Vergil'sB*tch;248525 said:
So if someone killed the likes of Mugabe (or any other dictator), where would you guys stand on that?
To be honest, I'd prefer to be better informed (without getting too political here) about the harm someone in power is creating in their country (and what might happen after their deaths) before passing judgement on their killing. Mugabe included. What we get is the media's version of events or the information passed down from a few journalists or people willing to speak out. It's easy from what little I know to say the guy's a worthless hack and nobody would miss him, but that's all I know - the few words of a few other people from off the TV... if I actually lived in Zimbabwe I'm sure I'd have much more scope to make some kind of judgement on whether Robert Mugabe dying would be a good or a bad thing. Just like when everyone thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam because nobody thought he was any good - and yet the power vaccuum he left behind has caused as much trouble and violence in Iraq as when Saddam was still around, if not more. Even the Iraqis seem to be saying this - that what they have now is actually worse - because from
their point of view putting up with Saddam and his whimsical warmongering (mostly outside of Iraq) was better for them then than it is now with their kids risking being blown up every day by car bombs on the way to school. This did not happen under Saddam because he kept order in his country. Dictators can, particularly in third world and unstable regions, actually be stabilising for the people who put up with them. We think they're all no good from our point of view of living in a relatively safe and peaceful democractic country, but if I lived in Iraq... I'd probably be thinking quite different. I'd probably be thinking of whether this dictator in power is going to make it easier for me to make it from one day to the next.
I think what DT was saying is that none of us are really qualified to pass judgement on another person's life. Although I personally would say that some people, in the right circumstance and situation, can be excused as necessary casualties. Hate to bring him up, but Hitler, for example. If he hadn't taken his own life, the sheer enormity of the crimes against humanity that were done under his approval would have meant he'd have been hanged, without question. So bad was the wrongs brought about through his rule I doubt anybody anywhere involved in bringing the perpetrators to justice would have questioned the need to placate his victims - by killing him. Personally I think it's wrong: I'd rather someone like him would rot in a jail cell and think about what they've done for the rest of their miserable lives, but that's one reason people might think otherwise. Another - better - reason, would be that if the plot to kill Hitler had been successful, it
might have demoralised and destabilised his regime such that the European aspect of the war would have been finished quicker and less human lives lost as a result. In that case, in the scenario of a world war and immense loss of life, I'd have to say that yes, the life of one man, the man in charge - if his death might serve to end such a war faster - then somebody should try to kill him. His life is not worth millions of innocent lives to me, particularly if he started the whole thing.
So... I dunno. On the one hand you have to be careful about making snap judgements on removing dictators because sometimes they actually do more good than harm. And on the other hand sometimes you have to step in early (like they should have during WW2) rather than stand by and watch, because sometimes they do much, much more harm than good. I guess the trick is being able to tell the difference... if that's even possible without hindsight...