Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nye Bevan

(25,406 posts)
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:03 PM Sep 2013

I'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.

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
I'm leaning towards only going after Assad personally. (Original Post) Nye Bevan Sep 2013 OP
For what?! There's been no solid proof that he ordered the attacks. Our intel agencies have no uponit7771 Sep 2013 #1
The Administration does not want to depose Assad cali Sep 2013 #2
Going after his stuff to hurt him, personally, is fine, but we don't assassinate world leaders. MADem Sep 2013 #3
Worked so well with Saddam n2doc Sep 2013 #4
Political assassination -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #5
Whoever it was, they would know not to use chemical weapons Nye Bevan Sep 2013 #6
They may not use chemical weapons -- Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #8
But we do it all the time. tblue Sep 2013 #7
I know. Hell Hath No Fury Sep 2013 #9
I'm fairly certain Abq_Sarah Sep 2013 #10

uponit7771

(90,336 posts)
1. For what?! There's been no solid proof that he ordered the attacks. Our intel agencies have no
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:07 PM
Sep 2013

...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

MADem

(135,425 posts)
3. Going after his stuff to hurt him, personally, is fine, but we don't assassinate world leaders.
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:10 PM
Sep 2013

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)
4. Worked so well with Saddam
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:11 PM
Sep 2013

I mean, no one misbehaved after he and his sons were killed. Everyone learned their lesson.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
5. Political assassination --
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:12 PM
Sep 2013

kind of frowned upon.

And the biggest question of all: who steps into the Assad void? Considering recent history, probably a regime even worse.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
8. They may not use chemical weapons --
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:25 PM
Sep 2013

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.

 

Hell Hath No Fury

(16,327 posts)
9. I know.
Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:27 PM
Sep 2013
And we have been punished greatly for our madness -- our actions ALWAYS come back to bite us in the ass.
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I'm leaning towards only ...