Pretend You Do Not Have the Benefit of Hindsight...

[J_A_B]

Assassination is the sort of issue where it's a lose-lose situation.

Kill someone and prevent a human catastrophe, and you'll have people second-guessing you forever ("soandso would NEVER have done that!").  If you don't act when you have the chance and the guy later goes and kills a bunch of people, well then it's "WHY DIDN'T YOU TAKE HIM OUT WHEN YOU COULD HAVE?".  The only time you really "win" is if the target person never actually kills/harms anyone.  Even then, you're in a constant state of threat as long as that individual is alive.  There's no gaurantee that a tragedy isn't going to happen next week.

In the end, you just have to make the best judgement call you can and hope history is kind to you.  If someone had killed Hitler in 1937, then he'd be just another assassinated dictator that we all learned and forgot about in high school.

J_A_B

[Naso]

Go away Cpxxx, you are making too much sense!!



This is an irrational discussion, there's no space for rationality.

[CyranoAH]

What we need is precogs! And Tom Cruise jumping on Chavez's coach! Woohooo yeaaaah woooo!

[SaburoS]

Amazing for those that keep wrapping themselves in the American flag and keep saying it's for democracy and freedom can support the assassination of a freely elected president of another country.
Not pointing fingers to anyone here, mind you, only at Robertson and his ilk. They are evil, anti-christian, anti-democracy, pro-murder hypocrits.

BTW Shukins,
No. What's to stop Germany from sending over their assassination squads to kill our president in retaliation? Without the hindsight to know of the atrocities of Hitler and Nazi Germany, we'd have no reason to  have him assassinated.
Declare war first, then "let loose the dogs of war."

[lazs2]

the reason assasination is more wrong than other types of killing is because the powers that be all fear it.

lazs

[AWMac]

4 Words....

Dallas

Grassy Knoll

Kennedy

[Suave]

Chavez, Tinkywinky and Castro constitute an axis of evil.

[Chairboy]

Originally posted by J_A_B
If someone had killed Hitler in 1937, then he'd be just another assassinated dictator that we all learned and forgot about in high school.

Possibly.  Of course, it's also possible that we would be learning this in German at German high schools.  (Probably not as disconcerting to those already living in germany who are reading this.)

The treaty of Versaille and the economic effects were brutal.  The Nazis provided a public boost during the 1930s.  If someone killed Hitler in 37, then someone else would have taken the helm, and it's possible that it would have been someone else with more sense.

Hitler made crippling errors like attacking the Soviet Union, who knows what someone like Dornburger might have done?

[Nilsen]

yup

Someone less retarded than Mr. Hitler could have gained power and not have made all the mistakes he did.

Maybe someone who had vaited for the nukular gun or someone who would simply have followed the advice of his often brilliant generals.

[Clifra Jones]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Possibly.  Of course, it's also possible that we would be learning this in German at German high schools.  (Probably not as disconcerting to those already living in germany who are reading this.)

The treaty of Versaille and the economic effects were brutal.  The Nazis provided a public boost during the 1930s.  If someone killed Hitler in 37, then someone else would have taken the helm, and it's possible that it would have been someone else with more sense.

Hitler made crippling errors like attacking the Soviet Union, who knows what someone like Dornburger might have done?

Exactly, in most cases when you assasinate a leader you make a martre out of him and the guy that replaces him is more dangerous that the one you killed. Even when you hand pick the new guy he tends to not work out very well, i.e. VietNam. Hitler was evil, but he was stupid evil. His replacement could have been just as evil but just might have had brains too.

Same goes for UBL(OBL). If we'd have just assasinated him that would not have stopped AQ. It would have placed Zahwari in charge. Someone with a hell of a lot more intellegence than UBL.

Unless you can get the entire leadership contigent in one place and whack them it's not a good stratagy. Even then this rarely works, as seen in the opening round of the Iraq war.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Shuckins
...and consider the following hypothetical question.

While Pat Robertson's comments about assassinating a foreign dictator are odious to some, is it possible that he might have a valid point?  Not saying he does in this case...but consider the following...


Pretend you live in Britain or France in 1937.  Pretend also that you haven't the benefit of post-World War II hindsight.  Now, answer this hypothetical question...

Would your government be justified in assassinating the dictatorial ruler of Nazi Germany, regardless of the fact that no state of war exists between your two countries?

Tell you this much, If bush did have a plan to assasinate Chavez, Pat just ruined it.

[Maverick]

Assassination can LEAD to war as well. Think Prince Ferdinand, Sarajevo.

Sticky subject and the "solution", while seemingly simplistic, may put more things in motion than you can imagine.

[Raider179]

Originally posted by Maverick
Assassination can LEAD to war as well. Think Prince Ferdinand, Sarajevo.

Sticky subject and the "solution, while seemingly simplistic, may put more things in motion than you can imagine.

yep at least with Chavez, you know what you got, its always possible that someone worse will take over.