At the moment Kim Jong-un is a prime candidate for "termination", so should we send in a guy with a rifle to do the job? Same with all other tyrants around the world, should we finish them off too? For example a single bullet in Hitler's brain before WW2 would have prevented the war and the millions of deaths. It's not a new idea-
Not all tyrannical governments can be fixed by killing the top guy. In fact, it's usually not the top guy who holds all the power. That being said, Kim Jung Un is the top guy. I think if that family were to be wiped out, there'd be enough sensible people to have a chance at change. That also being said, the people are heavily brainwashed and may have even more hatred for the west. In all, I don't think that's the right way. The Hillary Clinton way of war, like Libya, is to arm "rebels" and fund them. Also to provide drone support until they viciously murder their leader...this is also ineffective.
Excerpt: Executive Order 12333 and Schultz’s “Active Defense” In 1981, President Reagan issued the most recent version of the ban, Executive Order 12333. This new Order, which remains in effect today, retained President Carter’s wording, but added a section that prohibits indirect assassination by members of the intelligence community.153 It was the Reagan administration’s use of force in response to terrorism, however, not the minor revisions in the Order itself, that proved to be more significant. On April 15, 1986, U.S. Air Force F-111 fighter-bombers struck three targets in Libya in retaliation for a Libyan-plotted terrorist attack at a Berlin nightclub that had killed a U.S. servicemen and wounded over two hundred others. One of these targets, the El Azziziya Barracks, was reportedly known by American intelligence to be the home and headquarters of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi. Although he was not present at the time of the attack, his wife and two sons were injured, and his young adopted daughter was killed.154 Press scrutiny of the raid revealed considerable evidence suggesting that the attack was intended to kill Qadhafi.155 The strike targets were close to his tent—which was in the corner of a very large open [*PG25]courtyard156—and the United States supposedly sought intelligence on his location right up until the night of the attack.157 According to reporter Seymour Hersh, nine of the eighteen bombers employed in the raid had a specific mission to target Qadhafi and his family.158 As one Air Force intelligence officer put it: “There’s no question they were looking for Qadhafi. It was briefed that way. They were going to kill him.”159 Additionally, administration officials were instructed before the raid to prepare briefs that distinguished how Qadhafi’s hypothetical death in the pending attack was not an assassination.160 Furthermore, language announcing his demise was reportedly prepared for the President’s speech that evening.161 In response to these accusations, the Reagan administration argued that the raid did not violate Executive Order 12333, and strenuously denied that Qadhafi was even a target. “We weren’t out to kill anybody,” said the President, although he doubted that “any of us would have shed tears” if Qadhafi had indeed died.162 Meanwhile, senior administration officials hastily categorized the raid as a legitimate Article 51 self-defense operation to the United Nations, sharing U.S. intelligence which conclusively linked Libya to the Berlin attack and revealed that as many as thirty more attacks were being planned.163 While the State Department invoked Article 51 to satisfy international law, White House legal counsel Abraham D. Sofaer argued that the strike fell within a loophole in Executive Order 12333. Qadhafi was not a target of the raids, Sofaer reasoned, but if he merely happened to be present at one of the facilities that was bombed, his death would not be an assassination—just a consequence of the raid.164 A leader’s position, Sofaer opined, does not legally immunize him from the effects of being present at a valid military target that is being attacked.165 Effectively, this reasoning reflected the law of armed conflict as it applies to non-combatants166—a legitimate defense if [*PG26]there was indeed a state of armed conflict or a continuing threat against the United States that merited a preemptive act of self-defense. Secretary of State George Schultz, who had openly complained that the United States had responded to terrorism by becoming “the Hamlet of nations, worrying endlessly over whether and how to respond,”167 strongly supported this argument. In a public address, he asserted the U.S. government would have to prepare an “active defense” to counter the rise in terrorism the future would bring.168 His statements were more than mere rhetoric—they were a glimpse of a persistent policy trend that would remain through the next three presidential administrations. Secretary Schultz predicted, “We can expect more terrorism directed at our strategic interests around the world in the years ahead. To combat it, we must be willing to use military force.”169 What is needed to undermine the growing threat of terrorism, Secretary Schultz proposed, was a doctrine of active interventionsm: We must reach a consensus in this country that our responses should go beyond passive defense to consider means of active prevention, pre-emption, and retaliation. Our goal must be to prevent and deter future terrorist acts, and experience has taught us over the years that one of the best deterrents of terrorism is the certainty that swift and sure measures will be taken against those who engage in it. We should take steps towards carrying out those measures. There should be no moral confusion on the issue. Our aim is not to seek revenge but to put an end to violent attacks against innocent people, to make the world a safer place to live for all of us. Clearly the democracies have a moral right, indeed a duty, to defend themselves.170 In his remarks, Secretary Schultz also stated that there were cases where international rules and traditional practices did not apply, and that the free nations cannot afford to let the “Orwellian corruption of language hamper our efforts to defend ourselves, our interests, and our friends.”171... https://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/law/lawreviews/journals/bciclr/26_1/01_FMS.htm
How exactly would killing Hitler have prevented WW2? It may very well have put someone who was actually competent in charge of Germany.
But we can guess with pretty good accuracy. The entire Nazi leadership was full of militarists who wanted a war of vengeance against the rest of Europe, and the ones most likely to take the reins from an assassinated Hitler were far more competent than he was.
On the other hand Adolf was the nuclear core of Germany and gave the country pride and strength and power,and the people loved him to bits, so without him maybe the generals wouldn't have been able to persuade the people to start a war.
If ya mean Assad an' Fatboy Kim... ... the answer is yes... ... dat'll make the rest of `em... ... straighten up an' fly right.
One of the reasons leaders get classified as tyrants is because their solution to people who oppose them is summary execution. How many "tyrants" can we murder before we become tyrants ourselves? How many new tyrants would rise from the shadows of the martyrs we create?
If you've got a flea you kill it, and the next and the next.. Tyrants are like buses, there'll always be another along in a minute.. "Do not rejoice in his defeat you men, For though you put the bastard down, The b*tch that bore him is in heat again" -Berthold Brecht Thankfully we've got our armed forces who'll step up to the plate to do the job..
The U.S. should not take out leaders just because we don't like them - like Assad or Gaddaffi. But if a leader poses an existential threat to us, they're fair game. Like if Crazy Kimmy was to ever mount a nuke on a missile, I'd say take him out. I wish the Chinese would invite the little freak to China for some big Communist holiday and, while he was in China, he had a "terrible accident".
