Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

CollardGreens

The title of this thread is "Should Obama Kill Bashar Assad?"


Well no, obama should be impeached.

If you asked if a sniper in Assad's own country kill him, then yes.

Be like Nutella

finally we have winner! : )
I wonder what the actual affect of that would be? Would it turn the tide for the rebels towards victory in the short term? Interesting question. I think it would have a big impact on the war and could possibly even herald a landslide of defections of military brass and steel the resolve of the rebels to push harder in a more consolidated manner. He was originally considered a boring technocrat who simply continued his family's fairly despotic leadership but I think since his people rose up he seems very much the man in charge and completely deluded at that and in my mind probably personally accountable for many of the massacres which have happened so taking him out i.e. by Rebel Sniper would be something I would welcome even if it had a 50/50 chance in reducing the power of the Assad's/Alawite cabal and increasing the success of the Rebels towards their ultimate victory. It would most likely be a suicide mission for said Sniper even IF he appeared in an outdoor public setting so it's highly unlikely. He's completely locked down and probably spends most his time in a bunker, as I've heard here before.

I only titled it such to add spice to a debate which was always going to end up fairly rationalized by those with decent knowledge of the Syria situation and I learned a lot from this thread during the debate but it's time to wrap it up I'd say : )

I stand by my position that the US HAS TO get its hands dirtier than it has so far and provide a serious quantity of weapons to these Rebels, whether some are potential future jihadists or not. Assad is going down with the ship and will take everyone he can with him because he is completely committed to retaining control knowing as he does that it will ultimately cost him his life. There is no wiggle room with this guy he's invested too much of himself and his life in his idea of leadership - he ain't gona step down, he ain't gona run, he will use all force available to him right up to but NOT INCLUDING large scale use of his chem weapons knowing that would completely force the international hand and end his run abruptly... but there are no certainties. The fight will end in Damascus eventually and if the US doesn't do what it should (having forcefully set it's own bar for the last 60 years) then hundreds of thousands of Syrians will die over the next couple of years as the world watches on. Personally I reckon the US hand will be forced by a miscalculating and increasingly desperate Assad. I don't wish for US men and women to lose their lives jumping into this thing at all... I just know that the US has the power to really shorten this thing and influence it in favor of a smaller civilian body count and at the end of the day that is all that matters and that is all the history books will show. The US watched 1 million humans get butchered in Rwanda.... they jumped in in Kosovo... in Iraq....in Afghanistan... and now they can't afford to allow 200,000 innocent Syrians to get slaughtered by Assad's military. It will ruin America's image once and for all and nobody will believe in the BS concept of an America for freedom or any more of that US Fantasy boll0x we've been forced to listen to for decades. Economic recovery is secondary to the ability for the US to express her Ideals in actions out in the world. Backing down from doing so will be the first crumbling brick falling from the shining tower of global American leadership model we've become accustomed to since America won the cold war. China and Russia will watch and hope America backs down and becomes the introvert the economically suffering American working and middle class wants it to become. I think the big picture requires America to influence this Syria thing proactively if not 'boots on the ground' then with all other creative pathways. Ultimately this is what the Syrians and the International community wants... to let them down will show weakness and burst the global concept of America even if it is mostly ill-deserved.

CollardGreens

Nutella,
This one I disagree with you on, and that is the US needs to get involved. No they don't.

You are welcome to get involved if you wish but I want for the kids to come on home and let us mind our own country.

The folks in the middle east are gonna fight if'en we are there or not, let em have at each other and fight their own fights. We taught them to fish but we don't need to feed them. If we keep picking them up they won't know how to fight for themselves.

Just like Ann Landers always said, MYOB!

clairefontaine

I agree with collard greens, if it has to be done let one of their own do it. They have the arms to do it.

Seriously nutella, you are against drone strikes, so Im thinking you'd push for an assassin here, well let one of their own assassins do it.

Be like Nutella

I don't care who does it ... a drone, a Syrian... an Eskimo... this guy has to be stopped sooner rather than later.

