• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Should assassination be a legitimate foreign policy tool? (1 Viewer)

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
This was a question I remember a school friend asking me a while back and I thought it should be pretty interesting for BOS. Voice your opinions on whether or not you think governments should be obliged to use assassination as a foreign policy tool. Please justify if you can! Interested to know what you people think.
 

equaLIty

New Member
Joined
Jan 25, 2012
Messages
4
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
hmm, not a bad question mate. i think governments should use assassination to protect their citizens from terrorist organisations.
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
hmm, not a bad question mate. i think governments should use assassination to protect their citizens from terrorist organisations.
Fair enough. I figured the government is doing this to fulfil their duty to their citizens although others might think it's morally wrong to assassinate leaders of terrorists.
 

Aysce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
2,394
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.
I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.
 

Aysce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
2,394
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.
Yeah I would also say that, but imo the whole objective of this is to preserve life as BEST as possible, despite the irony of taking some lives in the process >_>
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
Yeah I would also say that, but imo the whole objective of this is to preserve life as BEST as possible, despite the irony of taking some lives in the process >_>
Haha, and I wonder why the government doesn't choose to use assassination as a weapon...
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Imo, yes in order to maintain the safety of the citizens. Even if it is morally wrong, it is able to prevent multiple deaths occurring in the future and decrease the morale of certain terrorist groups.
It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)
Perhaps a way to solve this would be something between diplomacy and full scale war.
 

Aysce

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 24, 2011
Messages
2,394
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
It isn't necessarily if one considers an assassin as a component of war and if the person being assassinated threatens the stability of the state (i.e. terrorist attack on Parliament House or something)
You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.
 

soloooooo

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2012
Messages
3,311
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Yes. Bin Laden, Hussein, Gaddafi, Jong-Il, Kony, Castro etc should have all been or be assassinated.
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.
Hmm, people call me a pacifist and in my opinion I think people deserve a second chance at life I guess.
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
You are still taking a life, despite how terrible that person is. Although, I would still want that person killed even if it is wrong.
yes you are still taking a life but the philosophical question is:

Is it worth it?
 

Kimyia

Active Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
1,013
Gender
Female
HSC
2012
Uni Grad
2016
But then you get into the whole: where will the line be drawn and who will regulate such assassinations.
 

deswa1

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
2,256
Gender
Male
HSC
2012
Consider though if we think it is alright to assasinate some foreigner, what would stop nations such as Iraq assasinating someone like Barack Obama? Right now, they wouldn't really want to do it because even though they are already at war, if the government was linked to such an attack, it would cause international fallout and even more countries make wage war to prevent further assasinations. If however assasinations were viewed as 'correct' foreign policy, this deterrent wouldn't be present.
 

Demento1

Philosopher.
Joined
Dec 23, 2011
Messages
866
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2014
But then you get into the whole: where will the line be drawn and who will regulate such assassinations.
I thought governments couldn't use assassination because the general public feared they would abuse their power as you kindly mentioned.
 

mirakon

nigga
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
4,221
Gender
Male
HSC
2011
Consider though if we think it is alright to assasinate some foreigner, what would stop nations such as Iraq assasinating someone like Barack Obama? Right now, they wouldn't really want to do it because even though they are already at war, if the government was linked to such an attack, it would cause international fallout and even more countries make wage war to prevent further assasinations. If however assasinations were viewed as 'correct' foreign policy, this deterrent wouldn't be present.
I don't really get your use of "correct" foreign policy.

Are you using it in the sense that if something is considered "correct" countries are under no grounds to do anything about it?
 

OzKo

Retired
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
9,892
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Uni Grad
2013
I was thinking of something like protecting the lives of soldiers as well who don't have to risk their lives to fight terrorists ^. Good point though.
Soldiers don't need to be protected. Their job is to defend and kill.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top