Post #45,416
7/12/02 11:56:08 PM
|
Re: 32 individuals targeted for assassination.
They actually have killed their targets.
Alex
"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." -- Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
|
Post #45,420
7/13/02 12:01:37 AM
|
Maybe we should hire them?
Assasination, to me is a valid policy although the assasination of that cabinet minister annoyed the israeli's I find it an equivelent act.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #45,449
7/13/02 3:47:58 AM
|
I'll disagree.
Assasination, to me is a valid policy although the assasination of that cabinet minister annoyed the israeli's I find it an equivelent act. Look at who practices assassination. Drug cartels. Terrorists. and so forth. Part of being the "good" guys is holding a higher moral ground. If we employ the same methods as the "bad" guys, then all that differentiates us is that we are the "good" guys and they are the "bad" guys. And that is based upon nothing more than our opinion of what is "good" and what is "bad".
|
Post #45,457
7/13/02 10:20:03 AM
|
In that regard...I must disagree with you.
I have no qualms over using assassination as a effective political tool.
What differentiates me from the other 'bad' guys is not the 'higher moral ground' but rather the (questionable) motives.
Assassinating bin Ladin - especially with Top Secret intel that he was part of the attacks on the WTC, our ships and our embassies? No problem.
Assassinating Chevez - because he wants more money from the oil companies operating in his country? Problem.
|
Post #45,468
7/13/02 2:27:46 PM
|
But that's the point.
What differentiates me from the other 'bad' guys is not the 'higher moral ground' but rather the (questionable) motives. When we're employing the same tools they do, the ONLY differentiator is our motives. Assassinating bin Ladin - especially with Top Secret intel that he was part of the attacks on the WTC, our ships and our embassies? No problem. Why did he attack us? And do NOT tell me "because he hates freedom". Assassinating Chevez - because he wants more money from the oil companies operating in his country? Problem. How about we support an attempt to overthrow his government then? Good and evil are just viewpoints.
|
Post #45,504
7/13/02 9:58:55 PM
|
Re: But that's the point.
When we're employing the same tools they do, the ONLY differentiator is our motives.
...
Why did he attack us? And do NOT tell me "because he hates freedom".
...
How about we support an attempt to overthrow his government then?
Good and evil are just viewpoints.
First and foremost, I agree with your argument that good and evil are just viewpoint (in my mind at least - Taoism). But...while I disagree with Conservatives over a number of issues, the issue of statecraft - the actions of a country undertaken to protect itself including (but not limited to) assassination, overturning of governments, and yes, even war - is an issue that I do not have an argument with. (I have arguments over what they want to claim is statecraft, but that's a different story.) Is it better to have a war and kill thousand of solders rather than assassinate a single leader who orders a war? I agree with you, the problem is one of motivation. Open the door and any piece of statecraft can be explained away by saying "it's for the good of country." Communists in Nicuragua? - gotta fight 'em 'for the good of the country'. Cuba under a dictator? - gotta fight 'em 'for the good of the country'. The problem is worse in that - how does one determine if one's leaders really are doing for the good of the country. Much of the evidence is classified, and even if you had the hard evidence, the best actions of statecraft are to remove the problem before it commonly known...ie: before anyone realizes it's a problem. So far, we've got (some) checks and balances. There's the review board in Congress (although I doubt if they see everything). And there's the ability of the people to question their leaders actions. Could/Should it be better - absolutely. But...to argue that the tool of statecraft itself must be thrown away....no, that I can't agree with.
|
Post #45,514
7/14/02 3:17:58 AM
|
Better?
Is it better to have a war and kill thousand of solders rather than assassinate a single leader who orders a war? "Better"? I guess that depends upon your viewpoint. That question also assumes that the assassination will prevent the war. If the terrorists had managed to crash a plane into Bush, would that have prevented the war on terrorism? I don't think it would have. Assassination can be used as an excuse to start a war. And the leader usually isn't the only one who wants a war. If we assassinated Saddam, we'd have to face his successor. Who is likely to be just like him. The problem is worse in that - how does one determine if one's leaders really are doing for the good of the country. Agree. But...to argue that the tool of statecraft itself must be thrown away....no, that I can't agree with. Disagree. Because we are the "good" guys, we should be able to state that there are certain activities we will not engage in. Aside from assassination, can you name any others that we won't engage in? If there's nothing we won't do "for the good of the country", how can we claim to be the "good" guys? Okay, "good" and "evil" are mere points of view. UNLESS there is a behavioural difference. "Evil" will engage in activities that "good" will not. Any disagreement? "Good" will not engage in any activities that "evil" will not. Any disagreement? So, the only differentiator is which country will NOT engage in an activity that the other country would engage in. Anything else is point-of-view and lies to one's self.
|
Post #45,541
7/14/02 9:01:09 AM
|
Perhaps...
