- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 38,198
- Reaction score
- 15,841
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
There are two schools of thought on this matter: one focuses on the man, one on the "tides of history".
One theory says it is the man, the dictator, the Hitler, who makes Nazi Germany (or whatever regime/nation) what it is.
Another theory says that when the tides of history, the forces of collective will, economic conditions, political trends, and so on, come together in such a manner, that some suitable leader will step forward to claim the mantle and ride the tide to conquest... the details might vary, but there would be war and atrocity all the same.
I'm not sure I entirely buy either argument... but if you assassinate one dictator, there's a very good chance that someone in his top-tier of advisors will simply step into his shoes and very likely continue similar policies for similar reasons.
In this sense, assassination is much less decisive than winning a war. Once you win a war the whole nation is no longer capable of fighting against you anymore... no one will be stepping into anyone's shoes with the same problems and resources inclining him to act the same.
During my much more revolutionary youth, when considering the question of what one person could do jf it appeared necessary to do something, assasination kept coming up.
Pick the worst offenders, end them.
Now when I told anybody this I got pretty much the same responses I got here.
The instability mentioned in the thread is a potential factor, but I don't believe it would be as intense as most people think. There was a million dollar bounty on HW Bush and apparently nobody even tried to collect. I'm sure Al Quaeda or other terrorist organizations would love to assasinate various leaders but don't as far as I know and the assassin willing to give his life cannot be defended against.
As to someone stepping right into a targets shoes, this is true. But it won't be the BEST one. Often only the right person CAN do what might draw an assassins attentions. You might have to go through a couple of leaders until no one was left that is capable of perpetrating the offenses being addressed, but I don't consider it impossible.
As a person who believes that those who rule should do so with the consent of the governed, I think the governed should reserve this right.
And those who KNOW they are doing wrong should live in constant fear. I can't think of a better deterrent to being a dick.
As I've gotten older, I've come to the conclusion that the best punishment for these types is to take everything away from them and then make them live with the loss of everything that matters to them.:2wave: