomber/deniable asset of some sort to take Assad out and probably something as simple as turning somebody close to him into an asset and having him poisoned etc. They have attempted this before and failed.

Until Assad uses something like his VX and kills at least a thousand people in one single event (or a massive carpet bombing) and shocks the international community nobody is going to try and take him out even if conceivably a stealth bomber COULD fly over Syria right now and drop a laser guided bomb on his lap right now and prevent him from doing what he is destined to do by overwhelming logic when he is eventually pushed into a corner by the FSA or international force in Damascus which is where this fight can ONLY end.

It is also conceivable that Obama even if he decided it best to take out Assad may not be capable in his position to bypass the 'assassination act'

https://www.bc.edu/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_TXT.htm

and actually immunize any/every member of those in the chain of command who would carry out his order from the joint chief to the bomber/sniper/drone operator/whoever. You would be open to some sort of punishment no matter how you carried it out and there are those who never stop trying to find out who gave the order and how it came about whether or not public supported taking Assad out.

When all is said and done it could be argued quite well that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take out Assad no matter which way you look at it ... god knows the FSA certainly cannot do it.

Given all the elements in play as mentioned and the simple fact that Assad either gives up and goes to jail for life or dies massacring his own people in Damascus either by their hand or with international help - I would at least try to take him out, even if that attempt risked causing further unpredictable damage and second tier effects. It is surely better to attempt to prevent a massacre of thousands in an unfair fight between Assad's army and the rising forces when we know now that Assad WILL USE ALL FORCE AVAILABLE TO HIM when that eventuality comes along and that it will be innocent civilians who will suffer most casualties and not combatants.

Also don't forget that the Syrian people may want to try and execute Assad themselves if he tried to give up and leggit to the Hague where at least they wont execute him and he may not feel that he could do this successfully so may have already decided to WIN the war which he can't or die trying as he feels this is the better of two options and at least up to the point of dying trying he will be free and in power...as has been the fate of so many leaders in history.

It's a complicated one but should the Obama take Assad out or not?

A moral / political / philosophical / legal / geopolitical / economic conundrum .

Last thing about Assad to consider - I saw the last major interview with him by western media. He's a smart guy... his background is pure academic/scientific/professional he clearly comes across as a knowledgeable logic based thinker and he is pure anti-chaos. He may actually feel that this equation from a 'glorious fate' AND 'patriotic' stand point is a simple choice between him atop a pyramid of leadership and 40 years of order of some sort in his country between his father and himself OR a slide into chaotic bloodshed where the entire country's infrastructure and institutional reality is destroyed by what he sees as a sectarian minority struggle of a relatively small and weak bunch of terrorists verses the 40 years of WORK by his father and himself which pulled Syria out of global irrelevance to a quasi western style economy. I think that is the dynamic that Assad's actions represent up to this point. Any further step up in scale of massacre by any single actions of Assad's forces such as the use of Sarin or VX will signify the next phase of Assad's psychological fall and at that point NOT ATTEMPTING to take him out WOULD ...IMO...represent a monumental failure in American global leadership and the moral validity of international groups such as NATO and the UN. But remember that the US didn't attempt to take Saddam out until many years after he gassed Kurds so I'm not holding my breath.

What can Obama do? What should Obama do?
If you were Obama would you do something to try and kill Assad now or IF he massacred >1000 of his own people in one attack?

"Take out"?

You mean murder? Should Obama murder a foreign head of state?

To me the euphemism "take out" translates to inviting someone away from their home to perhaps a dinner or another activity such as dancing or even a simple visit to a park or musical event.

So....in "taking out" Bashar Assad at the behest of Barack Obama do you mean something along the lines of the aforementioned or do you mean to ask if Obama should kill someone?

Jonny7 · 02-01-2013 12:07pm

teddy_irish wrote: »

Here's the kicker: these are the same type of people that the West is currently hailing as "freedom fighters" in Syria. Hizb ut-Tahrir is one of the major religious/political parties to which many Jihadis in Syria subscribe.

