Political Assassinations

[JohnFKennedy]

So what do you think? in the case of terrorists such as Bin Laden and Yassin I am for them.

[MasterJedi]

Yes I think they're a good thing depending on the situation. It doesn't fall into one category but in the case of Saddam and Castro yes.

[Gustaf]

Depends. If they're dictators and there are no better options, then sure.

[opebo]

Yes absolutely!  I'm already making my list:

Chavez, Castro, whoever's in charge of Syria, Iran.. goes on and on.

[Gustaf]

Yes absolutely!  I'm already making my list:

Chavez, Castro, whoever's in charge of Syria, Iran.. goes on and on.

Why not every leader? I mean, none of them are Americans after all. I still think the Gustaf-Ultimate-Nuke-Plan is the best. Operation Opebo, we could call it fi you want, taht has a nice ring to it.

[opebo]

Yes absolutely!  I'm already making my list:

Chavez, Castro, whoever's in charge of Syria, Iran.. goes on and on.

Why not every leader? I mean, none of them are Americans after all. I still think the Gustaf-Ultimate-Nuke-Plan is the best. Operation Opebo, we could call it fi you want, taht has a nice ring to it.

Because most leaders are perfectly acceptable.  Just the ones actively working to harm the US should be offed.

[Gustaf]

Yes absolutely!  I'm already making my list:

Chavez, Castro, whoever's in charge of Syria, Iran.. goes on and on.

Why not every leader? I mean, none of them are Americans after all. I still think the Gustaf-Ultimate-Nuke-Plan is the best. Operation Opebo, we could call it fi you want, taht has a nice ring to it.

Because most leaders are perfectly acceptable.  Just the ones actively working to harm the US should be offed.

Really? But wouldn't it be better to be completely rid of them?

[WMS]

A question for you Gustaf: What is a more moral way of dealing with an enemy government, assassinating the top 1 to 1000 of the ruling elite, launching a war that  kills 10X-100X as many, or establishing sanctions that fall mostly on those with little to lose and potentially could kill almost as many as a war?

Is it better to kill 10 people quietly in the night or 1000 in an explosion of fire and metal?

Assassination has acquired a ludicrously malign patina for reasons I find dubious. Personally, I suspect the reason so many governments speak out against it so strongly is because assassinations tend to target THEM, not the average citizenry, whereas in most wars the leaders find shelter while the commoners die on the battlefield. I believe the novel All Quiet on the Western Front had a point where a common soldier had the great idea that conflicts between nations could be solved by putting all the leaders of the quarreling nations in a ring, giving them weapons, and letting them fight it out. Last one standing wins the war.

As odd as it might sound, I supported assassination for humanitarian reasons even ten years ago when I was a liberal Democrat...(how times change )

[Gustaf]

A question for you Gustaf: What is a more moral way of dealing with an enemy government, assassinating the top 1 to 1000 of the ruling elite, launching a war that  kills 10X-100X as many, or establishing sanctions that fall mostly on those with little to lose and potentially could kill almost as many as a war?

Is it better to kill 10 people quietly in the night or 1000 in an explosion of fire and metal?

Assassination has acquired a ludicrously malign patina for reasons I find dubious. Personally, I suspect the reason so many governments speak out against it so strongly is because assassinations tend to target THEM, not the average citizenry, whereas in most wars the leaders find shelter while the commoners die on the battlefield. I believe the novel All Quiet on the Western Front had a point where a common soldier had the great idea that conflicts between nations could be solved by putting all the leaders of the quarreling nations in a ring, giving them weapons, and letting them fight it out. Last one standing wins the war.

As odd as it might sound, I supported assassination for humanitarian reasons even ten years ago when I was a liberal Democrat...(how times change )

Well, the case you're making sounds an awful lot like one where I would favour assasinations. I am constantly worrying about the West ceasing the moral highground, and that could easily happen once you start killing people. But I do think we're not that far apart on this issue.

[WMS]

A question for you Gustaf: What is a more moral way of dealing with an enemy government, assassinating the top 1 to 1000 of the ruling elite, launching a war that  kills 10X-100X as many, or establishing sanctions that fall mostly on those with little to lose and potentially could kill almost as many as a war?

Is it better to kill 10 people quietly in the night or 1000 in an explosion of fire and metal?

Assassination has acquired a ludicrously malign patina for reasons I find dubious. Personally, I suspect the reason so many governments speak out against it so strongly is because assassinations tend to target THEM, not the average citizenry, whereas in most wars the leaders find shelter while the commoners die on the battlefield. I believe the novel All Quiet on the Western Front had a point where a common soldier had the great idea that conflicts between nations could be solved by putting all the leaders of the quarreling nations in a ring, giving them weapons, and letting them fight it out. Last one standing wins the war.

As odd as it might sound, I supported assassination for humanitarian reasons even ten years ago when I was a liberal Democrat...(how times change )

Well, the case you're making sounds an awful lot like one where I would favour assasinations. I am constantly worrying about the West ceasing the moral highground, and that could easily happen once you start killing people. But I do think we're not that far apart on this issue.

Agreed. It is always a fine line to walk in warfare, although I think the U.S. and the rest of the West have behaved extremely well, especially compared to our enemies. But we already kill people in war, so I figure this is just as moral as that is, but kills fewer people. Yep, 'ol WMS the Independent thinks political assassinations are a legitimate and even moral tool of states...now how often will you find that talked about openly?

[Reaganfan]

Bin Laden wil be caught between now and November, I know it.

[YoMartin]

Yes absolutely!  I'm already making my list:

Chavez, Castro, whoever's in charge of Syria, Iran.. goes on and on.

Why not every leader? I mean, none of them are Americans after all. I still think the Gustaf-Ultimate-Nuke-Plan is the best. Operation Opebo, we could call it fi you want, taht has a nice ring to it.

Because most leaders are perfectly acceptable.  Just the ones actively working to harm the US should be offed.

Let´s just hope not every country uses that same logic... "In the state of nature, the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short"...

[© tweed]

Bin Laden wil be caught between now and November, I know it.

Either caught or "caught".

[Huckleberry Finn]

Yes. In the case of terrorists and Saddam/Hitler/Stalin kind dictators.