I'm not against drones 'entirely'. I'm just against the immoral use of weapons and the ignorant 'rushing into' a whole new paradigm in warfare which changes everything ... as drones clearly do... and will do into the future, without the proper internationally enforceable legal structure to regulate their use. If a drone was used to find a lost child or map out forest fires or find and kill Joseph Kony or something as simple and moral as that then I'd have no complaints. Like I said this thread was more to start a reasonable debate about what to do about Syria and not merely to prescribe assassins to take out Assad.. (which is only one large part of the equation).. although if I'm being honest I'd take the shot myself at this stage if I thought it would avert 100,000 more dead innocent Syrian civilians by causing massive defections and greatly empowering the rising towards a short or medium term path to victory. The case for killing Assad, NOT for what he has done... I don't believe in the DEATH penalty, but to prevent him from personally causing FURTHER massive scale bloodshed, is open and shut in my view. He is responsible for 30,000-50,000 dead Syrians and he will not stop killing. He is a smart logical thinker and he will play the international community off each other while he restricts his killing to a level just 'beneath' forcing Obama's hand... and he will continue that ploy for as long he believes it will take, no mater how many Syrian civilians have to die. That is the equation ... simple as that. Answer: Kill him, arm the rebels massively, incite massive defections, bring this thing to an end as quick as possible using all creative avenues if possible barring boots on the ground... and work out what to do with the aftermath. Primary goal: Stop Assad killing thousands of civilians. I don't care who does it I just know realistically that the US is the only one that can execute this thing properly in that region in terms of resources and hardware and technical know-how, experience, personnel, aircraft, supplies, carrier groups etc etc etc etc.... remember the US military budget is larger than the next 25 countries combined ! It is NOT a question of who else can do this? It is a fact that the US CAN do this... and can do this quite quickly and effectively compared to any other force or combination of forces you choose - NATO IS AMERICA! The International community IS America, the WEST IS America - militarily speaking.

CollardGreens

I just know realistically that the US is the only one that can execute this thing properly in that region in terms of resources and hardware and technical know-how, experience, personnel, aircraft, supplies, carrier groups etc etc etc etc.... remember the US military budget is larger than the next 25 countries combined ! It is NOT a question of who else can do this? It is a fact that the US CAN do this... and can do this quite quickly and effectively compared to any other force or combination of forces you choose - NATO IS AMERICA! The International community IS America, the WEST IS America - militarily speaking.

Nutella, I love you and all but get real! The above will NEVER happen as long as O is pres! HE DOESN'T CARE! Just today the Rep. blocked the new dude from becoming head of defense because of former brotherhood ties. Now think about that, the pres wants to put a man head of defense for the US that has ties to the brotherhood. O is cutting our military, our nukes ~ do your homework friend, it isn't like it use to be and it's getting worse here just like every where else.

Try your buds up in the UK or Oz, maybe they can do something?!

clairefontaine

Plus you could kill Assad, but who the hell knows what will take his place. The ME is a law onto itself.

Be like Nutella

The West's misunderstanding of the Middle East is the cause of an awful lot of what has happened and is happening. There was a very funny piece on the Daily Show last night which speaks to this. You'd have to see it.

Don't forget that the US and UK completely fuked up the middle east for decades by meddling in their leaderships and bribing their despotic dictators to get hands on the oil - you shouldn't forget that... the ME sure hasn't. It's not talked about enough nor understood enough because American's don't want to face up to what some of their leaders did, on their behalf, with the use of the US military and CIA over the last 60 years in order to maintain and protect American economic growth, considered a 'must' for global order.

CollardGreens

Don't forget that the US and UK completely fuked up the middle east for decades by meddling in their leaderships and bribing their despotic dictators to get hands on the oil - you shouldn't forget that... the ME sure hasn't. It's not talked about enough nor understood enough because American's don't want to face up what some of their leaders with the use of the US military and CIA has inflicted on the Middle East region over the last 60 years.

Don't get bi-polar! One min you are saying the US needs to take them out then the next you are saying they have the right to hate us.

