On assassination

[GodEmperor Nicholas]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4282603.stm

Hahahah its really quite funny that Chavez would think such a thing.


That does however open an interesting question--Under what circumstances is assassination legitamate form of "regime change"?

If the US had assassinated Saddam would that have been good? Or Hitler? Is it ever justified? I personally have no moral qualms with it, but in general I think a country such as the USA should avoid it because it is contrary to our interests. Terrorists are much more likely to assassinate, and it is therefore more in a civilized country to make such a thing illegal--I dont want to go around worrying about my car being hit by an RPG, or being poisoned.

There is something undenigably exciting about a professional assassin as well, which has always made me wonder. Its perhaps the most cold blooded, heartless thing one can do. Often, it is also very boring, as you wait for weeks studying the most mundain aspects of a persons life, there daily routine, looking for something totally predicatable and also very vulnerable. Then you kill the person, and hopefully just remain calm as you leave the country and act like a normal person again, while laying low for some time. Yet movies such as the bourne identity, the jackal, the video game HITMAN all make being a professional killer very exciting, and I admit the allure works for me as well.

So what do you think?

NM

P.S. 3 Millenia baby!

[rububula]

Well, as a form of regime change it's pretty useless. Hitler had several obvious successors, most of whom were probably more competent. If we killed him, Goebbels or Goering would have just stepped in. Same thing with Saddam. If Saddam was assassinated, Either Uday or Qusay would be killed, and the other would take power. Or a military leader would take over. But either way, it's the same idea. Assassination wouldn't help at all.

The exception is in Cuba. Castro has no clear successor, and when he dies the communist government dies with him. Soon Havana will be a big tourist spot again.

[Scrappy Jenks]

This frightened me. Im starting to think shes planning on assassinating me

Just this picture is intimidating me

[Necrobrit]

Heh heh, perhaps he is planning sacrifitial political assasination on Bush: Accuse Bush of planning his assasination, assasinate himself, and vola minus one Bush. :grin

I think assasination lost its political power with the fall of feudalism, leaders are just to easly replaced these days.

And holy effing ***** that picture really is creepy

[Kazak borispavlovgrozny]

Originally posted by rububula@Feb 21 2005, 04:00 PM
Well, as a form of regime change it's pretty useless. Hitler had several obvious successors, most of whom were probably more competent. If we killed him, Goebbels or Goering would have just stepped in. Same thing with Saddam. If Saddam was assassinated, Either Uday or Qusay would be killed, and the other would take power. Or a military leader would take over. But either way, it's the same idea. Assassination wouldn't help at all.

The exception is in Cuba. Castro has no clear successor, and when he dies the communist government dies with him. Soon Havana will be a big tourist spot again.

Incorrect. El Fifo, as we lovingly call our beloved despot, has a very clear line of succesion, just it isnt made public, nor talked about, for 2 reasons:
1. He'll never die. (pact with devil)
2. If/When he does, the Cubans won't allow a successor.

(El) Boris

[JANOSIK007]

I can't believe you even ask whether assasinating Chavez, a legitimatelly chosen representative, would be legitimate? Such attitude is what makes Us looks like a hypocrite whenever they spout their message of peace and prosperity.

In case of Hitler and the likes of him I could be swayed to agree with you.

[Siblesz]

I really love the way Chavez is puppeteering politics in Latin America... he's actually making Fidel a very proud Cuban. Think of Fidel as the Mussolinni of the communist revolution in Latin America, and now think of Chavez as the Hitler of Fidel's plan. They are both very good friends. Fidel created the revolution, but Chavez renovated it. Now Chavez is clearly achieving his goal. For better or for worse (probably for worse), Chavez is playing with Latin America and the U.S. like a doll with his politics... Already he has neutralized Colombia, made a compact allegiance with Brazil, and brought almost half of Latin America to a united front against the "empire of the United States". The man is clearly a genius. A despotic genius, that is.

[JANOSIK007]

not correct. How is he a despot and elected at the same time? That's an oxy moron.

[Siblesz]

Originally posted by JANOSIK007@Feb 22 2005, 06:13 PM
not correct.* How is he a despot and elected at the same time?* That's an oxy moron.

Ummm... you can be elected by the people and still be a despot... :8

Putin, for example.

[username]

Sib there you go again. Cannot compare Chavez with Putin because Vladimir was simply appointed. The last time the Russians voted for anything is when they had to chose between a drunken automaton (Yeltsin) and a sober automaton (Zyuganov). Since then it's been rule by decree..

