Oh hell yeah...end this mess
No...this makes us no better than he is.
Only if we have the blessing of the Arab League
Tough Call...but someones gotta do SOMETHING!
It's acceptable in war. It's not outside war.
We're not at war with Syria.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
Well, in general terms, I think assassination is fine as long as it serves some sort of positive end, and you can get away with doing it.
Does assassinating Assad really do anything for us? I'm not so sure.
Positive in what sense? Between nations the only positive act is self serving. Which begs your moral stance on the action to begin with.Well, in general terms, I think assassination is fine as long as it serves some sort of positive end, and you can get away with doing it.
There is also the aftermath of the act...
Yes, of course. Although just because an act is self-serving doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't serve some greater good.Positive in what sense? Between nations the only positive act is self serving. Which begs your moral stance on the action to begin with.
Which is why I questioned whether or not it actually makes sense to assassinate Assad.There is also the aftermath of the act...
My view on war is much like my view in regards to individual combat. If you take things off the board in regards to what you'll do to defend yourself, you're an idiot. If you expect that a real fight is going to be anything similar to a boxing or MMA match, you're an idiot. Sure, if America went to war with Britian then following the general "rules of war" makes sense to a point because there's a reasonable expectation that both sides will actually follow through fully (or mostly fully) with those rules (similar to the expectatoin of people following the rules in a boxing match or MMA match). However if you're talking about interactions with a country who you have no reasonable expectation that they're going to follow the rules then trying to go out of your way to handcuff yourself with rules while they do whatever is akin to trying to go into a fight on the street stating you're not going to draw a weapon, you're not going to hit below the belt, you're not going to bite, you're not going to knee their head if they're on the ground, etc. It's dumb.
When it comes to war, or significant and relevant national defense, I don't have an issue with targetted assassinations. I also realize the political ramifications of having an "open" stance on Assassination and agree that publicly and "officially" we should have a negative stance on it. But I also am a realist and understand that there's things our government may well need, and should, do that they don't actually publicly avow. My view in regards to how war should be conducted isn't exactly a popular one, definitely not a politically correct one, but personally I feel is the pragmatic and realistic one. I don't believe assassination should be something we use routinely, or even often, but I do believe should be an option in some form within our capabilities.
Then again, I view my morals as a country in terms of defense largely as I do with my family. I'd violate every act morally, legally, and ethically to save the life of my family and would not for a moment feel that I made the wrong decision. And if I was the person threatening someone elses family, while I may dislike them taking similar actoin against me (because it would be harmful to my famliy to lose me), I would not disagree with the notion that its reasonable for them to take such actions. Similarly with regards to countries, while I may dislike and wish to act against a country acting in its self interest, I don't blame them for taking such action because I expect countries to worry first and foremost about what is best for themselves and their people not necessarily what's best for the world community.
Last edited by Zyphlin; 02-09-12 at 11:42 AM.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Last edited by StillBallin75; 02-09-12 at 11:42 AM.