Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

[Jake_Ellison]

Are you familiar with the CIA's history of installing new governments? Ironically, they were even involved with installing a new Iranian government in the past. Another example would be thre CIA's involvement in removing Salvador Allende's government in Chile, in order to install Pinochet.

Both events involved mass murder and opression, and were primarily the doing of local dictators, leading local armies and gangs of thugs, not American spies.

Is that really your idea of a proven track record, which gives the US a moral option which does not hurt innocents?

American track record of decicive military action, on the other hand, looks far better: Germany and Japan are both our allies and free countries.

[Sergio]

I understood you fine. You referenced collectivism, not collective punishment. Do I really need to quote your words back to you?

Oh, I will do it for you. The first time i brought up collective punishment, you brushed aside what I said:

They don't.

In my next post, I demonstrated the collectivist nature of collective punishment. I rejected the idea that nations are collective organisms with the rights of individuals. Nations are not organisms which can retaliate against eachother without regard of the individuals within them:

And what is up with the rampant collectivism in some of the ideas posted here? Since when is there a right to 'collective self defence'? There is no logical basis for one collective retailiating against another collective, with no regard for the individuals within it. Individuals have rights, not groups or land masses or electorates.

You responded to the first sentence out of context, ignoring the rest, and you said I misunderstood Rand's idea of collectivism. Look, i'd like to rescue the discussion by giving you the benefit of the doubt and addressing you respectfully, not getting into a flame war or hairsplitting. That's no fun.

I'm not advocating nuking Tehran as a form of justice(or at all, at the present time), I hope you're not operating under that false assumption. (in fact almost no one is-the guy who named the thread has 50 posts, and is missing in action)

For some reason, i did assume you were for nuking. I had assumed that most people support it after reading through many of the posts in this thread. I have heard Rand advocate something along the lines of collective punishment of Soviet Russia in one of her forum speaches. Someone posted an article which made a pretty appalling case for disregarding civillian casualties in the name of national self defence. If you do not support nuking Tehran under present conditions, then that's great and I am fully with you there.

But your description of the country of Iran is ridiculous. The Iranian government is a product of their society, not the product of a random choice by the mullahs. If the "violent gang" chose to base themselves some place else (like Manhattan), we would not have this problem, they would've been dead or in prison long ago. (unless of course the US was a Liberatarian style anarchy.)

Manhatten? So if a powerful, violent and destructive institution is sanctioned by enough people to avoid being killed or jailed, then they are in the same boat as Iran's government? Is that the principle? The United Nations meets this criteria. They are based in Manhatten, and they are responsible for some really horrible things in the name of "foreign aid" and "peacekeeping".

In any case, my point still stands regarding innocent people: Many people in Iran do not sanction their government, in the same way that many people in Manhatten do not sanction the UN. Therefore, collective punishment is immoral in both cases because there are innocent people involved.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Sergio

[D'kian]

The essence of collective punishment that I was trying to capture is:

"Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions..."

That definition is about occupying armies, not collateral damages. It refers to a practice once known as "taking hostages." It goes like this:

Country A invades country B and occupies parts of it. Behind A's lines some of B's citizens launh guerilla attacks, or engage in sabotage, against A's army. Next an officer from country A's army orders soldiers to round up a number of country B's civilians, say 20. Next this officer gives a deadline for the guerillas or saboteurs to come forward, or to be handed over by the population. If that doesn't happen, the hostages will be executed by a firing squad, in public and the civilians under occupation will be forced to watch. The intent is to dissuade the civilian population from further attacks.

That's collective punishment. That is forbidden by the Geneva convention. It is not an acceptable practice in any Western military force.

[Grames]

I apologize if i came across as too abbrasive earier. Now, I think it's always helpful to check with 'reality' when making assertions. For instance, you have called me 'willfully obtuse' (disingenuous?) and claimed that i am inventing definitions, even though i was accurate. I feel like you are trying to tell me to "shut up", but i may be wrong. Now, if you commented because you actually find the idea of collective punishment interesting, I invite you to check out the Wikipedia entries on Collective Punishment and Collective Responsibility.

The essence of collective punishment that I was trying to capture is:

"Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions..."

This Tehran nuking insanity relies on this nasty little idea of collective punishment. It is collective punishment to initiate force against a huge group of people purely because they are in the same general geographical area as some men you feel marginally threatened by.

