tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post111890985899250932..comments2024-01-28T00:20:40.933-08:00Comments on Agoraphilia: Assassination Military PolicyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1119395832330526022005-06-21T16:17:00.000-07:002005-06-21T16:17:00.000-07:00We targeted the Taliban and the Saddam regimes in ...We targeted the Taliban and the Saddam regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq - not the Afghan or Iraqi nations as a whole. By focusing on the elements of the regime that give it its strength, we can take it down without inflicting massive damage to the civilian population and infrastructure (the nation) as a whole.<BR/><BR/>Targeting the leadership during wartime is an accepted practice of trying to win the conflict. Assassinating a leader without a declaration of war is what goes over the line. I believe Bush was describing the former, not the latter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1119020623832203712005-06-17T08:03:00.000-07:002005-06-17T08:03:00.000-07:00See, Jon, now you're thinking! I'd vote for even ...See, Jon, now you're thinking! I'd vote for even more people! How about 400 of our governmental leaders against theirs? We could even throw in our current governor of California to give us a fighting chance! <BR/><BR/>I'd recommend that they must all fight with handgrenades as their only weapon. No matter which side wins, the people of both countries come out better!Calibanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211122145450234526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118970800403159342005-06-16T18:13:00.000-07:002005-06-16T18:13:00.000-07:00Another interesting option that would do the same ...Another interesting option that would do the same thing (ie holding regime leaders responsible without risking innocent or semi-innocent second or third parties) was suggested during the runup to the war: duels. It got poo-poohed by Bush at the time. After all, it wasn't about Saddam, it was about those WMDs you see. ;-)<BR/><BR/>That said, I think a duel like the one suggested between Saddam and Bush (or possibly a 3 on 3 or 5 on 5 to get some of the really nasty members of the regime on the list too) would have been far more just than the current invasion, and would have shown a lot more courage than "my army can blow you up" assasination warfare.<BR/><BR/>~JonJon Goffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10960488857253480586noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118970656800954012005-06-16T18:10:00.000-07:002005-06-16T18:10:00.000-07:00I think most people would agree that killing warmo...I think most people would agree that killing warmongering leaders is preferable to sending soldiers to battle. Unfortunately these leaders tend to put innocent indoctrinated troops between the enemy and themselves.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118951476196400232005-06-16T12:51:00.000-07:002005-06-16T12:51:00.000-07:00Yeah, the "popular tyrant" is definitely an issue,...Yeah, the "popular tyrant" is definitely an issue, especially if suspect that killing him will create a martyr. <BR/><BR/>Even in the Hitler scenario, you have a 3rd option -- support the coup in his own government that attempted to kill him on a few occasions. Unfortunately, we didn't do a really good job of helping them out. The other thing is, lots of leaders have subordinates who would step into their position. I suppose we'd have to assassinate them too. <BR/><BR/>No matter how much work/difficulty it is to kill leaders, it all seems much better than the firebombing you mentioned.Calibanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211122145450234526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118942756880903872005-06-16T10:25:00.000-07:002005-06-16T10:25:00.000-07:00Thanks, Gil; I've fixed that typo. As for your in...Thanks, Gil; I've fixed that typo. As for your interesting inquiry, see www.tzemach.org/fyi/docs/beres/saddam.htm, which traces many subtleties to conclude that while the Hague Convention does appear to outlaw assassination, "there are circumstances wherein the expectations of the authoritative human rights regime must override the ordinary prohibitions against transnational assassination . . . ."<BR/><BR/>I'd add, appropo your comments, Caliban, that Bush undoubtedly has international public opinion in mind--and rightly so. Query, though, what would happen if, as was the case with Hitler, the subjects of a foreign enemy largely support him. I think the Bush policy would still prove better than, say, firebombing civilian populations. But it would hardly leave the "saved" peoples happy.Tom W. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02790351458154066358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118940516762990702005-06-16T09:48:00.000-07:002005-06-16T09:48:00.000-07:00Definitely. It's pretty obvious who wrote the rul...Definitely. It's pretty obvious who wrote the rules of warfare when it's a crime to kill the leaders (who started the war) and okay to kill the soldiers who didn't.<BR/><BR/>Plus it sends a good message to the 'enemy' civilians. And if the enemy gets angry and decides to assassinate our leaders, no loss! ;)Calibanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00211122145450234526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3829599.post-1118938995724605132005-06-16T09:23:00.000-07:002005-06-16T09:23:00.000-07:00I agree completely.What's the legal status of such...I agree completely.<BR/><BR/>What's the legal status of such a policy? Aren't there some treaties or laws that forbid assassination?<BR/><BR/>(btw, I think you've repeated the final paragraph)Gilhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16905127825110313631noreply@blogger.com