• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we" Seal Team" Assad?

Would you assasinate?

  • Yes...take the bastad out!

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    15

tecoyah

Illusionary
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
10,453
Reaction score
3,844
Location
Louisville, KY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Given the opportunity to save a couple thousand people, by assasinating a single man...would you approve?
 
I would be happy to see us pull an Osama on this prick...but whatever came after him might make the whole Iran thingy even worse.
 
"take that bastad out"

What?
 
No, not having the information the actual people who make those decisions do, I think I would refrain and that.
 
The United States doesn't take part in political assassination, unless it is in self-defense or during wartime.

Here is a CNN piece about that:
U.S. policy on assassinations - CNN
 
Only if you could seriously and honestly do it yourself should you ever ask someone else to do it for you. The gravity of what you might ask is greater than you might know.
 
Only if you could seriously and honestly do it yourself should you ever ask someone else to do it for you. The gravity of what you might ask is greater than you might know.

Our president just did it....was it ok then?
 
On an ethical level, killing Assad wouldn't bother me given his actions. However, its simply not very practical in reality.

1) Their are political consequences for assassinating a head of state, especially one who hasn't engaged in military action against the U.S. and who has powerful allies.
2) It probably couldn't even been done, as Assad is going to be hiding and very well protected.
3) There is no guarantee that killing him would even end the conflict, as other ambitious family members or military leaders could seize power.
 
It depends. If a new head is ensured not to pop up, and this assassination is easy and substantially beneficial to our own country, then fine. Since these conditions are not satisfied, then no.
 
Given the opportunity to save a couple thousand people, by assasinating a single man...would you approve?

How would assassinating him solve the problem? whoever is selected as his successor will likely carry on as normal. Given the sectarian aspect to this the security forces believe (perhaps correctly) that they are fighting for their lives and they will continue to do so regardless of who the leader is.
 
Given the opportunity to save a couple thousand people, by assasinating a single man...would you approve?

Assad skips locations, and runs with a protective detail ringed by military forces ringed by an Integrated Air Defense System that isn't horribly shabby. You can't "SEAL Team" him like we did OBL - those sorts of raids only work when you have relatively lightly defended individual(s) in known locations with inferior early warning networks.

Plus, by an Executive Order, the US Military does not assassinate foreign heads of state.

The correct, measure, therefore, is simply to attempt to deny him the ability to communicate with his generals - which is legal. This can be accomplished by turning off his personal radio. With a 2,000 pound bomb.


:mrgreen:
 
Is Assad a bad guy or getting punked by the "Mighty Wurlitzer?" This is the same Assad that allowed millions of Iraqi refugees to enter Syria to escape war, mayhem, chaos, and death inflicted by us, the USA, during that long running show, "Shock and Awe." as we bombed a cosmopolitan city of millions of people. Somebody explain to me who the "good guys" are. Only "good guys" would have the right to assasinate anybody. Do "good guys" torture? This is not a slippery slope; it is a slimy slope. Must be somebody somewhere thinks they are standing on moral high ground. That's probably caused by standing downwind of a reefer seizure and burning.
 
On a personal level, it wouldn't bother me. Not even a little bit. However, it would be highly unethical, not to mention illegal to assassinate the head of a state that is not currently at war with or a threat to your own country.
 
So you would have objected if the Soviet Union had tried to assasinate Hitler?

Those are words from your mouth. I'm havin' some difficulty finding anything in my post even remotely similar. However, I would not condemn Assad because he is being demonized by the "Mighty Wurlitzer." I require a more credible source. There are no Hitlers in this picture. Lotsa dumbasses or low IQ donkeys. Don't stand in the smoke.
 
Last edited:
It'd be nice to stop a tyrannical murderer.

However, even if the guy is killed who's going to stop more people from filling in the gaps? Killing just him won't solve the problem.
 
On a personal level, it wouldn't bother me. Not even a little bit. However, it would be highly unethical, not to mention illegal to assassinate the head of a state that is not currently at war with or a threat to your own country.

Not only that, but the United States has an atrocious record when it comes to meddling in the affairs of other nations or instituting regime changes -- by which I mean, the vast majority of the time, the result is either worse than what we started with, or the cost is so high as to make the victory Pyrrhic.
 
It's astonishing how many Americans think that our country is the world police force and that we can just sick our armed forces on whoever we don't like.
 
It's astonishing how many Americans think that our country is the world police force and that we can just sick our armed forces on whoever we don't like.

America seems to be a beacon of hope to others, as well as a beacon of peace.

Should Americans just sit by and overlook the atrocities that happen in other nations/ Should the Congo have been ignored? How about the senseless killing in Libya? How about Hitler's murdering? How about the Stalinist Gulags, or the Killing by the hands of Che Guevera?

I think America should use its power and influence to deal with senseless mass murders, etc.
 
Absolutely not. Assad is a head of state of a country with whom we are not at war. Assassinating a head of state is a blatant violation of both USA and International law.

What's happening in Syria is tragic, but it has nothing to do with us. What happened in Libya was tragic; again, it had nothing to do with us. The only reason we were involved in Syria is because France, UK and Spain implemented NATO action to save their primary source of oil, and as a member of NATO the US was obligated to assist.
NATO doesn't care about Syria, and apparently Assad doesn't either.
 
America seems to be a beacon of hope to others, as well as a beacon of peace.

Should Americans just sit by and overlook the atrocities that happen in other nations/ Should the Congo have been ignored? How about the senseless killing in Libya? How about Hitler's murdering? How about the Stalinist Gulags, or the Killing by the hands of Che Guevera?

I think America should use its power and influence to deal with senseless mass murders, etc.

You're delusional if you think America is altruistic. We don't do anything unless it benefits us directly. There are plenty of atrocities in the world every day. Darfur comes to mind. We only get involved in the ones that bring us long-term benefit, otherwise our government could care less if people are dying or being enslaved by dictators. All you have to do is examine our backward foreign policy to know this is true.

I thought that would be common knowledge by now, but I guess people still drink the peace-maker koolaid.
 
On the one hand, Syria is a enemy of the US and has sponsored violence against the US and its allies. That gives the US the right to take Assad out as he is the military leader of Syria. In this case, however, given the civil war going on, its better to work with a group to either put pressure on Assad to quit and let democracy take over, or intervene to protect civilians. I lean towards letting syrians fight their own war as we simply cant afford to help anyone right now.
 
Back
Top Bottom