Selective quoting is dishonest. Also from wikipedia:

Historically, occupying powers have used collective punishment to retaliate against and deter attacks on their forces by resistance movements (e.g. destroying whole towns and villages where attacks have taken place).

Bombing facilities of a government which is still in control of its territory has nothing to do with anti-guerrilla operations. You literally have no understanding of what you are talking about.

[Sergio]

That definition is about occupying armies, not collateral damages. It refers to a practice once known as "taking hostages." It goes like this:

Country A invades country B and occupies parts of it. Behind A's lines some of B's citizens launh guerilla attacks, or engage in sabotage, against A's army. Next an officer from country A's army orders soldiers to round up a number of country B's civilians, say 20. Next this officer gives a deadline for the guerillas or saboteurs to come forward, or to be handed over by the population. If that doesn't happen, the hostages will be executed by a firing squad, in public and the civilians under occupation will be forced to watch. The intent is to dissuade the civilian population from further attacks.

That's collective punishment. That is forbidden by the Geneva convention. It is not an acceptable practice in any Western military force.

That is one of many specific forms of collective punishment. Another is when a mother punishes all of her children for the actions of one. Or when a teacher punishes an entire class for the actions of a few students. Or when a government punishes a large group of people for the actrions of some of its members. That is collective punishment. Some companies do it too aparently:

"KEK (Korporata Energjetike e Kosovës - English: Kosovo's Energy Corporation) is a public company, the only one entitled to produce and distribute electricity in Kosovo. KEK collectively punishes communities with lower rate of electricity bills paid. For example: if in a community 45 % of households pay regularly their electricity bills and 55 % do not pay regularly, the entire community (even those who regularly pay) is punished with 3 hours electrical blackouts."

Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

And punishment is defined as follows:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

Therefore, if the US government were to punish ALL of Tehran in response to the disobedience and immoral behaviour of the Iran government, then that would definitely qualify as collective punishment.

[Sergio]

Selective quoting is dishonest.

Bombing facilities of a government which is still in control of its territory has nothing to do with anti-guerrilla operations. You literally have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Do you talk to people like this in real life, or only on anonymous internet forums?

The wikipedia article began with a definition of collective punishment, which i quoted in full. The article then gave an example of one form of collective punishment that is commonly practiced by occupying governments. The article lists some other types too. I didn't quote the example because it was not the type i was referring to: the definition was enough. Go ahead and read the article more fully. There are many other kinds of collective punishment than the one you are using.

I have to ask, what's this really about? Are my posts provoking anxiety in some way?

[D'kian]

That is one of many specific forms of collective punishment.

1) None others are relevant to this thread, 2) The definition you suplied earleir does not apply to fighting armies in time of war.

War isn't punishment. Great Britain, America and their allies did not go to war against Nazi Germany to punish Hitler or even the Nazi party for invading France, or Holland, or even for gassing six million Jews. They went to war to stop the Nazis from continuing their atrocities, in oredr to remove them from power, and most important to so utterly defeat them they'd stay defeated and never rise again to threaten anyone.

Likewsie, America did not go into Afghanistan to punish Al Qaida and the Taliban. She went in to defeat and destroy them, a process which is still ongoing.

Punishment is a matter for criminal and civil courts, not for armies and sovereign nations. If there is a means afterwards to punish those most responsible for war crimes and atrocities (as was done at Nuremberg and in Iraq), that's fine. If not, that's fine too, so long as the main goal is accomlpished.

[gags]

That is one of many specific forms of collective punishment. Another is when a mother punishes all of her children for the actions of one. Or when a teacher punishes an entire class for the actions of a few students. Or when a government punishes a large group of people for the actrions of some of its members. That is collective punishment. Some companies do it too aparently:

"KEK (Korporata Energjetike e Kosovës - English: Kosovo's Energy Corporation) is a public company, the only one entitled to produce and distribute electricity in Kosovo. KEK collectively punishes communities with lower rate of electricity bills paid. For example: if in a community 45 % of households pay regularly their electricity bills and 55 % do not pay regularly, the entire community (even those who regularly pay) is punished with 3 hours electrical blackouts."

Collective punishment is the punishment of a group of people as a result of the behaviour of one or more other individuals or groups. The punished group may often have no direct association with the other individuals or groups, or direct control over their actions. In times of war and armed conflict, collective punishment has resulted in atrocities, and is a violation of the laws of war and the Geneva Conventions.

