Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Shuckins on August 23, 2005, 10:37:07 PM
-
...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?
-
Oh the lengths some will go.....
-
The idiotic part is advocating it publicly. Talk about limiting the options your nation has...
:D
-
Make no mistake Nash...I am not a Pat Robertson fan. And his statements are objectionable.
But is assassination ever justified?
Don't just brush the original question aside with politically correct posturing...answer it.
-
Sure it is....
I think, anyways.
Right or wrong, I was for the bombing of Libya. I was for the bombing of Bin Laden. If Hussein got bombed, I woulda been for that too.
But you'll excuse me if I find your comparing a pre-emptive Hitler assasination to a bible-thumpin' dolt asking for the death of a South American leader that nobody has even heard of as, goofiness.
-
it ain't what he said, it is the fact he is considered a "Christian" leader to some
remove the word "CHristian" and many would not argue with his statement, but you can't be a man of God and think/say that, otherwise you are no better than the cheekbones muslims extremists
-
Fair enough Nash...I agree. Pat should keep his big mouth shut. It's not his place to publicly advocate such a policy for our government.
I know nothing about this Venezuelan dictator. So I can't say that assassination would be justified. On the other hand, I don't know enough to say that it would be unjustified either.
IF, and that may be a big if, he became a big enough threat, I believe the government should take him out....as covertly as possible of course.
Out of curiousity, does anyone out there know of a prominent European leader that publicly called for Hitler's assassination? If so, I wonder what the reaction of that leader's countrymen was.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
The idiotic part is advocating it publicly. Talk about limiting the options your nation has...
:D
that about sums it up. Mr. Robinson is clearly a few fries short of the happy meal. given the propensity of Christians to slay their wounded his reign on TV may be short. can anyone say tammy faye?
-
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?
A lot of conservatives in those countries and even the United States had some admiration for him during that period so probably not :) The Facists were largely supported (or at least not opposed) where aid was concerned in the Spanish Civil War as a counter to socialists, anarchists and communists.
Now Stalin... Had it been easier and he been a closer, more immediate threat with a good covert plan, maybe.
Charon
-
Ya know... it has always struck me as a little odd that it's considered assassination if we send a sniper to shoot the guy, but it's not if we drop a bomb on his house.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Ya know... it has always struck me as a little odd that it's considered assassination if we send a sniper to shoot the guy, but it's not if we drop a bomb on his house.
Ok, so we dropped a bomb or two in Lybia..well, we missed, didn't we? That has to count for something. :D
-
I think that a bomb is more hit or miss while placing an objective on an individual makes it completely personal. IIRC a bomb was dropped with the intention of killing saddamm hussein. it killed his sons instead. also IIR that mohamar kaddafihy was similarly targeted and also escaped injury but also lost an offspring in the attack.
fidel castro was targeted many times for asassination with no result, or perhaps good results for mr castro.
-
Saddam Hussein's sons were killed in a shootout.
-
I dont think anyone who identifies themselves as a leader of a Christian group should be advocating any such thing. It's against the very principles Christianity is founded on.
That said, sure I believe assassination is a valid way for governments to deal with annoying PITA's like Hitler, Osama, Sadam, etc. Couple of bombs would have taken care of Sadam and Co. A sniper would have been the perfect solution to Osama, back when we couldnt grab him without endangering civilians. Too much focus on giving him a "fair trial" when he wasnt even a US citizen. He was a threat, he should have been dealt with while we knew where he was. Heck with all this Jail nonsense.
-
Hitler even at the time was an obvious danger. Virtually everyone in the thirties expected another war with Germany because of Hitler and the Nazi party. With or without hindsight assasinating him was on the cards for many people. But, It just wasn't the done thing back then.
Neither is it now. Saddam Hussein is one thing. But Chavez is no threat to the US or anyone else. Neither is he a dictator, shuckins, he was elected at least once, maybe even twice. He has a viewpoint which doesn't sit well with the current US administration but is not threat except to certain oil companies and certain high level shareholders. The fact that he is a left winger does not justify killing him except in the crazed mind of Robertson. Maybe he has shares in certain oil companies.
The same is true of Castro, right now. He is no threat to anyone. How Cuba and Venezuala run their affairs is nobody's business but their own.
It's always the same with the like of Robertson. He has no problem with right wing dictatorships. They can torture or repress anyone they like. But they consider even elected left wingers as fair game for assassination and their country as a some kind of threat to their way of life.
Loonies all of them.
-
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
-
Go away Cpxxx, you are making too much sense!!
;)
This is an irrational discussion, there's no space for rationality.
-
What we need is precogs! And Tom Cruise jumping on Chavez's coach! Woohooo yeaaaah woooo! :D
-
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."
-
the reason assasination is more wrong than other types of killing is because the powers that be all fear it.
lazs
-
4 Words....
Dallas
Grassy Knoll
Kennedy
-
Chavez, Tinkywinky and Castro constitute an axis of evil.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.