[Siblesz]

Putin was appointed Prime Minister of the Russian Government by President Boris Yeltsin in August 1999. On December 31, 1999, Yeltsin resigned, and appointed Putin the second (acting) President of the Russian Federation. Proper Presidential elections were held on March 26, 2000, which Putin won in the first round.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Putin

Here's the results of the 2000 election where Putin earned 52% of the vote:
http://www.nupi.no/russland/elections/2000...inalResults.htm

Not to mention that he was re-elected by 70% of the population in March of 2004.
http://www.electionworld.org/russia.htm

[JANOSIK007]

You're hijacking this thread.

Chose one. Is it legitimate to assassinate Chavez or not?

I say NO!

[wilpuri]

Putin is not a despot, and neither is Chavez. Neither wield absolute power and neither are tyrants. Or Byzantine Emperors or Orthodox Bishops for that matter.

[Siblesz]

Originally posted by JANOSIK007@Feb 23 2005, 01:46 PM
You're hijacking this thread.

Chose one.* Is it legitimate to assassinate Chavez or not?

I say NO!

Legitimately? No.

Morally? No.

If Venezuela wants have have some kind of future? Yes.

It's that easy.

Putin is not a despot, and neither is Chavez. Neither wield absolute power and neither are tyrants. Or Byzantine Emperors or Orthodox Bishops for that matter.

They legally don't wield absolute power, but in practical form, they act like they do, and in essence, that makes them despots.

If it's good or bad to be a despot, it's your opinion, but to say that Putin is not doing whatever the :wub: he wants to do in Russia right now is ignoring the past 3 years of his presidency.

[wilpuri]

Originally posted by Siblesz+Feb 23 2005, 11:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (Siblesz @ Feb 23 2005, 11:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-JANOSIK007@Feb 23 2005, 01:46 PM
You&#39;re hijacking this thread.

Chose one.* Is it legitimate to assassinate Chavez or not?

I say NO&#33;

Legitimately? No.

Morally? No.

If Venezuela wants have have some kind of future? Yes.

It&#39;s that easy.



They legally don&#39;t wield absolute power, but in practical form, they act like they do, and in essence, that makes them despots.

If it&#39;s good or bad to be a despot, it&#39;s your opinion, but to say that Putin is not doing whatever the :wub: he wants to do in Russia right now is ignoring the past 3 years of his presidency. [/b][/quote]
Putin has the support of the people, more so than Bush does, and to me it seems Bush is doing whatever he wants. I still wouldn&#39;t call Bush a despot.

[Scrappy Jenks]

Bush isnt actually getting his way on everything. Look at Social Security reform. Besides, Putin effectively suspended the Constitution, pretty despotic. Much as I dislike Bush, he&#39;s not about to suspend our Constitution to illegally centralize more power in his hands. He may try to stretch his Constitutional power, but, heck, everyone does that.

[Siblesz]

Putin has the support of the people, more so than Bush does, and to me it seems Bush is doing whatever he wants. I still wouldn&#39;t call Bush a despot.

The support of the people does not mean that a person is not a depot. An example of this would be Hitler (in 1936-1944, not previous)... and don&#39;t tell me Hitler wasn&#39;t a despot.

Bush isnt actually getting his way on everything. Look at Social Security reform. Besides, Putin effectively suspended the Constitution, pretty despotic. Much as I dislike Bush, he&#39;s not about to suspend our Constitution to illegally centralize more power in his hands. He may try to stretch his Constitutional power, but, heck, everyone does that.

My point exactly.

[wilpuri]

Originally posted by Siblesz@Feb 24 2005, 04:36 AM
The support of the people does not mean that a person is not a depot. An example of this would be Hitler (in 1936-1944, not previous)... and don&#39;t tell me Hitler wasn&#39;t a despot.

But if his powers depend on the support of the people, it is not despotic. He does not wield absolute power.

[drugpimp]

Didnt saddam have something like a 99.9% approval rating? :whistle I would count him as one.

[Siblesz]

Originally posted by wilpuri+Feb 23 2005, 08:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td> (wilpuri &#064; Feb 23 2005, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Siblesz@Feb 24 2005, 04:36 AM
The support of the people does not mean that a person is not a depot. An example of this would be Hitler (in 1936-1944, not previous)... and don&#39;t tell me Hitler wasn&#39;t a despot.

But if his powers depend on the support of the people, it is not despotic. He does not wield absolute power. [/b][/quote]
Despotic means to have absolute power over a nation. Putin now wields absolute power over his nation. The people do not want him out, and his actions of totalitarianism are praised among the populace. Yes, the people decide whether he leaves or stays, but his actions define his character, and his actions are despotic. It doesn&#39;t really matter if the people still hold electoral power, because Putin has done away with half of this by removing the citizen&#39;s rights to elect their own governors, and the people have not yet turned against Putin for this action. Only time will tell until Putin disables the people&#39;s electorate power of electing presidents as well.