CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
People can justify anything but justification is a point of view. People have different points of view so justification to one person maybe not be justification to another. So yes assassination of a dictator can be justified but not to every single person.
People like Joe Stalin who is used as the picture here is probably some one who should have gotten whacked. People like Saddam Hussien who commit acts of Genocide have no right to live in my opinion. Adolf Hitler should have been assinated. Would it not have been better for a British Spy to shoot Hitler and in the ensuring confusion make sure a leader who was a little less crazy become the leader of germany instead of WW2 killing millions of people. However If not for WW2 the Great Depression probably would have lasted longer and many technological discoveries would not have been made then. But we would have those 100s of millions of people who could invent new things and develope technology also. How many of those people would be an Albert Einstien or a Stephen Hawkings. So yes killing a dictator who is worth it.
P.S. This is my first post so forgive me if i did something wrong.
George Bush started an illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. During his presidency almost 100,000 civilians were killed. In 2007 alone, 24,000 civilians were killed and only 19,000 insurgents. Because he started these wars, and he ordered our soldiers to kill others, and our soldiers displayed a lack of respect towards innocent life, isn't it his fault that they weren't properly prepared for the responsibility he placed in their hands?
Here is a fact that anyone who took U.S Government knows. The President of the United States can not start a war. It is Congress who has the power to go to war. If you are going to blame anyone, blame people like Hilliary Clinton who voted to go to war.
Congress has the Power to Declare War, not the President of the United States.
Under Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress has sole power "to declare war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal."
I strongly advice you to read the Constitution (it's free Online)
So let's assume that Bush did start the war, which is impossible I might add, Congress has the ability to stop the War. So if your going to blame someone blame the people who voted to go to war. The President doesn't have nearly as much power as you seem to think he does.
Okay, "war" I'm using in shorthand of military conflict. But because early into the war there was the Iraq Resolution. The Iraq Resolution gave Bush the right to go "use force" on a number of bases.
"The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
President doesn't have nearly as much power as you seem to think he does.
The President can invade a Nation, but he can not go to war for this long without Congresses approval. 90 days is the longest a President can sent troops into a Nation without Congress's Approval, we have now been in this war for... what 5 years. Seems to me like you should be planning other people.
The President can't really do much at all. He doesn't even get to see most bills until they have been watered down with pork.
No, I'm telling you the President gets too much blame, along with too credit. The President does not have the power to declare war, so how can you blame President Bush for going to war?
Bush isn't most responsible for the war because he can't declare war.
Nice Ad hominem. You said not to bother replying because you know you are wrong on this particular issue. All the knowledge you have on this issue you got from Michael Moore movies.
You didn't, you did call him a Dictator however, but you clearly blame him for the war we are currently in. So whether you said it or not, you clearly think he did.
I think you are mistaking me with you. Keep your Michael Moore logic away from intelligent debates.
You blame him for causing a war. The fact that you blame him show that you didn't pay attention in your American Government class. He doesn't have the power to declare war. Blaming him for us currently being in a war is like me blaming my cat for world hunger.
Countries outside of the US don't necessarily teach about US government structure. The reason for this is that they're learning about their OWN government structures. If they're studying politics at all, that is.
The US went to war. George Bush was the big honcho at the time. That's pretty much the gist of what gets shown overseas. There was the whole WMD stuff, with the only connected name on the news being Bush. Honestly, without looking specifically for the information, how much do you know offhand about the British House of Lords? Kinda possibly knows that system, since he is in the UK. Personally, I know about the House of Representatives in the Australian Parliament.
Just about everywhere in the world, ordinary people who have no knowledge of internal US governmental stuctures think that Bush was the one who caused the war. It may not be the case, but he's the figurehead for the country.
However justifying the use of assassination means that it will be practiced more and more often - leading to instances where it will generally be abused.
Almost anything can be justified. If you want to do something bad enough, you'll be able to convince others it's necessary. So, yes the assassination of a dictator can also be justified.
I, for one, believe that if the majority of people is being suppressed and abused in a regime run by 1 person's rules, then go for it. Kill the bastard. However, does this make the people of that nation stronger (so that they can prevent a different dictator to take power in the future)? No, it doesn't. So, to prevent a new dictatorship, you'll have the massive task of educating the people and encouraging them to exercise their people power. That would justify killing a dictator.
So to sum up: Yes, it can be justified. But it can be justified only by the goal of making the people stronger in the end in order to prevent another dictatorship from existing.
Yes, the assasination of a dictator can be justified, although the act of assasination may still be condemnable. History have been witness to dictators (or maybe just Hitler) who have unjustly oppressed and murdered people, restricting them of the chance to live in freedom and peace of mind. And probably the most efficient way to allow ourselves ,if we happened to have lived under his reign, once again the chance to live in peace and freedom of mind is to assasinate the dictator himself.
Being a dictator, he/she have ultimate control of the economy and military arms of the country, which will give the citizens a grave disadvantage. Using other peaceful and less violent means to make the dictator stop will be futile, because the dictator can simply kill you at his discretion.
Besides, if we are to use the utilitarian judgment, the murder of a person who have caused the death or oppression of a thousand and will cause the death and suffering of another thousand soon will be of greater good to those who are still alive in his reign.
Of course, this judgment only under the assumption and prejudice that a dictator is someone who is as fierce as Hitler. Yet, if our dictator is someone who does not employ destructive means to enforce his reign (he may use force, but he does not do mass murders and the such), surely it could be more efficient if we just have to make a majority movement to change the government, not murder. Besides, he is a person, and we have ascribed the right to live to every person that exists. So, the act itself may still be condemned.
So, yes, a assasination of a dictator can be justified, but the act itself may or may not still be subject to condemnation.
I'm going to say yes, but I'm on the fence. In the U.S it is the right and duty of the people to overthrow a bad government. I don't think that people should kill though. That doesn't seem like a very great way of getting the job done, but it will get it done. There may be a more peaceful way to get it done.
unfortunately I think it can for example, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and many others who take the power the people have given them and exploit it for their own personal gain. Bush is not in this category.
unfortunately I think it can for example, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein and many others who take the power the people have given them and exploit it for their own personal gain. Bush is not in this category.
Always dictators are cruel to the people.. they harass the people, torture them and extract everything from them and at last almost kill them..........it is better to kill such dictators.........
As aforementioned, killing someone who is killing the innocent is justified. And not accidentally killing someone. Making an innocent die by a dictator on purpose is what justifies the assassination of them.
The elimination of a dictator can often become the only available option. IF AND ONLY IF all other peaceful routes have failed, assassination should become an option. In the case of terrorist leaders, such as Osama Bin Laden, peaceful solutions are out of the question due to religious zealotry. Men such as this, who will cost the world hundreds, if not thousands, of lives due to their actions and plans, should not be allowed the time to see their designs come to fruition. They forfeited their right to life after they began taking the lives of others with indiscriminate ease.
Who says murder is wrong at all? Who decided that in the first place? Why are we listening to them? Why are we brainwashing our kids to listen to them as well?
Why must it only be a dictator? Next, the assassination of a left/right wing politician, then the assassination of a mayor - can murder be justified? Many people who live under dictators (Hitler, for example) rather like them. How many people liked George W. Bush, and he wasn't even a dicator - rather the president elected by the people for the people yadda yadda yadda.
The CIA arranged a coup of Salvador Allende in Chile. On 11 September, 1973, a military coup removed Allende's government from power. Salvador Allende died in the fighting in the presidential palace in Santiago. General Augusto Pinochet replaced Allende as president. Pinochet was a dictator.
I feel that you're making some sort of a point here but I can't be sure what it is. However I don't think you're on topic. Can the assassination of a dictator be justified or not?
My point is off target a little because the point that I was trying to make is the opposite of assassination of a dictator. The United States Government sponsored the removal of a Democratic Socialist, Salvador and replaced him with a dictator, Pinochet which in turn Pinochet killed about 4000 and tortured 30000 Chileans because they were left socialist and rebels against the coup, yet he died recently before he faced any repercussions.
People who live underneath dictators can like them; that's all well and good. However, Hitler, for example, was responsible for the deaths of 11 million unarmed civilians in concentration camps and death camps, such as Auschwitz-Birkenau. Many of these civilians were Jewish, mentally handicapped, or homosexual, and were German citizens. Personally, I am of the opinion that if killing a dictator would save even a single life, then it should be done. If you do not believe that strongly, then maybe 11,000,000 is large enough of a number.
If the assumptions are made that democracy is the preferable form of government and that the dictator is tyrannical and harmful, then the assassination of a dictator is not the solution to the problem.
It is important to note that not all dictators are bad for their countries. For example, Stalin, despite being ruthless and cruel, made the Soviet Union into a superpower that helped defeat fascism and has provided continued economic benefits all over Europe and central Asia to this day. Killing Stalin wouldn't have really solved anything.
Despite Stalin's strength as a leader, it was ultimately the failings of the system that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Killing the leader doesn't change the country, the solution to dictatorships is a re-structuring of government. In Russia, the collapse of the soviet system did not cause the death of their premier, just as the death of the premier would not cause a change in the system.
you people think you have the intellect to argue with a dictator, they are smart people you know. They are from a completely different "paradigm" or frame of thought than us. Seriously, you think you could come up with better ideas than these people, you should be ashamed of yourself, people with unintellible arguments, minds which are led by emotion and who think they can talk as if they knew it all.
