Can an assassination of a dictator be justified?

[tealeaf]

Originally Posted by MeinKampfyChair

He may be doing all that wrong thus far, but until he starts absorbing the powers of the different branches of governments and starts restricting civil liberties, I'm not calling for a coup d'état just yet. There has been worse presidents than Obama, and there will continue to be worse presidents than Obama both in the near and far future. At least he's not out there exterminating millions of people, or threatening rival world superpowers with nuclear warheads.

Yep, which is why I said he shouldn't be assassinated. To bring us back to my point on Obama:

I don't, however, believe we should take precautionary measures. That would lead to one power being afraid of another rising power, whether for the good or bad of the masses, and taking them out before they have a chance to show their colors.
...
I believe he is trying his darndest and until he starts issuing orders for some ovens, I think he shouldn't be assassinated.

War is tricky. I have no experience with it. But I do know that things don't change overnight.

I was just showing that he does have some qualities that others can equate to past, and present, dictators, all based on perception.

And oh mah gawd that is my favorite word lol

[MeinKampfyChair]

Originally Posted by tealeaf

I was just showing that he does have some qualities that others can equate to past, and present, dictators, all based on perception.

He may be showing weakness, and breaking some (read: most) of his campaign promises, but those aren't really dictator-esque qualities. My definition of a dictator is a tyrant who rules the government solely by himself. A dictator is one who has unrestricted power, and will not relinquish his iron rule unless he's forcefully taken out of power. Obama isn't showing any of these qualities yet.

Is he a weak leader thus far? Sure, that can be argued. Should he be compared to a dictator, or said he possesses dictator-like qualities? Not in my opinion, no.

[tealeaf]

Just went back to reread your posts...you edited xD So I'll respond to the edits:

Originally Posted by MeinKampfyChair

You're right, it doesn't. However, it amplifies the magnitude of how brutal a dictator is, among other qualities.

If you want to talk about differences, how about the fact that Hitler became both the executive and legislative branch? Or the fact that he made all other political factions within Germany illegal aside from the Nazi party? Or the fact he executed his remaining opposition? Or the fact that he went against the German constitution and made himself the supreme ruler of Nazi Germany once the president died? Need I go on.

As I said. Oranges to apples. Obama is far from a dictator, and whilst I'm not directly a supported of Obama himself (Lesser of two evils and whatnot), this is hardly a fair comparison.

And look at how we chose Obama. Majority voted because he was black (you can't kid yourself on this one, the statistics are there), others voted because they thought he would be genuinely good for our country, and the rest voted for the lesser of the two evils.

2/3 of those reasonings is no way to choose a president. One we have no power over, the the second is a rigged system anyway.

You can claim that at the booths were Acorn and the Panther militia harassing voters as a form of creating a one-sided election. That the media chose the WORST possible candidate for Obama to run against, thereby eliminated opposition. Especially when they favored him to the point where we didn't know anything about our president even months after he got elected, including if he was an actual citizen or not.

Right now as well the democrats hold majority in the house, the senate, and judiciary branch. I mean, our gun rights were almost annihilated, but that is way off topic. On the topic of dictatorship, he has created propaganda to the point of being ludicrous. Just search youtube or turn on the tele. He is EVERYWHERE, including our schools. Barrack Hussein Obama, mmm mmm mmm.

If you really wanted to, you could claim that his rise to power was nothing more than a show, that the election was already decided the moment he decided to run, and everything else that followed was just for legitimacy reasons.

Yeah, I am blowing everything out of proportion and to semi insane "aliens did 9/11" stuff, but that is the point. You could claim he is a dictator by all the above, and more, reasoning. I personally don't believe he is, but you can justify it.

Originally Posted by MeinKampfyChair

I didn't limit the magnitude of a dictator's brutality solely on his kill count, that would be absurd. I do agree with you on the North Korea point. They have been a bit of a thorn in our side the past few years with all these half-assed nuclear attack threats. I certainly wouldn't equate him to Hitler, however. Is Kim Jong Il a tyrannical dictator who brainwashes his people with absurd propaganda? Absolutely. Hitler had his fair share of propaganda as well, though, and the fact that he led the Holocaust is a bit factor. Hitler will be viewed by historians and in the history books as one of the biggest menaces the world has ever seen. Kim Jong is small time compared to Hitler.

Yeah, and no one will ever live up to Hitler. But again, Kim does more than brainwash and he is currently responsible for this generation and the future generations of his, and SK's, peoples. Hitler is dead, Kim is alive. Kim can do more harm today and could possibly surpass Hitler in the future. After all, slow and steady wins the race.

Tomorrow, he could nuke a powerplant on American soil, killing millions, if not tens of millions, in one fell swoop.


