Time to Take Out Assad

This situation will get extremely ugly if that man drops that nerve gas on a population.

it's not as though the greatest military power on earth is forced into responding to a tyrant's use of poison within the borders of his own country.

oh.

bad example........

Most of our news is highly politicized.
Sure, we might be TOLD he used it, but unless that comes from a neutral unimprachable source, I won't believe it.

Remember that highly publicized photo shoot of the statue of Hussain being toppled?

Turns out it was staged, not spontaeous.
And who can forget the Fox reports of rioting in Wis.but the pic showed palm trees in the back ground?

A final thought...How many leaders has the US toppled so far in the past few years?
turns out the same countries that the old Plans for a New American Century ( PNAC) blue print that Bush's cronies wrote up, are the same countries toppled or being threatened now.

Great thing about technology.

Let some other nation be the world police for a change.

Why is it OK to kill via one method but not another?

Whereas with a drone just about anyone group on its way to a wedding can be wiped out remotely, in a heartbeat. Much more messy to use a drone, I suppose, but considerably quicker.

That argument aside, it is awfully difficult to justify lethal drones, possibly the most cowardly form of warfare possible.

Sometimes you have to take a stand for what is right. This is one of those times. I am largely a pacifist on issues like this one, but when Bill Clinton bombed the shit out of Serbia and stopped the invasion of Kosovo, I was with him on it. He halted genocide. Genocide should always be stood up to.

If Assad uses chem weapons, he is committing genocide. He has already killed tens of thousands of civilians in cities in Syria. He obviously has no compunction about slaughtering his own people.

Thank you for taking a stand Mr Obama.

http://newamericancentury.org/balkans.htm

when Bill Clinton bombed the shit out of Serbia

he began the pnac era

He halted genocide

that is what the american people were told

Genocide in Kosovo?

So, is there serious evidence of a Serbian campaign of Genocide in Kosovo?? It’s an important issue, since the NATO powers, fortified by a chorus from the liberal intelligentsia, flourished the charge of genocide as justification for bombing that destroyed much of Serbia’s economy and killed around 2,000 civilians, with elevated death levels predicted for years to come.

Whatever horrors they may have been planning, the Serbs were not engaged in genocidal activities in Kosovo before the bombing began....

http://www.counterpunch.org/1999/10/22/genocide-in-kosovo/

i heard babies were taken out of incubators once...

Nayirah stated that after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait she had witnessed Iraqi soldiers take babies out of incubators in a Kuwaiti hospital, take the incubators, and leave the babies to die. Though reporters did not then have access to Kuwait, her testimony was regarded as credible at the time and was widely publicized. It was cited numerous times by United States senators and the president in their rationale to back Kuwait in the Gulf War.

Her story was initially corroborated by Amnesty International and testimony from evacuees. Following the liberation of Kuwait, reporters were given access to the country and found the story of stolen incubators unsubstantiated. However, they did find that a number of people, including babies, died when nurses and doctors fled the country.

In 1992, it was revealed that Nayirah's last name was al-Ṣabaḥ (Arabic: نيره الصباح‎ and that she was the daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States. Furthermore, it was revealed that her testimony was organized as part of the Citizens for a Free Kuwait public relations campaign which was run by Hill & Knowlton for the Kuwaiti government. Following this, al-Sabah's testimony has largely come to be regarded as wartime propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_(testimony)

And Kosovo was a NATO action, not a US action.

A broken clock is right twice a day.

it doesn't cost us a lot to park an Air Carrier Group in the eastern Med. and bomb the hell out of that govt. till it collapses. The problem is what to do AFTER the fact. America is rightly sick of ANY kind of sustained combat operations, and, therefore, WE can't be the ones doing the re-building. I would back the following statement:
We (the US) will destroy that government and remove Asshole from power, but we will IMMEDIATLY expect a MASSIVE UN Peacekeeping force to get the hell in there and make damn sure that the rest of the country doesn't go to shit. You want us to play this like Serbia/Kosovo, that's fine, that's how we'll do it, but, like The Bosnian Campaign, it's not going to be JUST US."

Right now, it's probably the only way.

