General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI'm leaning towards only going after Assad personally.
Destroy his Presidential palaces. And his vacation homes, offices, private planes, and so on. And if we can take out the man himself with a drone, let's do it.
But nothing more. No regime changes, no troops on the ground, no picking sides among the various rebel factions. The idea would be to make other dictators see that if they break weapons treaties we will make their lives as miserable as possible.
uponit7771
(90,336 posts)...credibility and some translated cartoonish sounding recordings don't meet the test of Adley Stevenson type of proof needed to kill hundreds of people.
Something aint right about this
cali
(114,904 posts)for obvious reasons.
MADem
(135,425 posts)Terrorists, yes, but heads of state, no.
We got out of that business some time ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333
n2doc
(47,953 posts)I mean, no one misbehaved after he and his sons were killed. Everyone learned their lesson.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)kind of frowned upon.
And the biggest question of all: who steps into the Assad void? Considering recent history, probably a regime even worse.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)if they didn't want to suffer the same fate.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)but they would create a toxic, Islamic state that sets back women's rights in Syria a 1000 fucking years, kills LGBT for fun, aligns with some of our biggest enemies, rejects modernity, and generally turns into a problem that WILL bite us in the ass down the road.
If those are my choices, I'll take Assad, thank you very much.
tblue
(16,350 posts)I hate this. Whole thing.
Hell Hath No Fury
(16,327 posts)Abq_Sarah
(2,883 posts)Taking out Assad would constitute "regime change".