The United States has a policy (officially anyway) of not assassinating the leaders of foreign nations. Why? I realize, that where government is concerned, there is a lot of politicking and diplomacy. But, how does the willingness to send troops in to combat make more sense than just assassinating the leader of a troublesome nation? Doesn't killing one person make more sense (if killing can make sense) than sacrificing the lives of many?
Flatulent Fuzz
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
I probably don't understand the depth of our policy very well, but if I were a betting man I'd wager that the thinking behind the policy is that it's uncivilized to simply "knock off" THE leader of a more or less unstable country, thus throwing it into a state of utter chaos, which itself has wider (regional) implications. And it doesn't matter that the country in question is ruled by a dictator or tyrant; the result is still the same. Also, if the US followed a policy of assassinating such rulers, it would be destabilizing to the US since it would invite the same from governments which are opposed to ours.
That's my theory in a nutshell.
By the way (it just hit me that you inserted the parenthetical remark "if killing can make sense"), killing can and does make sense at times. In fact, under certain circumstances it's the only thing that makes any sense.
We had an incident in my neighborhood a few months back in which a gun-weilding drugged out individual started shooting up a person's home from the street over a matter of the other's insulting him. The only sensible thing to have done would have been to shoot him dead because he presented a grave threat to the occupants of the home and their neighbors. Had this individual attacked my home that way he would now most definately be six feet under instead of serving a long stretch in prison. But that's just me.
I can't argue with self-defense, but I think that self-defense is a different beast all together. For my money, I'm not sure that that completely addresses whether or not killing makes sense.
Well, as I said in my second post, I was merely addressing your parenthetical remark which seemed to question whether killing ever makes sense. It wasn't intended to broach the subject completely.
The point was this, killing is justified and reasonable (and makes sense) under certain circumstances beyond any rational person's control. Getting law enforcement involved to neutralize a situation is ideal, but that's not always possible or timely enough.
...but I think that self-defense is a different beast all together.
I disagree, and I think I can make a good case for my position if you don't mind going "off course" a bit.
Post a Comment