Not really no, it's too diluted. Islamists and extremists have "joined" the fight against the Syrian regime, there's no real way to stop them, his is widely reported and known about.

"The West", the UN and the Arab League are very well aware of this. Hence certain powers have supported the likes of Mubarrak and regional dictators to keep the status quo for decades.

According to front-line reporters, the majority, large majority of resistance to Assad are Syrian and their intentions are to overthrow and setup a freer and more democratic society, their representative council has given their assurances as such (they are still not perfectly unified, as I said, they have become diluted with external influences and aims)

No one can control the floods of foreign fighters entering Syria (much like trying to stem the tide that went into Iraq), and they obviously have a variety of motives, like this particular guy.

Jonny7 · 02-01-2013 12:09pm

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am so utterly confused by this conflict. Who are these rebels? Are they Muslim brotherhood? Is the US now arming the same people who crossed the border to kill Americans in Iraq? Isn't this really an Arab League problem rather than a US problem since its a civil war. Also wouldn't assassinating a leader in the ME leave a power vacuum there for Al Q to fill?

Did this conflict start because they wanted better economy and more freedoms? Well arent we making it pretty impossible for Assad to do much about a better economy with all these sanctions we have placed on Syria?

Also, most US citizens are armed, and if the country took up their arms out of their basements and garages and attacked the White House, I doubt Obama wouldn't have a second thought about taking them all out. [My speculation.]

No offense to you, but are people allergic to doing a few minutes reading?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war

Decent overview, sources and references down the bottom if you want to go more indepth.

asherbassad · 04-01-2013 5:38am

clairefontaine wrote: »

I am so utterly confused by this conflict. Who are these rebels? Are they Muslim brotherhood? Is the US now arming the same people who crossed the border to kill Americans in Iraq? Isn't this really an Arab League problem rather than a US problem since its a civil war. Also wouldn't assassinating a leader in the ME leave a power vacuum there for Al Q to fill?

Did this conflict start because they wanted better economy and more freedoms? Well arent we making it pretty impossible for Assad to do much about a better economy with all these sanctions we have placed on Syria?

Also, most US citizens are armed, and if the country took up their arms out of their basements and garages and attacked the White House, I doubt Obama wouldn't have a second thought about taking them all out. [My speculation.]

Claire, The US and European governments want to reclaim control of Iran and Iranian resources that they lost first when Mossadegh was democratically elected in Iran, nationalised Iran's oil industry for Iran's citizens. They toppled him in 1953 and installed a dictator, Shah Pahlavi. Pahlavi allowed Shell, BP, Esso, etc back in to steal Iranian oil and gave him massive military protection via his Savak death squads to live in palaces and kill anyone at will.
In 1979 the people of Iran finally revolted against this horror (incidentally.....if you ever see photos of Iranian women in 1952/53....under the Mossadegh rule....they looked and dressed like Liz Taylor of that era, ....pencil skirts, winkle-pickers, big hair, mascara, etc)....and kicked out once again US and European oil companies and reclaimed control of their economy.

(another interesting fact.....when Pahlavi was in power the French and Americans were drawing up plans to develop nuclear power plants all over Iran....now they can't do it themselves)

So....the western corporations are out of Iran once more.....what do they do to get back in? They get Saddam Hussein (their useful hooligan) to invade and conduct an 8 year genocidal war against Iran that results in millions of deaths. The US even supply Saddam with satellite photos of Iranian troop formations and give him chemical and biological weapons to attack.

It doesn't work.

1988....stalemate.....ceasefire.

1989.....USSR....collapses.......

1990.....Washington....Green Light to conquer this region once and for all. Begin a campaign where we can weaken and destroy Iraq over the course of the next 10 to fifteen years, starting with the Gulf War, the massive buildup in Saudi, Kuwait, Bahrain and it will dovetail nicely with cutting off China from the Caspian Basin energy reserves.

Iran....Shi'ite, Syria....Shi'ite....natural allies

Population in the largest oil producing oil regions of Saudi Arabia? You guessed it..Shi'ite.

Smash the only Mediterranean Arab Nation that is not an American asskisser (and ergo friends with Iran) and Iran is alone and ripe for being turned into another bloodsoaked, graveyard.