We don't need their oil if this Amerikan Gub'ment would let us drill! :rolleyes:

clairefontaine

Be like Nutella wrote: »

The West's misunderstanding of the Middle East is the cause of an awful lot of what has happened and is happening. There was a very funny piece on the Daily Show last night which speaks to this. You'd have to see it.

Don't forget that the US and UK completely fuked up the middle east for decades by meddling in their leaderships and bribing their despotic dictators to get hands on the oil - you shouldn't forget that... the ME sure hasn't. It's not talked about enough nor understood enough because American's don't want to face up to what some of their leaders did, on their behalf, with the use of the US military and CIA over the last 60 years in order to maintain and protect American economic growth, considered a 'must' for global order.

And what have the Irish done for the ME, aside from help out Ghaddafi train soldiers?


If the US did such a crappy job then why do you want them to do another crappy job?

Be like Nutella

hahaha yeah I suppose it does seem I'm being schizo a bit .. but you know what I mean.. stepping in for the Syrian people and doing the moral thing with the power you got is a lot different then removing one dictator to put another one in power which gives you access to oil (i.e. Iran). And yes the IRA showed the entire middle east how to make IED's on the cheap... not one our proudest legacies... but that was the actions of a terrorist organization at that point... one with which most Irish people would not have supported in their violence at that time. There's a big difference between what I am asking the US to do in Syria then what Dick Cheney cheated you into doing in Iraq. I know most American's want the US to retract it's testicles and focus on the domestic situation i.e. nation building at home as Obama said in his speech but IMO you can't pick and choose with these things - you either have the power to do something or you don't and if you do then it is incumbent on you to do the right thing... and in this case the right thing to do is to prevent hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians from being massacred by Assad... which will take the US (in conjunction with partners) to impose a no fly zone, give the rebels serious weaponry and urge Assad to step aside and use creative channels to cause defections and secure the chemical stockpiles... it's all obvious.

SoulandForm

Look at Afghanistan- the CIA trained and US armed terrorists won and drove out the professional as opposed to business middle class from the country. The US was fine with this until the taliban decided that poppy production for heroin was wrong- than the US and UK invaded and placed even nastier people in charge of the country. How are Iraq and Libya doing now? Why does Nutella want a country like Syria with something like 15 different religions to be made mono-religious at the point of the gun?

SoulandForm

CollardGreens wrote: »

Nutella, I love you and all but get real! The above will NEVER happen as long as O is pres! HE DOESN'T CARE! Just today the Rep. blocked the new dude from becoming head of defense because of former brotherhood ties. Now think about that, the pres wants to put a man head of defense for the US that has ties to the brotherhood. O is cutting our military, our nukes ~ do your homework friend, it isn't like it use to be and it's getting worse here just like every where else.

Try your buds up in the UK or Oz, maybe they can do something?!

Oh he does care- which is why he is backing up the Sunni fundamentalist death squads- he just doesnt want to annoy Russia to much.

hide2013

this is a civil war between at least two different segments of the syrian population and it is a mistake to assume one is any better or worse than the other or to assume "massacres" are the sole preserve of one side. if the rebels win you will likely get an islamic government that will wreak revenge on the ruling side and deny liberty to all. if assad wins you will get the continuation of a secular dictatorship. neither outcome is great.
what is needed is a solution that allows secular non mainstream moslems to run their own lives and be secure and safe and which allows those who want a theocratic government to have one for themselves. that means balkanisation. not pretty but best of bad solutions.
the media have personalised a complex civil war by focusing on one individual - assad. if he were what his was about it would have been over in days. this is about huge blocs of the population who want quite different types of syria and who fear each other. assad is irrelevant.

Jonny7

hide2013 wrote: »

this is a civil war between at least two different segments of the syrian population and it is a mistake to assume one is any better or worse than the other or to assume "massacres" are the sole preserve of one side. if the rebels win you will likely get an islamic government that will wreak revenge on the ruling side and deny liberty to all. if assad wins you will get the continuation of a secular dictatorship. neither outcome is great.
what is needed is a solution that allows secular non mainstream moslems to run their own lives and be secure and safe and which allows those who want a theocratic government to have one for themselves. that means balkanisation. not pretty but best of bad solutions.
the media have personalised a complex civil war by focusing on one individual - assad. if he were what his was about it would have been over in days. this is about huge blocs of the population who want quite different types of syria and who fear each other. assad is irrelevant.

