smw543 wrote:if you have the ability to take out a whole bunch of powerful people in the enemy government, you probably have the resources to easily win the war in a more conventional (and less frowned upon) way.
I disagree. I do not have a tank in my garage. Nor do any of my friends (they're all too busy writing manifestos) so we don't really have the people or the equipment to wage even the smallest of wars. I can very easily go down to WalMart and pick up a serviceable rifle that can be extremely useful for assassinations, even after I've posted crazy things like the above in a public forum. The president is a very public figure, with insane amounts of security, and still, we've had a handful of those assassinated--by individuals or small groups, not armies. How hard could it be to get to the undersecretary of plumbing?
I had assumed you were talking about assassinations with a more solid goal; i.e.: taking out the current government (or at least part of it) so that a new government (or at least a new administration) can take power. Your method is pretty good, if the end in mind is anarchistic. Unless you propose that once the government is paralyzed by security measures, the people, frustrated by the inaction, will revolt and power will change hands. I'm not sure if that could work, but I'll give you credit for a very ingenious idea; I like the cut of your jib, as they say on the seas (although mutiny is the one context in which this likely could not work.) The only problem is if the government reacts to the assassinations by converting to a police state, which could definitely happen. Ten years ago I would have said that the US was the one place where it couldn't, that we believed so strongly in freedom that we would risk destruction rather than become Oceania (setting of 1984.) Now, with the way we treat our own citizens (particularly anyone with light brown skin and an eastern-sounding name), I have to wonder. Also, ten years ago I was a ten-year-old, and as such I was far less cynical.
(Treat this as a separate post) I'll say this again; to all you people saying that one should want
chaos in a country, specifically, one other than one's own, and that assassinating the leader is therefore a sound alternative to war; this is simply stupid. This is like, in a game of five card draw where you have a pair of kings, tossing out all five cards, because it gives you a better chance of getting a pair of aces than if you only tossed out the three cards that weren't kings. Only imagine that while you're waiting for the dealer to give you your new cards, thousands of innocent civilians are being killed, hospitals are being blown up, and God knows what other atrocities are going on behind closed doors.
Simply put, causing chaos is only good because it makes it easier for you to step in and take over. If you're using assassination as an alternative
to war, that means you have no intention of stepping in and taking over. This means that whoever does take up this task of restoring order from chaos will, due to the chaos, have to become a warlord of sorts, gaining power in a piecemeal fashion and probably having to kill a lot
of people along the way.
yoni45 wrote:First off: killing people may not necessarily solve problems, but it can. In World War II, there was killing of a whole bunch of people, but it (eventually) did solve the problem.
I have to assume that since you specifically name WWII, you're argument must revolve around something unique to that war (i.e.: not military casualties). I assume you're referring to the atomic bombing of Japan, but the way you phrase it sounds like you could just as easily be talking about the Final Solution
. This is why your English teacher always told you not to be "vague."