Should assassination be a legitimate foreign policy tool? (2 Viewers)

[Demento1]

Soldiers don't need to be protected. Their job is to defend and kill.

I can understand that but after all, I just think they're everyday normal human beings with a family to look after.

 

[Kimyia]

I thought governments couldn't use assassination because the general public feared they would abuse their power as you kindly mentioned.

True, but I'm sure we still have other things that are legal and the public still fears an abuse of power.
...but very interesting question you have posed

 

[Demento1]

I lol'ed hard

Haha, didn't even notice Kony.

 

[OzKo]

I can understand that but after all, I just think they're everyday normal human beings with a family to look after.

They voluntarily joined up to the defence force. They are aware of the risks. Taxpayers pay their salaries whether or not they are in active combat.

Protecting soldiers should NEVER be a reason when adjusting policy.

 

[Demento1]

They voluntarily joined up to the defence force. They are aware of the risks. Taxpayers pay their salaries whether or not they are in active combat.

Protecting soldiers should NEVER be a reason when adjusting policy.

Fair point there. Would you think there is any other alternative to assassination? A person told me that diplomacy was a viable option but I'm not sure if talking would work.

 

[Lolsmith]

I think you should do your own homework

 

[Lolsmith]

okay guys so what if Comrade Obama decided tomorrow that your family was that one that needed to be murdered to defend his proletarian revolution

 

[Azure]

So basically it's not okay to walk outside and shoot somebody in the face, but because the state in it's infinite wisdom endorses a murder, that automatically makes it acceptable?

 

[funkshen]

this question is retarded. you can't ask a "should" question unless you lay down some premises. otherwise you get a load of incoherent or retarded responses (i.e. above). some premises might include:

assassination in wartime vs. peacetime
distinguishing between assassinations and targeted killings
some arbitrary criterion for establishing the merit of assassination as a foreign policy tool (protip no libertards pls)

 

[Demento1]

this question is retarded. you can't ask a "should" question unless you lay down some premises. otherwise you get a load of incoherent or retarded responses (i.e. above). some premises might include:

assassination in wartime vs. peacetime
distinguishing between assassinations and targeted killings
some arbitrary criterion for establishing the merit of assassination as a foreign policy tool (protip no libertards pls)

I get what you're saying there and I think my friend meant 'distinguishing between assassinations and targeted killings'.

 

[funkshen]

given that it is a legitimate distinction it's pretty hard to find developed states that endorse assassinations, and the discussion is therefore moot.

 

[Annihilist]

Assassination is by definition a politically motivated murder, usually of a leader or influential figure. If governments "assassinate" others then they are enforcing their political direction using force and violence, which I see as fascist, authoritarian, and using fear to coerce and enforce. That is not the role of government and I disagree.

 

[Annihilist]

given that it is a legitimate distinction it's pretty hard to find developed states that endorse assassinations, and the discussion is therefore moot.

United States assassinated Saddam Hussein.

 

[nazfiz]

United States assassinated Saddam Hussein.

No he was caught by the US and then they handed him over to the Iraqis. They gave him a trial and he was sentenced to death. So he was executed not assassinated.

 

[Demento1]

No he was caught by the US and then they handed him over to the Iraqis. They gave him a trial and he was sentenced to death. So he was executed not assassinated.

Any reference or links to justify that? Just interested, that's all.

 

[nazfiz]

Any reference or links to justify that? Just interested, that's all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Execution_of_Saddam_Hussein

 

[funkshen]

this fucking thread

 

[twinklegal19]

I think you need to weigh up the benefits and downsides of assassination. Whether there are hidden ulterior motives of the government, are they really doing it for the greater good and is it worth it? Sorry it's really vague, here is a thought provoking link which explores both sides of many criticism and arguments about assassination

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Assassination_of_a_Dictator

Here is also another debate on an interesting topic "the killing of Osama bin Laden has made the world a safer place"
http://ussc.edu.au/study/high-school/open-day-debating-competition

 

[Demento1]

I think you need to weigh up the benefits and downsides of assassination. Whether there are hidden ulterior motives of the government, are they really going it for the greater good and is it worth it? Sorry it's really vague, here is a thought provoking link which explores both sides of many criticism and arguments about assassination

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Assassination_of_a_Dictator

Here is also another debate on an interesting topic "the killing of Osama bin Laden has made the world a safer place"
http://ussc.edu.au/study/high-school/open-day-debating-competition

Assassination: I think it's simply a mediation between diplomacy and full scale war.

 

[funkshen]

john wilkes booth (assassinated abe lincoln) meets most of the criteria for a justified assassination