Yikes.

Many countries have similar internal divisions, some worse than Syria. However for the last decades the unelected leadership has just been compounding the situation for one side.

Assad could have stepped down and offered free and fair elections. The country would have then been able to vote in whomever it wanted, just like Egypt, Libya, etc. The "Islamists/Sunni's/whoever getting in" card does not need to be played.

Assad and his government bear a huge amount of responsibility for their bloody response to the protests and the current situation in the country.

Be like Nutella

yep

The argument of 'Do nothing' because then Islamist governments will get in... in these countries is boll0x. Of course they'll get in.. and the results won't be pretty - to us anyway. An Islamic country is going to have an Islamic style leadership - these countries are never going to be carbon copies of western concepts of democracies and it's none of our business whether they are or not. What matters is stopping these brutal dictators on humanitarian grounds and opening up their political system and letting them do whatever they bloody want... secular or not. What matters is that they allow free elections so the people get to choose their leaders, that's all. It's not like all these people are bloody jihadists as alarmist western media seems to have us believe. It's 'boogey-man' psychy all over again. There is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Christianity. I don't con-scribe to either to be honest. And I wouldn't want a deep south backwards thinking racist bigoted bible bashing nutjob like we see examples of in the US running my country any more than I would a hardline Muslim brotherhood guy... but just like in the Republican party in the US the popular religious brotherhood has the power in these countries to some extent and what happens happens. The rising groups want Assad out and have the right to rise up against him violently if necessary. Assad on the other hand has no right to use the power of Syria's military including his increasing use indiscriminate scud missiles and large rockets on innocent population. It is his responsibility to step down and read the writing on the wall. He is unmerciful and certainly acts against the teaching in the Koran - he is merely a survivalist dictator and he'll keep killing more and more Syrians with indiscriminate force until he is stopped and that will definitely require international help (which is in operation on a certain level and has been but which needs to ramp up and do what's necessary to get him out before he'd killed 100,00, 200,000, 300,000 innocent Syrians).

SoulandForm

Syria has about 18 religions. Sunnis are not even a majority of the population.

Assad is not a brutal dictator. He has massive popular support.

If he falls there is not going to be democracy.

Be like Nutella wrote: »

yep

The argument of 'Do nothing' because then Islamist governments will get in... in these countries is boll0x. Of course they'll get in.. and the results won't be pretty - to us anyway. An Islamic country is going to have an Islamic style leadership - these countries are never going to be carbon copies of western concepts of democracies and it's none of our business whether they are or not. What matters is stopping these brutal dictators on humanitarian grounds and opening up their political system and letting them do whatever they bloody want... secular or not. What matters is that they allow free elections so the people get to choose their leaders, that's all. It's not like all these people are bloody jihadists as alarmist western media seems to have us believe. It's 'boogey-man' psychy all over again. There is nothing wrong with Islam that isn't wrong with Christianity. I don't con-scribe to either to be honest. And I wouldn't want a deep south backwards thinking racist bigoted bible bashing nutjob like we see examples of in the US running my country any more than I would a hardline Muslim brotherhood guy... but just like in the Republican party in the US the popular religious brotherhood has the power in these countries to some extent and what happens happens. The rising groups want Assad out and have the right to rise up against him violently if necessary. Assad on the other hand has no right to use the power of Syria's military including his increasing use indiscriminate scud missiles and large rockets on innocent population. It is his responsibility to step down and read the writing on the wall. He is unmerciful and certainly acts against the teaching in the Koran - he is merely a survivalist dictator and he'll keep killing more and more Syrians with indiscriminate force until he is stopped and that will definitely require international help (which is in operation on a certain level and has been but which needs to ramp up and do what's necessary to get him out before he'd killed 100,00, 200,000, 300,000 innocent Syrians).

Be like Nutella

SoulandForm wrote: »

Assad is not a brutal dictator.

not sure where to start with that one. I suppose the honorable thing would be for you to admit that that statement is false... no?