Does that explain anything?

teddy_irish · 04-01-2013 9:36pm

I received recently a warning from the moderators of this forum because I'm not obeying the rules of the forum. I was wondering... what could be the problem of showing this documentary and what makes it so rude to the moderators. When I'd like to backup my opinion with some more info from a world media - you call this is an infraction!?!? What kind of rules could that be? When you point to some media that means the information showed in this media is contributing to your point of view. Unless... it's just a truth which is not a good one to specific people. Or a group. But it's not an offence. Not at all. It was just a documentary of the russian tv channell Rossia 24. And it was deleted. Then what about this:
US Administration Decides to Abandon ‘Free Syrian Army’
Will I be deleted again with another warning? That place is just a forum where people are exchanging information, links and videos with pros and cons regarding to a particular subject. This is not the FIRST time when this is happening to me. And it happens only when I am posting about the terrorists in Syria.

SoulandForm · 04-01-2013 11:18pm

teddy_irish wrote: »

Then what about this:
US Administration Decides to Abandon ‘Free Syrian Army’
Will I be deleted again with another warning? That place is just a forum where people are exchanging information, links and videos with pros and cons regarding to a particular subject. This is not the FIRST time when this is happening to me. And it happens only when I am posting about the terrorists in Syria.

Very interesting link mate- thanks for that!

Jonny7 · 04-01-2013 11:27pm

teddy_irish wrote: »

I received recently a warning from the moderators of this forum because I'm not obeying the rules of the forum. I was wondering... what could be the problem of showing this documentary and what makes it so rude to the moderators. When I'd like to backup my opinion with some more info from a world media - you call this is an infraction!?!? What kind of rules could that be? When you point to some media that means the information showed in this media is contributing to your point of view. Unless... it's just a truth which is not a good one to specific people. Or a group. But it's not an offence. Not at all. It was just a documentary of the russian tv channell Rossia 24. And it was deleted. Then what about this:
US Administration Decides to Abandon ‘Free Syrian Army’
Will I be deleted again with another warning? That place is just a forum where people are exchanging information, links and videos with pros and cons regarding to a particular subject. This is not the FIRST time when this is happening to me. And it happens only when I am posting about the terrorists in Syria.

Firstly the story is not true and secondly it's pro-Assad propaganda.

SoulandForm · 04-01-2013 11:52pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Firstly the story is not true and secondly it's pro-Assad propaganda.

http://nsnbc.me/2012/05/28/bbc-illegally-uses-image-of-iraqi-victims-the-usnato-un-demonization-propaganda-against-syrian-government-further-intensify/

You are very quick to dismiss it as pro-Assad propaganda.

There has been plenty of propaganda on the mainstream western media though against the Syrian government.

Look at what happened in Libya once the foreign backed fundamentalists took over.

As a Christian Syria holds a special place in my heart given that it was there that Christians first started to be called Christians. The victory of the FSA will certainly mean the destruction of the ancient Christian community in that country. That is why I support the Syrian government 100 per cent in its war against the terrorists.

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 12:04am

SoulandForm wrote: »

http://nsnbc.me/2012/05/28/bbc-illegally-uses-image-of-iraqi-victims-the-usnato-un-demonization-propaganda-against-syrian-government-further-intensify/

You are very quick to dismiss it as pro-Assad propaganda.

There has been plenty of propaganda on the mainstream western media though against the Syrian government.

Look at what happened in Libya once the foreign backed fundamentalists took over.

As a Christian Syria holds a special place in my heart given that it was there that Christians first started to be called Christians. The victory of the FSA will certainly mean the destruction of the ancient Christian community in that country. That is why I support the Syrian government 100 per cent in its war against the terrorists.

You can believe what you want, the story isn't true, unless you care to refute that

SoulandForm · 05-01-2013 12:12am

Jonny7 wrote: »

You can believe what you want, the story isn't true, unless you care to refute that

So you simply dismiss everything that goes against the FSA and happily accept all propaganda against Assad?