And punishment is defined as follows:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

Therefore, if the US government were to punish ALL of Tehran in response to the disobedience and immoral behaviour of the Iran government, then that would definitely qualify as collective punishment.

You continue to assert that bombing Tehran would be "punishment". However, as Jake and others have said, a rational nation doesn't fight wars to punish, it fights them to eliminate an aggressor who poses a threat. If Iran poses a sufficient aggressive threat to America, we should wipe that threat out with as much force as our military deems necessary to win quickly and with as few US casualties as possible. That is the only moral course of action when faced with such danger.

[Marc K.]

You continue to assert that bombing Tehran would be "punishment". However, as Jake and others have said, a rational nation doesn't fight wars to punish, it fights them to eliminate an aggressor who poses a threat. If Iran poses a sufficient aggressive threat to America, we should wipe that threat out with as much force as our military deems necessary to win quickly and with as few US casualties as possible. That is the only moral course of action when faced with such danger.

Yes...Yes, a thousand times yes!!!!!!

And punishment is defined as follows:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

Therefore, if the US government were to punish ALL of Tehran in response to the disobedience and immoral behaviour of the Iran government, then that would definitely qualify as collective punishment.

Fist fights are fought by individuals, wars are fought by nations and the need to fight a war has existed in the past and does exist now. I suppose you are one of those who thinks that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saving innumerable American lives, was immoral.

Self defense is moral for the individual and it is morally obligatory for government. So while I tend to agree with gags that "punishment" isn't really the ultimate purpose of war, in the proper context, by your definition, it would be morally acceptable by governmental principle.

[Sergio]

You continue to assert that bombing Tehran would be "punishment". However, as Jake and others have said, a rational nation doesn't fight wars to punish, it fights them to eliminate an aggressor who poses a threat. If Iran poses a sufficient aggressive threat to America, we should wipe that threat out with as much force as our military deems necessary to win quickly and with as few US casualties as possible. That is the only moral course of action when faced with such danger.

Let's expand your idea of aggressor a bit to mean "Someone acting morally wrong in a threatening way, who may be stopped by imposing something unpleasant on them." If you can get behind that, then combine it with this:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

-From Wiki.

Notice that moral justifications are a sufficient motivation for an action to be punishment,. Since every war fought by a ratrional nation must be in response to morally wrong behaviour, and war is definitely "unpleasant or aversive", this is definitely a form of punishment. In this in stance, war is at the very least a form of punishment, and a whole lot of other things too.

So, if a rational nation imposes something unpleasant on a group of people (like war) in response to immorality on their part, then they are "punishing them". And if they inflict this punishment indiscriminately against innocent people in the same area, they are engaged in collective punishment.

[Sergio]

Yes...Yes, a thousand times yes!!!!!!

Fist fights are fought by individuals, wars are fought by nations and the need to fight a war has existed in the past and does exist now.

That's just an argument from convention. Surely we shouldn't cling to a 10,000 year old institution just for the sake of tradition?

Wars are fought by large numbers of individuals, I suppose you are one of those who thinks that the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, saving innumerable American lives, was immoral.

Look, i think that wars should only involve individuals who consent to being involved in them. Every other individual has a right to be left alone, because it is immoral to initiate force against individuals, even for poltiical or social goals. Japan was ready to surrender before the bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US then demanded "unconditional surrender", which would strip the government of its veil of legitimacy. Days later, the bombs were dropped. The US governemnt nuked 2 cities because they could.

Self defense is moral for the individual and it is morally obligatory for government. So while I tend to agree with gags that "punishment" isn't really the ultimate purpose of war, in the proper context, by your definition, it would be morally acceptable by governmental principle.

A governemnt doesn't have a self! A nation is merely a collection of individuals in an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and a minority of people in charge. To treat nations as a single organism with a right to self defence means that one nation can justify killing another nation (and everyone in it) for the actions of a minority.

[whYNOT]

Sir Joe - sorry, cheap shot!- take a bow, you sure got me thinking a little further.

I am fully of the Objectivist principle that force used against an initiator is morally and practically justified. So this rules my thoughts and feelings on war.

But let's be deeply honest gents, no matter how much we preach the justness of a war,(they started it; the defence of my nation and I) there is definitely an element of punishment involved.

Not that this is terribly immoral, but we have to recognise it.

