• 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!

Is assasination ever called for

Is assasination ever the right thing to do

  • In some cases assasination is right

    Votes: 30 83.3%

  • assasination is never right EVER

    Votes: 6 16.7%
  • Total voters
    36
lifeisshort said:
Castro kept Cuba in line and Kennedy thought cutting off that head would liberate Cuba.
Click to expand...

And at least as often as not that tends to be naive. If you really want change...actual change...you have to do the full monty: all-out war, an-all out political campaign, and all-out reconstruction effort, etc. The certainty that killing a tyrant would solve the problem should be thought of as just as silly as the notion that killing the secretary of defense would bring down the entire military.
 
I am against killing if at all possible but if it is a choice between assassination of leaders versus all out war in which numerous pawns will be killed on the leaders' behalves I would opt for assassination any day of the week.
 
lifeisshort said:
Have we actually declared war on Alquiada and ISIS? No declaration of war as far as I know and remember that Kennedy tried to assassinate Castro.
Click to expand...

Yes.

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons in order to prevent any future act of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.
Click to expand...

Read more: This 60-Word Sentence Started The War On Terror - Business Insider
 
Cardinal said:
And at least as often as not that tends to be naive. If you really want change...actual change...you have to do the full monty: all-out war, an-all out political campaign, and all-out reconstruction effort, etc. The certainty that killing a tyrant would solve the problem should be thought of as just as silly as the notion that killing the secretary of defense would bring down the entire military.
Click to expand...

In a democracy or society with structure you may be right but when a single person runs a country you may be wrong.
 
lifeisshort said:
In a democracy or society with structure you may be right but when a single person runs a country you may be wrong.
Click to expand...

Refer back to my earlier post. In such a situation that can easily cause a power vacuum that can result in more chaos (see: Iraq). You're looking for guarantees where there are none.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
Yes.



Read more: This 60-Word Sentence Started The War On Terror - Business Insider
Click to expand...

So our pres has an authorization of military force not a declaration of war. The definition of powers invoked by this act are a bit blurry.

"The vibrant debate among legal scholars regarding the domestic and international law basis for U.S. military action against ISIS is partly due to the fact that the Administration has yet to provide the public with a clear, comprehensive legal analysis of its power to use military force against ISIS. As a general principle, when a President puts our troops in harm’s way for a sustained period of time, it is advisable for him to propose, consult with, and obtain express authorization from Congress. That consultation and debate should be public, not buried in a continuing resolution or other must-pass legislation. Sending our troops into war requires a sober, deliberate debate that is not influenced by electoral politics.

A Framework for an Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIS
 
Cardinal said:
Refer back to my earlier post. In such a situation that can easily cause a power vacuum that can result in more chaos (see: Iraq). You're looking for guarantees where there are none.
Click to expand...

I think the chaos in Iraq was from our nation building not from killing Saddam. If we killed him and then said to whoever took his place that if they behaved like him we would kill them to things would have gone smoother.
 
lifeisshort said:
I think the chaos in Iraq was from our nation building not from killing Saddam. If we killed him and then said to whoever took his place that if they behaved like him we would kill them to things would have gone smoother.
Click to expand...

So what do you think would have happened if Saddam was assassinated and then we did nothing else?
 
Cardinal said:
So what do you think would have happened if Saddam was assassinated and then we did nothing else?
Click to expand...

You weren't asking me specifically, but I think had we done just that that there would have been an internal power struggle resulting in a Saddam-like clone emerging as the new leader.
 
lifeisshort said:
So our pres has an authorization of military force not a declaration of war. The definition of powers invoked by this act are a bit blurry.

"The vibrant debate among legal scholars regarding the domestic and international law basis for U.S. military action against ISIS is partly due to the fact that the Administration has yet to provide the public with a clear, comprehensive legal analysis of its power to use military force against ISIS. As a general principle, when a President puts our troops in harm’s way for a sustained period of time, it is advisable for him to propose, consult with, and obtain express authorization from Congress. That consultation and debate should be public, not buried in a continuing resolution or other must-pass legislation. Sending our troops into war requires a sober, deliberate debate that is not influenced by electoral politics.

A Framework for an Authorization for Use of Military Force Against ISIS
Click to expand...

That is a distinction without a difference. We have had troops all over the world, thus in harms way, for decades without any such declaration of war.
 
Cardinal said:
So what do you think would have happened if Saddam was assassinated and then we did nothing else?
Click to expand...

There was a strong power structure in place in Iraq and after a brief internal struggle there would be a new leader of it chastened by what we did to Saddam. He would not shoot at our planes enforcing the no fly zone and would not gas Kurds.
 
UBL was hunted down and killed more as a matter of national pride and collective revenge than actual strategic utility.

Rome did the same thing to Hannibal after the Punic Wars.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That is a distinction without a difference. We have had troops all over the world, thus in harms way, for decades without any such declaration of war.
Click to expand...

From what Iread of both acts a declaration of war is well defined while authorization of military force is not. It seems to me that targeting the leader of the enemy in the second scenario is assassination but it is impossible to say for sure. If Alquiada managed to kill Obama would that IYO be assassination or an act of war?
 
Gathomas88 said:
UBL was hunted down and killed more as a matter of national pride and collective revenge than actual strategic utility.