"Better"? I guess that depends upon your viewpoint.
That question also assumes that the assassination will prevent the war.
If the terrorists had managed to crash a plane into Bush, would that have prevented the war on terrorism? I don't think it would have.
Assassination can be used as an excuse to start a war.
And the leader usually isn't the only one who wants a war. If we assassinated Saddam, we'd have to face his successor. Who is likely to be just like him.
Yes, there is the implication that the assassination would prevent some sort of war. I doubt that killing Bush would've lead to stopping the war on terrorism. And, it is also unknown whether or not killing bin Ladin might have stopped the attacks on the WTC. Finally, I agree that assassinations have been used as the reasons to start a war (WWI). Furthermore I agree that assassination does not change the underlying feel of the people, and that a successor may well be worse than the current leader. (Arafat comes to mind.)
Disagree. Because we are the "good" guys, we should be able to state that there are certain activities we will not engage in.
Aside from assassination, can you name any others that we won't engage in?
First off, you do realize that we do use assassination? (Our ban on assassation regards only Political Leaders, IIRC.) So, no, I can't think of any activities that we will not engage in. (Perhaps you can?)
So, the only differentiator is which country will NOT engage in an activity that the other country would engage in.
Anything else is point-of-view and lies to one's self.
Well, that assumes that the "good" and "evil" labels are important also (ie: that we have to be "good" and not "evil"). But, at least in my point of view, "good" and "evil" are labels and are therefore not important. This may be a good thing considering that I can not see any difference in our actions.
|
Post #45,552
7/14/02 12:14:12 PM
|
That's part of the problem.
First off, you do realize that we do use assassination? (Our ban on assassation regards only Political Leaders, IIRC.) And we have funded groups in other countries that don't even hold that limitation. So, no, I can't think of any activities that we will not engage in. (Perhaps you can?) Nope. And that's the problem. There is NOTHING we can point to and claim "We are 'good' because we will never engage in (insert activity)". Which, again, illustrates how this is all point-of-view as to "good" and "evil". We are "good" and our actions are "justified" because we say we are "good" and "justified". Someone with a different point-of-view will not see it that way. And without the behavioural differences, point-of-view is all there. Well, that assumes that the "good" and "evil" labels are important also (ie: that we have to be "good" and not "evil").
But, at least in my point of view, "good" and "evil" are labels and are therefore not important. This may be a good thing considering that I can not see any difference in our actions. Effectively, there is no difference. We are the evil empire.
|
Post #45,560
7/14/02 3:36:32 PM
|
Then we have the 'Objective' case..
[Pray let us not revisit the entire dissection of the claims of those who believe that they 'possess' Objective Truth: thus operate upon a ~perfect knowledge of Good / Evil .. If they just read literally, a particular MANual.]
If there is anything clear at all re such a topic, it is that This one is the epitome of Polar Opposites [of Something]. Again. The words are frequently employed in our culture, evolved as it did along with that inescapable overlay of early Puritanism. So there are many who indeed imagine that they possess (with degrees of perfection in comprehension?) real Knowledge of this particular duality.
Silly me - I see this as merely another illustration of the commonality of experience of er "life within a world perceived to be characterized by duality in all things you can name". It follows that reason is apt to be confused with mere logic; especially as, recently: an entire field of endeavour has been created, in which 'logic per Boolean algebra' suggests.. that a mathematical 'certainty' is achievable in places other than math. [!?]
"Business" is at last deemed to consist merely of: implementing a decision tree; no humans need intrude into the neatness of the concept. (For many, Business is also deemed interchangeable with another process: life. 'Evil' side-effect?)
I.T. is that field which did not exist before, except for a few math, stat specialists.. and practical Econ-type applications as began from the insights of Babbage + Ada L., the Jacquard loom, etc. Most engineering calculations were analog - in an analog world. (Was that evident.. "by inspection"?)
Never before has digital logic (and its implications for a kind of digital-thought IMhO) achieved such a daily pervasive presence as now, and merely over ~ a 20 year period. ie Osborne1 = 1981, which I deem the beginning of widespread non-hobbyist participation in digital concepts. (It was also the first "bundling" experiment = wildly successful, however fatally-based upon Billy's ideals of the ownership of software; slow-acting poison, that, we see now.)