In all the wars, just or not, that I have studied, there existed these common factors:

We have the right, no the moral duty, to protect our way of life and our principles. (inarguable)

We intend to demolish the enemy, so he cannot ever pose a threat again. (very valid)

Let our actions deter any other potential enemies from such insanity. (very valid)

We will exact vengeance for the losses we have incurred. (mmm, very Biblical)

We will punish those directly responsible for the war ie the leaders, and any others who commited atrocities. (very just)

We will also punish collectively those who helped bring this war about- in any way- they voted for their regime,or gave it tacit support, or just happen to be in the firing line. (very debatable)

I think that we owe it to ourselves to deeply and honestly consider this last point. I do think that when any tiny bit of sanctimony and self-righteousness enters, rational morality flies out the window. 'They had it coming' is not an argument. Self-justification or rationalisation, and especially the slightest amount of sick pleasure felt when the enemy's civilians are killed, are anti-Objectivist ethics.

[Grames]

I do think that when any tiny bit of sanctimony and self-righteousness enters, rational morality flies out the window.

It is not even possible to draw breath without a tiny bit of a genuine feeling of sanctity and self-righteousness, let alone fight a war. Objectivity does not require the prior obliteration of self-regard and is actually impossible without it.

[RationalBiker]

I think that we owe it to ourselves to deeply and honestly consider this last point. I do think that when any tiny bit of sanctimony and self-righteousness enters, rational morality flies out the window.

No, not necessarily. It depends on the origin of the righteousness. Sanctimony (hypocritical devoutness) obviously has a negative definition from the start, so yea, a hypocrite is a hypocrite., However, self-righteousness does not necessarily mean something negative. Certainly common usage would have you believe it is a bad thing, but it is entirely plausible to hold the correct moral viewpoint on a matter, and not be tolerant of those whose moral viewpoint is factually wrong and/or evil. "Tolerance" is way overrated in modern society today. Most definitions seem to throw in "smug" just for good negative measure. It's a bad thing to some people in one is confident in your moral views. The minute you show confidence in something you are being "smug".

The origin of being righteous may stem from a rational analysis of one's position and a validation of that position based on facts of reality. The way you mention it is as though it is necessarily disconnected from reality. A rational morality may lead to a righteous determination.

Edited June 20, 2009 by RationalBiker

[gags]

Let's expand your idea of aggressor a bit to mean "Someone acting morally wrong in a threatening way, who may be stopped by imposing something unpleasant on them." If you can get behind that, then combine it with this:

"Punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant or aversive on a person or animal, usually in response to disobedience, defiance, or behavior deemed morally wrong by individual, governmental, or religious principles."

Your definition of punishment leaves out the existence of a threat, which is a key element in this discussion. Rational wars are fought to eliminate threats. People and even entire nations can commit all sorts of immoral acts. However, if they don't rise to the level of a threat to this country, we have no obligation to take action. If after 9/11, the people of Afghanistan had risen up and deposed the Taliban (and all those connected with the attacks), sweeping them from power and demonstrating that there was no longer a threat to the US, there would have been no need to attack that nation and I assume that even George Bush would have been rational enough to come to that conclusion.

The part that you also seem to be ignoring is that the aggressor bears the moral responsibility for the bad things that result from his actions. So if innocents die, then the aggressor is morally culpable for their deaths.

Edited June 20, 2009 by gags

[2046]

A governemnt doesn't have a self! A nation is merely a collection of individuals in an arbitrarily defined geographical area, and a minority of people in charge. To treat nations as a single organism with a right to self defence means that one nation can justify killing another nation (and everyone in it) for the actions of a minority.

No, a government is not a self, and a nation is not an entity with rights. Only individuals have a self and only individuals have rights. But contrary to the Libertarian anti-war talking points, a government is an entity which has a monopoly on the use of retaliatory force and exists only for the purpose of protecting rights. This includes the rights of soldiers as individuals who should not be sacrificed for altruistic political goals.

[Sergio]

Your definition of punishment leaves out the existence of a threat, which is a key element in this discussion.

The fact that some people are creating threats does not justify initating force against those who are not. Otherwise, that would be collective punishment, which is definitely immoral. You can lump threats in with immoral behaviour.

Rational wars are fought to eliminate threats. People and even entire nations can commit all sorts of immoral acts. However, if they don't rise to the level of a threat to this country, we have no obligation to take action.