Rome did the same thing to Hannibal after the Punic Wars.
Click to expand...

I would call that assassination.
 
lifeisshort said:
I would call that assassination.
Click to expand...
Whatever. The fact of the matter is that it didn't accomplish a whole lot in either instance.

They were "moral" victories, useful for restoring domestic morale and international prestige more than anything else.
 
Gathomas88 said:
Whatever. The fact of the matter is that it didn't accomplish a whole lot in either instance.

They were "moral" victories, useful for restoring domestic morale and international prestige more than anything else.
Click to expand...

If it were Hollywood, terrorism would have ended instantly.
 
lifeisshort said:
There was a strong power structure in place in Iraq and after a brief internal struggle there would be a new leader of it chastened by what we did to Saddam. He would not shoot at our planes enforcing the no fly zone and would not gas Kurds.
Click to expand...

That is dangerously short-sighted and optimistic. It's that sort of myopic thought process that explains why assassinations tend to end badly.
 
lifeisshort said:
From what Iread of both acts a declaration of war is well defined while authorization of military force is not. It seems to me that targeting the leader of the enemy in the second scenario is assassination but it is impossible to say for sure. If Alquiada managed to kill Obama would that IYO be assassination or an act of war?
Click to expand...

Both, since Obama is both the leader of a nation and the commander in chief of its military forces. Which head did they chop off?
 
Goshin said:
I'm not opposed to assassination in some cases, but one of the problems with it is that when there is an established power structure, the next bozo just steps into the vacated place... and in many cases he may be as bad or worse.
Click to expand...

But he won't be the most EFFECTIVE one because that's the one you killed. Keep it up and you'll get to third and fourth string jackasses that should be easier to deal with.
 
Cardinal said:
From what I understand it might have made sense to eliminate him before he was able to instigate WWII, but once the war started it was probably best to let him stay in charge since strategically he was Germany's own worst enemy.

Something I'm not entirely clear on myself is, how responsible is Hitler personally for the events that led to WWII and the Holocaust? Did he simply ride a tidal wave of historical events? Or did he shape the thoughts of the time so specifically that those events never would have happened had he not lived?
Click to expand...

It was his charisma and his embracing the nascent science of persuasion (the Big Lie being one of his favorites. He is quoted saying the Reich would never have been possible without the advancements in propaganda learned from the Soviets.) that led to the acceptance of the Reich.

Maybe someone else could have been figurehead, maybe not.
 
Goshin said:
Yeah. Must be all that damn Sand.... makes people crazy. "Dammit, I've got sand in my arse again! That's it! I'm going to kill EVERYONE!"
Click to expand...

Seems like the harsher an environment a culture develops in the harsher that culture.

Island cultures for example are much more aggressive the closer to the mainland they are because those areas tend to have higher population density and competition for resources. Move farther out and the people get more peaceful (aside from places far from all others like Easter island and new Zealand)
 
TheNextEra said:
Looking at the popularity of it, I don't think these thoughts were Hitler's alone. Again, that's just my opinion.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with that. We have more and more info coming out that not just the people of Germany, but the American people were OK with the persecution of Jews.
 
Thrilla said:
yes... assassinations are ok in certain circumstances....... however, they are never ok until actions are taken that makes it deserved.

contingency plans should also be made to deal with the consequences.

as for my personal opinion... the minute Hitlers army invaded his first country, he was open for assassination
if the young men and women in military uniforms are subjected to being legally killed by opposing nations, their leader is open to it as well.

as with any other martial matter, assassination can be tactical or strategic
sometimes, the main man can be iced.. other times, maybe taking out a top minion would work better to change the tune of El Supremo.
in any event, the notion that leaders are exempt from being legally killed is asinine.... they are leaders... upper management.... not gods.
Click to expand...

I've always thought that leading men to a war of aggression should carry a summary death sentence. Every leader, every military commander. To be carried out by any human without sanction.

Make it clear that humanity rejects that behavior.
 
lizzie said:
One thing that I think many people don't realize about Hitler, is that he was into some really strange mystical practices and beliefs, and he literally lost his mind, likely as a result of some of the **** that he was into. He probably believed that he had been ordained by God to do the things he was doing. He was far beyond Christianity by that point, and although many people like to claim that he was Christian, thus denigrate Christianity by associating Hitler with it, that is not what was actually happening at the time. He was likely much crazier than most of us understand, but he was so powerful and brutal, that few dared defy him by that point, as he'd gladly have them killed as well. He was probably a man of great potential, who went terribly terribly wrong.
Click to expand...

Methamphetamine is a hell of a drug.
 
What if...? said:
But he won't be the most EFFECTIVE one because that's the one you killed. Keep it up and you'll get to third and fourth string jackasses that should be easier to deal with.
Click to expand...

or....ya smoke #2,3 and 4....let Numero Uno know, on the sly, he might want to get on the right track if he wishes to keep consuming oxygen.

some dudes just need to be smoked though...Saddam, Bin Laden... and a whole host of asshats that are still breathing
smoking Saddam( yes i know he wasn't assassinated) and his boys wasn't the wrong call in Iraq... dismantling their army and command structure was the wrong call
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom