It would lead to the end of the immediate crisis.

Unlikely.

Killing him 10 years ago would have averted the crisis though, dont you think? We just need to be proactive.

Nah depending on the circumstances that could have started a war between nations. Abortion would have been ideal if we are talking about being proactive.

Them damn southerners...

Edited 7/29/2014 00:20:35

To be sure the killing of Assad would be good ... it's a Muslim country if radical Islam is impossible to know if the next one will be better ... and regardless it will only make war on the monarchy among terrorist organizations ... I'm not saying that Assad "good" is true very cruel but not necessarily killing bring peace.

If you don't consider the complexity of the context of a country like Syria, saying "we just have to kill their leader" sounds like the thinking of a 4 years old kid at most. Like Libya, Syria is a patchwork of ethnic groups, religious minorities and even nomads and tribes. Al Assad isn't a saint but succeed to preserve national unity by dealing with tribal logic and by giving the right to everyone to chose his own religion through a laic state. One of the very last heirs of Pan-Arabism in the middle east. I don't say it was a democratic system and there wasn't a few inequalities but all in all i doubt you could expect a better compromise regarding the complexity of the situation. Despite his authoritarianism the political regime had a certain legitimacy.

Syria's background has a lot of similarities with Lybia and you can see now the disaster in Lybia
after the occidental military intervention. Since a few years Syria is invaded by thousands and thousands of islamist fighters who murder everyone for a yes or a no. Ask the christians there and even some muslim minorities if they prefer Al Assad or the fanatic death squadrons backed by Saudi Arabia or Qatar.

hmm good point

[takes "dead piggy for president" html banners down from blog]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/07/us-russia-violated-nuclear-missile-treaty-2014729131726862847.html

Killing a significant leader has proved to be a disaster in the past.
Take Iraq. The Americans and the West with their great judicial proceedings invaded a soverign country and brought it to its knees. They then killed its President off. Look at the state it is in now. Social turmoil, civil war separation,division, death, chaos.
Saddam Hussein was a dictator in every sense. But he kept his nation in check. By killing off him and that ideology without proper preparation.. you only need to look at the news.

As for boycotting Russia. Whose up for a petition boycotting America in every possible way for their negligence, coup's and senseless double standards ? If we are gonna play the blame-game without looking at the situation and contructive arguments I say we should bring to light every war crime done by both sides.

Afterall no one view is crystal clear.

I think current political situations are void in matters of leisure. Sure, it may economically boost Russia. But the Olympics were held in Beijing and the PRC has done vicious things to its own people. I'm sure the problem of Crimea will be solved in a few years with Russia owning it and east Ukraine possibly going independent / Russia. Whatever The income, it's just a game at the end of the day.

"Killing a significant leader has proved to be a disaster in the past." Not really. Plenty of US presidents, malcom x, MLK Jr, caesar, gandhi all got killed and nothing much happened.

True, but killing a leader ant going to help. Nor boycotting the 2nd or 3rd most powerfull country in the world. Its just going to happened. Unless war of curse.

The World Cup should not be allowed in a country where sanctions are being enforced against it due to its irresponsible actions. I really don't want to sound like that dick Nick Clegg, but to allow the World Cup to Russia is to weaken our stand, strengthen his and to turn a blind eye.

There is a difference between a democratic country with a history such as the United States compared with radical Islamic state if the monarchy .... already has split the country then there is no chance that there will be civil war if Assad killed ... and it depends on what periods such as whether the United States would be stretching between different ethnic groups and murder the president then it does not run out as in previous ...

Dead Piggy : Patrice Lumumba of Congo, Salvador Allende of Chile Zulfikar Ali Bhutto of Pakistan are examples where assasinations/killing off leaders resulted in disaster.
If i recall correctly Lincoln's assasination caused the racism to prolong due to his vice-president's attitudes ? Caesar's assasination resulted in civial war. How is that not a disaster ?

'irresponsible actions'. Russia isnt the only irresponsible one.

It seemed obvious that when we talk about killing leader it implied a regime change or at least a larger operation of destabilization via a coup d'Etat or a military intervention, specially in the contextual framework of Syria. An isolated assassination would not cause major changes in a minimum structured state.