We're the ones habitually committing war crimes in our endless pursuit of global destruction. Two well-known recent examples:

1. White phosphorus being used in Fallujah, Iraq, in Nov 2004:



2. From Human Rights Watch, March 25, 2009:

(Jerusalem) - Israel's repeated firing of white phosphorus shells over densely populated areas of Gaza during its recent military campaign was indiscriminate and is evidence of war crimes, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. . . .

Human Rights Watch researchers in Gaza immediately after hostilities ended found spent shells, canister liners, and dozens of burnt felt wedges containing white phosphorus on city streets, apartment roofs, residential courtyards, and at a United Nations school.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/25/israel-white-phosphorus-use-evidence-war-crimes

Much more danger that we'll use Sarin or worse in Syria and blame it on Assad than on anything Assad might do. That's been the pattern.

Who is erpowers to be the one to decide who lives and who dies and when that should happen? Are you a god?

My post clearly said that President Obama should send in a special forces group to at least capture Assad and remove him from power. Beyond that every person has a right to express their opinion on issues. It is my opinion that President Obama should move to remove President Assad from power before he gives an order to use chemical weapons on the Syrian people.

are being prepared. Without something more definite or tangible, it would not be appropriate to "take out Assad."

nt

My post did not call for war. My post stated that President Obama should send in special forces troops to at least capture Assad and remove him from power. Special forces is not the same as a ground war.

On another note, how would you solve this problem? Should we just wait to see what Assad does? If he in fact uses chemical weapons on his own people should he then be removed?

Assad needs to go so that his people do not have chemical weapons used against them. Maybe the Russians can convince Assad to peacefully resign, but that is not a sure thing. Therefore, President Obama should send in special forces troops to capture Assad and remove him from power.

As I mentioned in my original post I realize that removing Assad from power will bring about its own set of problems. However, I think the United States, the world, and the Syrian people can handle the problems that would arise as a result of Assad being removed from power. Also, as I stated before I think the problems that will arise due to Assad being removed from power are less than the problems that will arise from Assad using chemical weapons against his own people.

Yeah, let's take out anyone we don't like cuz we're AMERICA!!

WE rule the world, beeeeotch!

((facepalm))

I say it's time to take out our huge, bloated fucking military

This is not about someone not liking America, it is about someone harming his own people and possibly doing even greater harm to his own people. There are a number of leaders who do not like America. I did not call for those leaders to be removed from power. I also do not think the United States should remove leaders from power solely because they do not like America. However, if a leader decides to hurt his or her own people then the United States should step in and remove that person from power.

Can you say the same about the rebels if they get their hands on chemical weapons?

upon a people who instead need freedom. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain. No more Shahs, thank you very much. Also, resentment at having your country ruled by a puppet of a foreign power breeds resentment and even terrorism. Which only justifies the endless war budget some so desperately desire. Heard of the 1%? Examine the war profiteers. They are the .01%. Incredibly rich. Give them no more, let them kill no one else.

"OMG, WMD!" Sorry, we have heard this song before. Even if they are real this time, it's only because those who have handed them out eagerly await their use in order to further justify the aforementioned endless war budget/having puppets in power in far away places near all that oil.


BЯΞAKB∃∆Ƭ ‏@BreaKBeatJunkee

10,000 U.S. Troops – Plus French, British and Nato Soldiers – Get Ready for War Against Syria http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/12/10000-u-s-troops-plus-french-british-and-nato-soldiers-get-ready-for-war-against-syria.html …


"Money money money. MONEY!"

risk of prison is he would give up and leave Syria before more people are killed. I know some people want Assad in prison, bt if that view prevails, Assad has no reason to do anything but keep fighting and killing until he is finally found and killed. The fight to the end will kill tens of thousands of innocent people, I want to not see that happen.

As I hope all misguided US aggression would fail.

There is absolutely no legal or moral justification for aggression against Syria or its legal government.

If Obama chooses to hand Syria over to the radical terrorists it will be a terrible stain on his presidency. I do not think he would do such a thing.

Also, if assassination were easy, the rebels would have pulled it off. Putting a force like Seal Team Six into the center of a war zone where military units are highly alert for anything that might hurt their President would be incredibly difficult. Failure would likely lead to the death or capture of everyone involved.

If Assad uses Chemical weapons on his own people, I back some type of limited military engagement as we did in Libya. But assassinating a world leader because we don't like him is just wrong.