[analogbear]

We, as a nation through our elected spokesperson, the president, have decreed (in the 80's, people) that assasination is not our way...That we, America ('phobe) would not assasinate leaders and elected officials of other nations or recognized political entities (which included palestine and taiwan). So, what's up? Why not assasinate? Wouldn't assasination obviate the deployment of of tens of thousands of troops in some cases?

[BDA116]

Because we're America. We have to play by the rules and do everything perfectly PC while the rest of the world doesn't play by the rules and does whatever they want - only to blame it on America.

Besides, you are against killing, you troll.

[Hammer]

Yea, So you believe that America wont put the crosshairs on a public figure.
Not I.

[southpark460]

Used to be the "accepted" way. Then politicians and media thought they had to know everything that went on behind the scenes... I say go for it. It works... But understand, it happens anyways...

[sheepofblue]

Because that would expose the worthless s**t in DC to retaliation and make them on par with us serfs.

[luvtolean]

Writing another paper?

[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by BDA116

Because we're America. We have to play by the rules and do everything perfectly PC while the rest of the world doesn't play by the rules and does whatever they want - only to blame it on America.

Besides, you are against killing, you troll.

I thought that was our cover story...don't think that we don't do wrong...we just aren't blatent about it...

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

I thought that was our cover story...don't think that we don't do wrong...we just aren't blatent about it...

That would depend on which country's media machine is feeding you.

[BDA116]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

I thought that was our cover story...don't think that we don't do wrong...we just aren't blatent about it...

What are you talking about? We NEVER do anything wrong. We don't have SpecOps teams that remove threats on a regular basis or anything like that.


My honest opinion? **** 'em all. If they don't like it, they are welcome to come over here and try to stop us.

[analogbear]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Writing another paper?

No, just emailing with a buddy who, while deployed, had spotter and rifle on several targets of opportunity at various times, and was not given the kill order. He asked me this question, and I repeated here nearly verbatim.

[luvtolean]

OK, well, I think there are several issues here, and one defining question concerning whether assassination is OK or not; are we at war with the target?

We announced we were out of the assassination biz after decades of the CIA bungling assassination attempts around the globe. These attempts were carried out by American operatives against leaders of countries we were not at war with. This is terrorism. Terrorism is never right, and attempting to assassinate the leader of a people the US is not formally at war with is wrong. These bungled attempts and meddling with other countries has cost us quite a bit of prestige, and has led to many of the current problems in places like South America.

In the middle east, we are formally at war. When at war, the political leaders are commanders of the military as well, and become legitimate targets. Assassinating Saddam, or various leaders of terrorist networks becomes an effective means of eliminating the enemy's ability to fight. I completely agree with your friend's assessment ASSuming he's working in the sandbox. Assassination of enemy leaders is "limited warfare" at it's very finest, minimizing civilian and soldier casualties providing we're talking about a well aimed bullet, and not carpet bombing.

Here's how Caleb Carr put it in The Lessons of Terror:

Here at last after two hundred years of unlimited war, was an American call to observe the principles of limited, progressive war, principles that were embodied on the raid in Libya two years later. During that action, not only were civilian casualties--and indeed the scope of the operation--kept to a minimum, but the means deployed were tactical rather than strategic...and the objective was both clear and deadly, as was the message; continue to sponsor terror, and we will use perpetual diligence and preemptory offensive force to hunt you down, and if possible, kill you. Assassination of rebel leaders, it will be remembered, was one of the most effective Roman policies for quelling uprisings, far more effective than large scale punitive war. Today, we should bear that lesson in mind and remember that the only effective, legitimate use is against military personnel and heads of state (the latter becoming, in times of war, supreme commanders, and therefore military as well as civilian leaders).

[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by BDA116

What are you talking about? We NEVER do anything wrong. We don't have SpecOps teams that remove threats on a regular basis or anything like that.


My honest opinion? **** 'em all. If they don't like it, they are welcome to come over here and try to stop us.

Well I dont know if I agree with the, let them come over hear and stop us...

[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Here's how Caleb Carr put it in The Lessons of Terror:

Assassination of rebel leaders, it will be remembered, was one of the most effective Roman policies for quelling uprisings, ...

In todays climate can be statement be incorrect at least when dealing with organizations like Al Quada? At least in regard to assination of rebel leaders...

[luvtolean]

I don't understand your question.

But if you are at war with an organization, AND, the leadership of the organization is good, killing said leadership is always an effective means of breaking their ability to fight.


The reason for my caveat above is that some leaders are so poor militarily, killing them would probably mean someone better will take their place. There was an effort in place to kill Hitler early in the war, but when we realized killing Hitler could quite possibly help Germany's war effort, we quietly stopped that effort.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by analogbear

No, just emailing with a buddy who, while deployed, had spotter and rifle on several targets of opportunity at various times, and was not given the kill order. He asked me this question, and I repeated here nearly verbatim.

At that level it is because the people in charge confuse the purpose of the military (to kill people and break things) with the can't we all get along mentality

[luvtolean]

In that case, absolutely yes. Killing Al Qaeda leaders would be a good thing.

You might be making martyrs, but you will be disrupting their leadership.

[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

In that case, absolutely yes. Killing Al Qaeda leaders would be a good thing.

You might be making martyrs, but you will be disrupting their leadership.

Yes it is a good thing...but will it solve a problem or just create a bigger one (more martyrs). I for one agree with you and I think it is a much better solution than a full scale war...but when it comes to world politics my opinion is slightly more informed than the average joe at best...which is to say I dont know much.

[esoteric]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

Yes it is a good thing...but will it solve a problem or just create a bigger one (more martyrs). I for one agree with you and I think it is a much better solution than a full scale war...but when it comes to world politics my opinion is slightly more informed than the average joe at best...which is to say I dont know much.

I don't think it will solve a problem (as in totality) and in this case they seem to have an enthusiastic and self-replicating supply of martyrs either way.

[gt702]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

We announced we were out of the assassination biz after decades of the CIA bungling assassination attempts around the globe.

Plain and simple, this is the reason. We (US and their operatives) bungled the attempts, and left trails back to the US to open us up for ridicule. Executive decision some time back was to not do that again.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by esoteric

I don't think it will solve a problem (as in totality) and in this case they seem to have an enthusiastic and self-replicating supply of martyrs either way.

Grant thier wish

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by esoteric

I don't think it will solve a problem (as in totality) and in this case they seem to have an enthusiastic and self-replicating supply of martyrs either way.

If you start picking off their leadership, you put their org in turmoil.

Now you have a power struggle between those left to fill the spots, you lose people who have been working the war, and you make sure less and less experienced people are doing these jobs.

They already have a ready supply of martyrs. But they don't have many leaders, only so many people can be trained.

Let's not forget, the leaders of these organizations have been trained, terrorist organizations need the support of a nation. The more of these trained men we kill, the more destabilized the operation becomes for them.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

If you start picking off their leadership, you put their org in turmoil.

Now you have a power struggle between those left to fill the spots, you lose people who have been working the war, and you make sure less and less experienced people are doing these jobs.

They already have a ready supply of martyrs. But they don't have many leaders, only so many people can be trained.

Let's not forget, the leaders of these organizations have been trained, terrorist organizations need the support of a nation. The more of these trained men we kill, the more destabilized the operation becomes for them.

Also the b###$##$# recruiting the suicide bombers and telling them how noble it is are unwilling to make similar sacrifice (remember Sadaam claiming he will never be captured alive)