What do you mean by 'nation" or "country"? The reason I ask is that John Galt destroyed the nation in order to ssee it rebuilt again, and he did it without initiating force. Would you advocate eliminating John Galt as a threat? Why does the idea of a country or nation have inherent value? What makes far more sense is punishing any initiation of force against individuals, and being damn careful that you punish the right people. If you screw up and jail the wrong persion (or bomb them in this case), then you should be punished.

If after 9/11, the people of Afghanistan had risen up and deposed the Taliban (and all those connected with the attacks), sweeping them from power and demonstrating that there was no longer a threat to the US, there would have been no need to attack that nation and I assume that even George Bush would have been rational enough to come to that conclusion.

Well, sure - but 'participating in a moral climate that sanctions evil' does not justify initiating force.

The part that you also seem to be ignoring is that the aggressor bears the moral responsibility for the bad things that result from his actions. So if innocents die, then the aggressor is morally culpable for their deaths.

Only if he is the one who harms them.

One of my arguments has been that you can reduce this logic to absurdity. According to this logic, there is no limit to the number of innocent people that you can kill, so long as you kill at least one guilty man, and when you are done with this mass murder, you can blame the guilty man. As a result, this stops being an issue of principles and descends into 'subjectivism' and arbitary whim. How can you calculate how many innocent people are 'acceptable' casualties? Any number above zero is arbitrary and requires comrpomising principles.

[Sergio]

Gags, i just had an idea:

Imagine an evil dictator who has millions of slaves working for him. He uses their labour to pay for a big military and he begins threatening the US. Is it morally justifiable to kill all of the slaves in order bankrupt the dictator and neutralize his threats?

[RationalBiker]

Gags, i just had an idea:

Imagine an evil dictator who has millions of slaves working for him. He uses their labour to pay for a big military and he begins threatening the US. Is it morally justifiable to kill all of the slaves in order bankrupt the dictator and neutralize his threats?

How's he managing 1000000 slaves without first have a big military to begin with?

[gags]

The fact that some people are creating threats does not justify initating force against those who are not. Otherwise, that would be collective punishment, which is definitely immoral. You can lump threats in with immoral behaviour.

When a government initiates force, then the citizens of the country ruled by that government may end up getting killed because of their own government's immoral acts. The guilt lies with the aggressor, not us. It is impossible to fight a war without the death of innocents. That's unfortunate, but it's a fact. Those deaths can be minimized but it's unlikely they'll ever be eliminated.

What do you mean by 'nation" or "country"? The reason I ask is that John Galt destroyed the nation in order to ssee it rebuilt again, and he did it without initiating force. Would you advocate eliminating John Galt as a threat? Why does the idea of a country or nation have inherent value? What makes far more sense is punishing any initiation of force against individuals, and being damn careful that you punish the right people. If you screw up and jail the wrong persion (or bomb them in this case), then you should be punished.

Do you really not understand what I mean by a nation or country? Until our military can design bombs that have a moral compass and know to only kill the guilty, we're just going to have to keep fighting wars the old fashioned way.

By the way, are you an anarchist, a pacifist or both?

Well, sure - but 'participating in a moral climate that sanctions evil' does not justify initiating force.

It most certainly does in the right context.

Only if he is the one who harms them.

Wrong.

One of my arguments has been that you can reduce this logic to absurdity. According to this logic, there is no limit to the number of innocent people that you can kill, so long as you kill at least one guilty man, and when you are done with this mass murder, you can blame the guilty man. As a result, this stops being an issue of principles and descends into 'subjectivism' and arbitary whim. How can you calculate how many innocent people are 'acceptable' casualties? Any number above zero is arbitrary and requires comrpomising principles.

A rational nation fighting a war does as much damage as needed to eliminate the threat. In the case of WWII, I would have gladly bombed an entire city full of German civilians to kill Hitler.

Gags, i just had an idea:

Imagine an evil dictator who has millions of slaves working for him. He uses their labour to pay for a big military and he begins threatening the US. Is it morally justifiable to kill all of the slaves in order bankrupt the dictator and neutralize his threats?

It's morally justified to destroy the dictator's military and to kill him. If he puts slave laborers in the cross fire, the dictator is guilty of further immorality.

Edited June 21, 2009 by gags

[Sergio]

I think I have made all of the points that I could ever make on this topic, plugged any holes in my argument, and explained myself in enough different ways. I am pretty sure that any questions can be answered by reading my previous posts.