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 12:25am

I've read the "story", it's propaganda, an outright lie. You know.. the very thing you're trying to preach about.

Anyway you're more than welcome to show it's true although I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

SoulandForm · 05-01-2013 12:33am

Jonny7 wrote: »

I've read the "story", it's propaganda, an outright lie. You know.. the very thing you're trying to preach about.

Anyway you're more than welcome to show it's true although I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

Do you have any proof its an absolute lie?

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 12:45am

SoulandForm wrote: »

Do you have any proof its an absolute lie?

Twice in one day..

SoulandForm · 05-01-2013 12:54am

Jonny7 wrote: »

Twice in one day..

For someone who sucks up the propaganda presented by the mainstream media that is laughable. The BBC has been exposed as lying on the issue of Syria.

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 1:27am

SoulandForm wrote: »

For someone who sucks up the propaganda presented by the mainstream media that is laughable.

And that assumption is based on?

If you are already acquainted with me under another name, please do share

teddy_irish · 05-01-2013 8:02am

Let's just leave the propaganda and have a look at the real picture. Shall we?
“SEA Leaks” Coming Soon

‎”SEA | Leaks” is an operation carried out by the Syrian Electronic Army to expose the countries that tried to destroy Syria

This operation included penetration of most ministry’s mail systems of said nations… including the Ministries of Defense and Defense Industries
The operation also included hacking of the League of Arab States mail system and the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Interior, and the Amiri Diwan for some countries…
The most important leaked documents will be published in the form of a television series.
All of the leaked E-mail and documents will be published on the Leaks website that belongs to the Syrian Electronic Army | http://leaks.syrian-es.org/ - the countdown clock is ticking on the website - check it out.

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 10:44am

teddy_irish wrote: »

Let's just leave the propaganda and have a look at the real picture. Shall we?

Teddy, you're just posting from the same site again. It doesn't even hide the fact that it's propaganda

teddy_irish · 05-01-2013 1:32pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Teddy, you're just posting from the same site again. It doesn't even hide the fact that it's propaganda

With all my respect to your reply: everyone has friends. Even the enemy. Even Syria. The website "Friends of Syria" is just one place among many others where people are opposing the pressure from the mainstream media. How do you know which is telling the truth and how do you put qualifications about who is manipulating and who is Mr. Clean? BBC and CNN for example claim their versions and you are trusting them without to have in your hands the proof they say they have. They just write about what they claim. And that's it. I think that most of the people choose a side because that's the way they feel. But this is not because of the things they know. There is a monster pressure from the media over the population and it obviously works. If you don't like some information this is not turning it into a lie. Maybe you prefer to read more comfortable things and thruths... I read everything. And the more I read the more I am getting suspicious that somebody is hiding the thruth. But this is not me.

Jonny7 · 05-01-2013 3:31pm

Off you go then

www.bbc.co.uk/news
www.guardian.co.uk
www.spiegel.de/international/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Can you highlight the specific lies and misreporting.. with evidence, in regards the Syrian situation, from let's say the last week.

I'm not claiming the information is 100% accurate, but then again, I don't see many media outlets that are, they constantly add disclaimers that the information is from a particular source, e.g. Syrian state television, or the rebels or the SOHOR.

"Friends of Syria" on the other hand is not a news site, it is not subject to any accountability, any watchdogs, etc, they can write what they want.

teddy_irish · 05-01-2013 11:35pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

Off you go then

www.bbc.co.uk/news
www.guardian.co.uk
www.spiegel.de/international/
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/

Can you highlight the specific lies and misreporting.. with evidence, in regards the Syrian situation, from let's say the last week.

I'm not claiming the information is 100% accurate, but then again, I don't see many media outlets that are, they constantly add disclaimers that the information is from a particular source, e.g. Syrian state television, or the rebels or the SOHOR.

"Friends of Syria" on the other hand is not a news site, it is not subject to any accountability, any watchdogs, etc, they can write what they want.