And I totally forgot the point I was making. And fuck you I am trying to study for a chem test tomorrow xD

[Ernic]

A dictator is one who has complete/absolute control over his totalitarian state. Thus, Obama is NOT in fact a dictator, because by the end of his political term, unless he locks himself in the oval office, we will find ourselves with a new leader. The same cannot be said of the ruler of a totalitarian state. Now, if you were to compare him to dictators of the past based on factors not pertaining to their political positions, you might have a point.

[tealeaf]

Originally Posted by Ernic

A dictator is one who has complete/absolute control over his totalitarian state. Thus, Obama is NOT in fact a dictator, because by the end of his political term, unless he locks himself in the oval office, we will find ourselves with a new leader. The same cannot be said of the ruler of a totalitarian state. Now, if you were to compare him to dictators of the past based on factors not pertaining to their political positions, you might have a point.

8 years is a long time and the system can change dramatically in that period. I heard he wants to create his own militia. That there are movements already to extend his presidency for a third term. If Obamacare passes, he will have a monopoly on our lives (literally), our transportation, and resources. His Czars already control most of everything in the US. The Dems control the house, senate, and judiciary. Looks to me like we are one step away from being a totalitarian state



I should probably clarify that I don't actually believe this. I am not that radical But there are a lot of people who think this way and your own personal beliefs shouldn't disparage other's, and you shouldn't negate the possibility that they are right. Just saying.

[MeinKampfyChair]

Originally Posted by tealeaf

Tomorrow, he could nuke a powerplant on American soil, killing millions, if not tens of millions, in one fell swoop.

Except for the fact that North Korean weaponry is so outdated, Japanese samurais would be able to defeat them in battle. The only way they'd be able to bomb us with a nuclear warhead is if they sail the goddamned bomb across the ocean in a rowboat. They don't have the power to hit us with a bomb. Their length is not that long.

[Ernic]

When our forefather's created this nation, they specifically designed it in every way to make it impossible for any one person to hold too much power. You seem to be attributing powers to the leader of the executive branch that don't really exist (such as the ability to force through a number of constitutional ammendments in an impossibly short period of time considering how long it takes to put forth such an action).
North Korea at this point is shaking it's fist at a world that every day threatens to leave them behind. They see that their totalitarian state can't keep up with the ever evolving high tech world they exist in, and are getting desparate. They, along with other countries that are trying to develope nuclear weaponry, are doing so because they believe it to be a symbol of status and belonging in the 21st century. They are quite wrong, and instead of actually trying to keep up with the world around them, they hope to bury themselves up their own backsides while the rest of the world progresses.

[MeinKampfyChair]

Originally Posted by Ernic

When our forefather's created this nation, they specifically designed it in every way to make it impossible for any one person to hold too much power. You seem to be attributing powers to the leader of the executive branch that don't really exist (such as the ability to force through a number of constitutional ammendments in an impossibly short period of time considering how long it takes to put forth such an action).
North Korea at this point is shaking it's fist at a world that every day threatens to leave them behind. They see that their totalitarian state can't keep up with the ever evolving high tech world they exist in, and are getting desparate. They, along with other countries that are trying to develope nuclear weaponry, are doing so because they believe it to be a symbol of status and belonging in the 21st century. They are quite wrong, and instead of actually trying to keep up with the world around them, they hope to bury themselves up their own backsides while the rest of the world progresses.

Legally, no. This cannot happen in the U.S. But as seen in Nazi Germany, Hitler liquidated all the branches of the German government and took power as his own. Do you think the German forefathers made it so that can happen? No, of course not. Who would create a government under the pretense that a dictator is easily able to rise up in power and do away with all other branches of governments and take all the power? Nobody would. Hitler's magic was his charisma and the SS. His charisma swayed the population of Germany into electing him, and they basically gave him everything he needed. The SS took care of any naysayers. The point I'm getting that is that the same scenario can easily happen in the U.S. Sure, some dictators ARE elected legally. But do they obtain their totalitarian power legally? Of course not. A determined person with a big enough following, charisma, and in Hitler's case, a personal police force to do away with your problems and opposition can usurp a weakened government.

[Ernic]

There is a government that was created under the pretense that an individual could acquire too much power and do away with the other branches of government. Ours. And in any case, America is far too divided on too many issues for one person to gain the same amount of support that Hitler did. Obama was a charismatic politician who promised an end to the recession, but about half the country hates him due to pre-existing political divides.

[MeinKampfyChair]

Originally Posted by Ernic

There is a government that was created under the pretense that an individual could acquire too much power and do away with the other branches of government. Ours. And in any case, America is far too divided on too many issues for one person to gain the same amount of support that Hitler did. Obama was a charismatic politician who promised an end to the recession, but about half the country hates him due to pre-existing political divides.

We're speaking purely hypothetical situations. That's what makes Hitler truly amazing, though. He managed to sway most of Germany with his charisma. Besides, we are getting a bit far off topic now. I'm sure we can all agree on the definition of dictator now, hm?