[Andrew Grathwohl]

A rational nation fighting a war does as much damage as needed to eliminate the threat. In the case of WWII, I would have gladly bombed an entire city full of German civilians to kill Hitler.

It would be terribly simplifying things to say that killing Hitler this way would have removed the threat of Nazi Germany. Hitler, the man, wasn't "the threat." The threat was the entire military force of the Axis powers. An action of this kind would not be a wise way to fight a war. Treating human life this cheaply, this savagely, just for the sake of killing a figurehead (without whom the war could obviously continue mostly uninterrupted), would be an extremely stupid way to fight a war, in fact.

You would have suffered a great deal of blow back from this kind of action, as the Reich would have rationally made use of these events to further spread propaganda to the ordinary citizens, to convince them into further blindly supporting the immoral actions of Nazi Germany.

A rational nation could have found a much better way to kill Hitler than to bomb an entire city full of German civilians. Also, much more obviously, Hitler would have never placed himself among the ordinary people during WWII. He was occupying various FHQ locations pretty much the entire time Germany was involved in combat, which were located in and among military sites to give him command. As you would assume, these headquarters were also pretty well-protected.

[Jake_Ellison]

It would be terribly simplifying things to say that killing Hitler this way would have removed the threat of Nazi Germany. Hitler, the man, wasn't "the threat." The threat was the entire military force of the Axis powers. An action of this kind would not be a wise way to fight a war. Treating human life this cheaply, this savagely, just for the sake of killing a figurehead (without whom the war could obviously continue mostly uninterrupted), would be an extremely stupid way to fight a war, in fact.

No, not doing it would be extremely stupid. Hitler was not a figurehead, and bombing German cities (which the Allies did) was not savagery.

Treating human life this cheaply, this savagely,

This means nothing. Your have not defined a rational system of values by which the enemy's life is "expensive" to someone fighting for their life, and you have not defined a standard of civilization by which killing the enemy which is working to conquer you is uncivilized. I guarantee you that whoever did define those (and you borrowed from, out of context) was an altruist, not an egoist.

Without context, these words are just more empty, meaningless rhetoric.

[D'kian]

It would be terribly simplifying things to say that killing Hitler this way would have removed the threat of Nazi Germany. Hitler, the man, wasn't "the threat." The threat was the entire military force of the Axis powers.

Not quite.

1) Hitler and the Nazi Party he built were responsible for the large, powerful armed forces of Germany.

2) The Italian armed forces, especially as commanded by Mussolini, were a gift to the Allies.

An action of this kind would not be a wise way to fight a war. Treating human life this cheaply, this savagely, just for the sake of killing a figurehead (without whom the war could obviously continue mostly uninterrupted), would be an extremely stupid way to fight a war, in fact.

Hitler was in no way a figurehead. He was the heart and soul of the Nazi Party. The effects of killing him would depend on when he was killed more than how or by whom. Germans in general never accepted their defeat in WWI, there was a general sentiment that their own government had betrayed them, and many hungered for revenge against France and Great Britain. So killing Hitler before he seized power would probably not have prevented WWII, but it would have changed its character.

Killing him after the war started, when Germany was wining, would not have stopped the war, either. No one quits a war when he's ahead. Killing him once the Allies turned the tide probably wouldn't have ended the war. Killing him after the Battle of the Bulge might have ended things, depending on which particular Nazi seized power.

But launching a strong attack on Germany when it began to re-arm or when it moved troops to the Rhineland might have stopped the war altogether.

[Sergio]

No, not doing it would be extremely stupid. Hitler was not a figurehead, and bombing German cities (which the Allies did) was not savagery.

How do you know?

This means nothing. Your have not defined a rational system of values by which the enemy's life is "expensive" to someone fighting for their life, and you have not defined a standard of civilization by which killing the enemy which is working to conquer you is uncivilized. I guarantee you that whoever did define those (and you borrowed from, out of context) was an altruist, not an egoist.

Without context, these words are just more empty, meaningless rhetoric.

You have not defined a rational system of values by which civillians in other nations are any less valuable than people in your own nation. Are your principles universally applicable, or are you just making stuff up?

And, once again, what is up with all of these collectivist labels? You know what I am talking about. Isn't this a forum dedicated to individualist principles?