You just gave me the start pages of the mainstream media. But there is a news from today which I will wait your favoirite media to publish it too:
Syria Captures Zawahiri’s Brother in Daraa: Report

Be like Nutella · 06-01-2013 12:05am

I wouldn't bother Johnny.... could end up doing a lot of work and minds won't change. It's probably good enough for most who visit this forum to say that although mainstream media has its faults, and it does, the idea that Assad has been painted in a purposefully poor light (ya know... having killed tens of thousands of his own people blatantly) as part of some big conspiracy to bring about the downfall of Syria and in fact Assad is a good lad and doing nothing wrong there at all.... is just not a reasonable position. If this thing turns out to be a massive conspiracy as Teddy is saying then I'll ya know... eat my hat...or whatever it is ya do when all logic is turned upside down i one go.

Get your own thread Teddy... I started this unreasonable thread... get your own unreasonable thread ; )... actually seriously you should actually start a thread over in the CT forum on this and get an argument going if it means that much to ya... coz then you'll have to break out all the proof that the whole thing is a hoax by the west against Syria involving all the mainstream media etc etc... I'd be surprised if you can produce any proof... but if it looks good I'll certainly prick my ears up and have a look at it... as mental as it sounds.

clairefontaine · 06-01-2013 12:25am

Ok to get back to the original question, conspiracy theories parked for the time being, Im not so sure that getting rid of Assad would accomplish. First of all are you talking assassination or drone strike?

Also, whenever the US gets involved in the Middle East, everyone starts complaining about western interference, etc etc. The US has war fatigue and has no money to fight other people's battles, and then get a ton of grief from other nations over it.

My second opposition to US involvement, is that the US never seems to have a decent plan. They go in, think it will all be fast, and meanwhile ten years later the battle is still raging with no plans on how to rebuild and it's just a mess. Given that every tom, dick and harry has joined this opposition force, there is nothing to say that the US wont face a deeper enemy should Assad and his regime go.

Of all the dictators you listed, they were all direct threats to the US. Is Assad a direct threat? Until, like Castro, he points missiles at the US, the US is not going to kill him, and why does everyone expect the US to put its neck on the line? Why not ask Enda to go kill him.

Be like Nutella · 06-01-2013 3:12am

actually I can't disagree with much of that... but the thing is I just see this Assad gang continuing to kill more and more people every day and week and month until there's 100,000... 150,000 dead.... and that is not something that should be acceptable to an Intl Community which has the physical capsity to stop it.... intervene... on some level...

-Give Assad a deadline to 'give it up'
-Impose No Fly Zone by whatever means
-Secure the chem weapons
-Arrest everyone for war crimes that be needin arrestin
-Find some reasonable people to deal with
-do your best to stop weapons gettin into AQ or Jihadist group hands
-Roll the dice, basically give them a chance
-help them set up or try to set up a democracy..
-try and keep the institutions that remotely work intact
-Get a kitty goin to rebuild the gaf
-Secure oil deals etc to get some money goin in the right direction
-ask the new crowd what you can do to help
-then get your troops out of dodge before you fuk it up like you did in Iraq

and to be honest all that could be a load of crap I don't have the answers I just think the US and Obama does NOT want to watch another Rwanda unfold and do nothing because history will only forget a LIMITED number of genocides under America's watch!

It took 4 Stealth bombers and 72 hours, essentially, to stop Milosevic

Clinton could've intervened in Rwanda and chose not to and 1 million people died in 3 months and he says it is his greatest regret of his life.

Most Syrians want out from under Assad.... some of them stood up and fought for that... the rest chose not to or can't or are scared or would be massacred if they did. Assad firmly believes that the chaos of Syria without an Assad at the helm is worth massacring a few hundred thousand Syrians. He is facing life in jail right now already. He now only sees one end to this and that is all out genocide and the international community rubs its thumbs while a desperate man plays the numbers game and by attrition kills 5000 Syrians (not all of them fuking terrorists by the way its mostly old people, kids, women, bloody civilians) per month every month since and including last July... 5000/5000/5000/5000/5000/5000... and counting. He knows that the number he kills every day with Barrel bombs fuilled with nails and Gatling guns from helicopter gun ships and missiles fires at gas stations and bakery queues has not 'prompted' the Intl community to jump in and kick his evil ass yet. This is all a game of numbers. Here's a few important ones to consider.