No, I have no neat solution for our widespread usage - or is it destined always to be mis-usage? - of the Good/Evil conundrum. Just think it might be helpful to include the oddity of a mere 20 years of the ascent of formalized, machine-logic: now intruded into everything from the obviously useful mundane --> the utterly Cockamamie (which is much more intense than mere cockamamie ;-).
We do SO Want our opinions, judgments, beliefs.. then Beliefs: to be wonderfully (as in mathematically) provable ... it appears that we Will try to find our proofs *digitally (now) no matter how ephemeral were the 'proofs' in the analog world of nuance, life and all.
* Can Anyone grok the Fermat 'proof' except by suspending disbelief in a number of prestidigitations? Has the concept of proof now also morphed? For our comfort and convenience ?
{sigh} Methinks a change of venue has not extended the sane limits of analysis or attenuated our hubris of feeling Right-eous about all the metaphysical questions we imagine we answer (along with the mere physics ones).
Ashton
ya gotta Love the World of Opposites\ufffd
..but not get Too attached to it, y'know?
|
Post #45,657
7/15/02 12:47:45 PM
|
Ultimate goals are a poor differentiator
Even for people focused very sharply on a goal, most of the day is occupied with means, not ends.
Even if your ends are very, very good, if your means are bad, you will be doing bad things almost all the time.
Sure, sometimes the ends must outweigh the means, but on a routine basis the means are what count.
In practical terms: there may be a rare situation where an assasination is worth the moral cost. Doing it as a regular thing is bad anyway.
There was a very odd conclusion somebody came up with in the debate on torturing terrorism suspects, and I agree with it: it should be illegal - and in the rare situation where it is neccessary, we hope the person in authority will do what has to be done and face the consequences.
----
United we stand
Divided we dominate the planet without really trying
|
Post #45,480
7/13/02 4:12:29 PM
|
Yep, being civilized is a PITA.
Now, Israel did it right with [link|http://www.pbs.org/eichmann/timeline.htm|Eichmann] -- in a court of law. Let justice be served in public.
But that was a long time ago when world opinion mattered and Israel's survival was a goal. Today the goal is building the Greater Land of Israel at any cost and avoiding peace with Palestinian Arabs the tactical goal. There must not be an entity to negotiate with. The Palestinian Arabs have to leave or die. This is the plan of a civilized people?
Alex
"Television: chewing gum for the eyes." -- Frank Lloyd Wright
|
Post #45,497
7/13/02 9:08:49 PM
|
Asassination as a tool
Better a surgical strike than a drawn out battle. The abomb was dropped on Japan as an attempt to minimise American combat casualties. Dropping Saddam's dick in the dirt would accomplish (stipulated disagreement) not having a land war. If the bad guys use the tool for the wrong reasons is no excuse to put the tool away. If we have used the tool improperly, like the Diu Government, we have paid for it later. A sniper is no different from a tank shell or an A10 attack or a tomahawk missile. Your argument goes back to the days where it was considered rude to shoot officers. Typical argument of the upper class. Kill 1 million grunts but the horror of a well placed shot to a leader is wrong.
thanx,
bill
TAM ARIS QUAM ARMIPOTENS
|
Post #45,516
7/14/02 3:33:31 AM
|
It depends upon your point-of-view.
Nope. During war, it's perfectly fine to bomb the leader's. But, during peacetime, it is not okay to kill other leader's. The abomb was dropped on Japan as an attempt to minimise American combat casualties. After Japan had attacked us. We were at war with them. Dropping Saddam's dick in the dirt would accomplish (stipulated disagreement) not having a land war. Maybe. Rather, Saddam's replacement might rally the troops to fight against the evil assassin nation. Of course, at the moment, we are the ones looking for another war in Iraq. To remove Saddam. So we should assassinate Saddam so we won't have a land war to remove Saddam. And THAT is the kind of logic that assassination breeds. If the bad guys use the tool for the wrong reasons is no excuse to put the tool away. "bad" and "wrong" are subjective. The same as "good" and "right". As I've stated before, "good" is restricted in what it can do. "Evil" is not. Justification for any activity is possible. What differentiates "good" from "evil" (other than point-of-view) is which one will perform an action that the other one will not. A sniper is no different from a tank shell or an A10 attack or a tomahawk missile. True. And under "assassination", I also include military strikes. Whether it is a sniper or a bomb cruise missle, it is still assassination. Your argument goes back to the days where it was considered rude to shoot officers. Typical argument of the upper class. Kill 1 million grunts but the horror of a well placed shot to a leader is wrong. Nope. In a war (declared and such), it is perfectly fine to target the leaders. That's what we do. But when we are NOT at war, it is assassination. And it should be something we should be able to say will never employ.
|