Jonny7

SoulandForm wrote: »

Assad is not a brutal dictator. He has massive popular support.

Indeed, Al Saud is not a dictator in Saudi Arabia - he has massive support. Likewise Al Khalifa in Bahrain is a popular leader with huge support.

I am very sure you completely and utterly agree with the above and your opinion is not a partisan view of the world (which would obviously create too many contradictions)

cyberhog

Be like Nutella wrote: »

not sure where to start with that one. I suppose the honorable thing would be for you to admit that that statement is false... no?

The statement is NOT false. US diplomats admit that Assad does indeed have massive support.

"... Milosovic had a lot of his population strongly behind him, throughout, until the end, until now I would say, and the same goes for President Assad - there's quite a number of the population, maybe as many as half, if not more, who stand behind him."

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/02/us-diplomat-majority-of-syrians-stand-behind-bashar-assad.html

Just like Milosovic did, Assad enjoys genuine popular support.

SoulandForm

Be like Nutella wrote: »

not sure where to start with that one. I suppose the honorable thing would be for you to admit that that statement is false... no?

Do you actually know any Syrians or people who lived in Syria? I dont think so.

War is never a nice business.

Lightbulb Sun

cyberhog wrote: »

The statement is NOT false. US diplomats admit that Assad does indeed have massive support.



http://www.moonofalabama.org/2013/02/us-diplomat-majority-of-syrians-stand-behind-bashar-assad.html

Just like Milosovic did, Assad enjoys genuine popular support.

Except there's the seemingly minor issue to you of his mass slaughter.

hide2013

let me repeat - stop focusing on Assad. this is not about him. it is a civil war between communities who differ in religion and outlook on what constitutes democracy. i dont think it is reasonable for a community to submit to an election in which a group who will likely wipe them out once in office are going to be elected. an election is a solution only if there is reasonable relations between all communities and a constitution that protects human rights.
dont forget - we read all about Assad crimes in the media mostly because someone wants us to read that and not to read about crimes by the rebels. dont you find the imbalance in reporting a bit odd?

cyberhog

Lightbulb Sun wrote: »

Except there's the seemingly minor issue to you of his mass slaughter.

I didn't say he was a nice guy I just pointed out that he had a lot of support. So I suggest you learn to read what is written, and not twist it into something that was not written.

Lightbulb Sun

cyberhog wrote: »

I didn't say he was a nice guy I just pointed out that he had a lot of support. So I suggest you learn to read what is written, and not twist it into something that was not written.

I actually meant to respond to part of soul and forms quote about Assad not being a brutal dictator so apologies for any confusion.

I wasn't commenting on anything related to Assads popularity.

Be like Nutella

SoulandForm wrote: »

Assad is not a brutal dictator.

Both Assads - father and son have run an Authoritarian system for decades. Assad is a dictator and is a brutal authoritarian leader who has run a security state for 12 years.

wiki

Human Rights groups, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have detailed how Bashar's government and secret police routinely tortured, imprisoned, and killed political opponents, and those who speak out against the government.[44][45] Since 2006 it expanded the use of travel bans against dissidents. In that regard, Syria is the worst offender among Arab states.[46]
In an interview with ABC News in 2007 he stated: "We don't have such [things as] political prisoners," yet the New York Times reported the arrest of 30 political prisoners in Syria in December 2007.I][URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words"]who?[/URL][/I[47] Foreign Policy magazine editorialized on his position in the wake of the 2011 protests:[48]
"During its decades of rule... the Assad family developed a strong political safety net by firmly integrating the military into the government. In 1970, Hafez al-Assad, Bashar’s father, seized power after rising through the ranks of the Syrian armed forces, during which time he established a network of loyal Alawites by installing them in key posts. In fact, the military, ruling elite, and ruthless secret police are so intertwined that it is now impossible to separate the Assad government from the security establishment.... So... the government and its loyal forces have been able to deter all but the most resolute and fearless oppositional activists. In this respect, the situation in Syria is to a certain degree comparable to Saddam Hussein’s strong Sunni minority rule in Iraq."- Totalitarianism or Totalitarian Dictatorships are the most repressive of regimes, strictly enforce the absence of freedom, and relentlessly apply the power of the press, the courts, the bureaucracy, the army and the police against individual liberties. Totalitarian means total dictatorial control. The state involves itself in all facets of society, including the daily life of its citizens. A totalitarian government seeks to control not only all economic and political matters but the attitudes, values, and beliefs of its population, erasing the distinction between state and society.