1. 200,000 - is 200,000 massacred Syrian civilians enough to promt Obama to do something.
2. 296 - That's how many congressmen voted YES to Iraq in 2003... and that was based on maaaaaaajor bullsh1t - this is real and happening on CNN right in front of their eyes.
3 3000-7000 Libyans died and we all jumped in there over 50 cal machine guns being used on the streets - There's between 45-55 thousand dead in Syria in the last 22 months, 30,000 in the last 5 months alone....this MF is willing to carpet bomb entire areas of housing - wait and see.... he feels he has no other fate.

His choice is binary... he dies for what he believes in, an ordered Syria which his father and himself (by chance he was never meant to lead - it was to his brother but he died in a feckin car accident and Assad who was in London at the time training to be a feckin eye doctor got the call - few years later he's running the show with absolutely no experience in government whatsoever )... he dies for that or... he's a flip of a coin away from execution by whoever/whatever replaces his lot... or life in jail courtesy of the Hague.

TBH as I've mentioned a few times the thread title was just to focus minds here.... I could've just said Should Obama get into Syria and do whatever is necessary to stop Assad in his increasing massacre of Syrians including everything up to taking him out if necessary.... which is a ploy which the US has employed to attempted to employ in other situations many many times before eg. Iraq - Saddam.. which incidentally didn't work but you get the drift.

Because I KNOW FOR CERTAIN from the way I read this thing that Assad's crowd (who ALLL by the way are responsible and in the same shoes as him less they defect, which many have and many have died trying and many rot in tortuous jails for thinking about trying)... because I know all these dudes are stuck between a fate of jail/execution/attempted defection/attempted escape/Hague courtrooms for 10 years/or status quo for as long as they can hold out and fuk the 100,000 that need to die in the mean time - that is exactly what they will do.

This thing is an out of control locomotive and it's left the station and the only way to stop it is to stop it...in its tracks... and let the chips fall where they land.

It's easier to argue about doing nothing right up to the day when he kills 25,000 in some bombing or chem weapon attack or slaughters an entire Crowd in Damascus which is where this all ends... and then do something... when it's too late.

The US CANNOT allow that to happen... they will be blamed by the Syrians afterwards and by us all at home watching it on sky news. The US cannot absorb that blow internationally. So it's gona come down to the wire. I'm merely saying if I were Obama I would sell the humanitarian disaster of it to Americans and raise a posse and do something righteous and fuk the IR bullsh1t we're all talking about here - if Assad is not stopped hes not stopped that's all that will matter in history. It's very easy to argue that the aftermath may result in civil war and that minority extreme caliphate seeking Islamists will grab for power with or without mandate and that terrorist attacks will be common as these groups try and consolidate power and that there's no natural resources to be invading about anyway or that Russia wont vote for it or China.... who gives a monkeys... WHEN not IF... WHEN Assad massacres 100,000 THE INTL COMMUNITY WILL 100% 'HAVE' TO DO IT ANYWAY, NO MATTER WHAT THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES!!!

clairefontaine · 06-01-2013 12:53pm

Honestly, I see what you are saying, but get the EU to do it. The US is in alot of financial trouble, does not have the military man power or resources to get involved in every troubled hot spot.

It does not have a post ww2 economy like it once did, and its people are sick of rescuing the world and then getting a load of criticism and abuse for it by the rest of the world. If the US sends manpower on the ground, it will not be appreciated by local opposition and will only create more enemies for the US. It is not in American interest to do this, America has enough problems as it is.

The west has to stop this dependency on the US to put out every fire. Let the EU build up its military and its defence budget and start spending its money and spilling their sons' and brothers' blood to sort out the Middle East. Let the beloved UN sort it out, you know that institution that Europeans all want to have moral approval from before anything gets done.

I used to hear jokes about foreign policy along the lines of arm everyone in the Middle East, let them kill each other and then make friends with the winner. I am so sick of this tiny part of the world causing so much trouble for everyone.

Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

Comments