Syria under Assad


one party rule

The Arab Socialist Ba’ath Party emerged from a split in the original Ba’ath Party in February 1966. From 1970 until 2000, the party was led by the Syrian president Hafez al-Assad. As of 2000, leadership has been shared between his son Bashar Al-Assad (head of the Syrian regional organization) and Abdullah al-Ahmar (head of the pan-Arab national organization) Bashar Al-Assad became the Regional Secretary of the party in Syria after his father’s death in 2000. One Party.



Censorship

The secret Syrian police AKA Mokhabarat have had for forty years some form of neighborhood-block watches, requiring residents to inform on neighbors who exhibit any democratic tendencies. Secret police also watch for anti-dictatorship activity. Religious ceremonies often are not permitted to operate without a government license; dictators fear that worshipers might plot against them during private religious activities.


Social, political and economic oppression

The Syrian citizen is taught to believe that his country is in a state of war with Israel and all economic and political oppressions are caused by this conflict while knowing that for 40 years the Syrian government didn’t fire a single bullet on Israel even with Israel occupying the Golan Heights. The Syrian regime declared the state of emergency for over forty years which was lifted recently after the Syrian revolution started; only to be substituted with the same oppression and injustice.


Executions/Arrests without trial for political offenses

Tadmor prison was closed in 2001 and all remaining political detainees were transferred to other prisons in Syria. Tadmor Prison was reopened on June 15, 2011 and individuals arrested for participation in anti-regime demonstrations were transferred there for interrogation and detainment without trial.


gross abuses of human rights are common
The regime’s media like Dunia TV channel and the Syrian TV channel and all their supporters have a famous sentence: (Is this the freedom you want?) They want us to believe that all the killings and bloodshed are the result of asking for freedom! An average Syrian citizen is not even allowed to question a governmental worker, the citizen has to obey and pay to get his basic paperwork done.

Dictators often hold the top ranking military post; military is a main focus in a dictatorship

Bashar al- Assad is the head of the military force with so many ranks before his name that makes you feel confused! The Syrian Military has been used before in Hama massacre 1982 to silent the Syrian people and give a lesson of how this regime reacts when it is challenged. More than 50,000 people where killed in Hama and now the army is used for the same purpose instead of its basic role of protecting the people and the Syrian land.



_____________________


"..Syria under Hafez al-Assad became the region's most watertight police state, with a mix of civilian and military agencies and spy headquarters. The mukhabarat, as spy bodies are known in the Arab world, became pervasive and omnipotent. It has continued under the 12-year rule of his son, and has so far played a significant role in safeguarding his regime. Bashar al-Assad's use of a network of selected advisers – among them the inner circle who are party to the hidden email accounts – is a tactic straight from his father's playbook...."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/14/dictator-son-assad-grip-power




_________________________________



separately..


Here's an Interesting viewpoint from Historian Author David Lesch, a professor of Middle East History at Trinity University concerning the nature of the rising



"....

That's something that you mention that originally gave Assad a lot of power: his saying he was the one standing between Syria and sectarian violence.
Absolutely: The Syrian regime under Bashar and his father has consistently put forth this Faustian or Hobbesian bargain of "we will provide stability in a very unstable neighborhood in return for your support and subservience." And most Syrians bought into this, because all they had to do was look across the borders into Lebanon and Iraq to see how sectarian-based countries can implode and fall apart. So they were willing to give the Assads, both father and son, a lot of rope in terms of the security state to maintain that stability. For Assad, the Alawites [a minority Shiite sect], it was in their interest, obviously, to have as secular a state as possible....."

CollardGreens

Faustian or Hobbesian

What? Is that a Hobbit thing? What are you talking about?