144

Basically because your idea (assassination of corrupt politician) undermines rather than reinforces the rule of law. Usually the definition of corruption includes some kind of illegal activity. Otherwise it's just stuff you don't like for personal moral reasons. And if everyone started to use assasination to solve their moral differences... the basis of the (...


58

A more fruitful question, perhaps is "when" those monuments were erected, which the chart below illustrates, which provides some good inferences about "why" they were erected. Basically, they were symbols of the reassertion of extralegal white supremacist power over blacks in the South, following the enactment of Jim Crow laws, and then a symbol of ...


47

Predicting conflict, coups and civil war algorithmically has been done since the '90s. It was observed that human-based predictions were subject to various bias, (such as humans wanting to make their reports more exciting, attract funding and build prestige) So DARPA (a branch of the Pentagon) developed a fairly simple algorithm called the Integrated ...


46

Interestingly, avoiding this is one of the reasons that the United States Constitution provides means for legal impeachment of the president. Dr. Franklin was for retaining the clause [on impeachment], as favorable to the executive. History furnishes one example only of a first magistrate being formally brought to public justice. Every body cried out ...


26

The question is whether the politician is corrupt or the whole society is corrupt. Often most corrupt politicians belong to corrupt societies. Therefore, if you kill a corrupt politician, another one will take their place. The same thing happens with drug traffickers: whenever a cartel falls, another one takes control of the vacuum left behind because the ...


26

This is both a pretty broad question and the answers (even from experts) are going to be opinion based to a good extent, so my answer is going to be a rather trite listicle of reasons that have been offered: Ethnic and religious divisions (including sectarian ones within Islam), plus a dominance/intolerance aspect thereof. E.g. one 2005 study found using a ...


25

No, internal conflicts and secession attempts do not qualify as “armed attacks” under the North Atlantic Treaty (itself based on the UN charter, article 51, which only covers actions between states). The most obvious historical example is the Algerian War, in which Algeria – then a part of France and covered by the treaty, as explicitly acknowledged in ...


21

Suppose, as per the premise of the question, that the public is fond of sponsoring assassinations. A clever corrupt politician could use that to his own advantage, and the nation's detriment: A politician could weaponize the state's propaganda system to mold public resentment toward prominent reformers, so that the gullible public could be wrongly ...


19

To complement to ohwilleke answer: The original SPLC report for the data in ohwilleke's answer is available online and lists its methodology as well as all monuments and streets/schools that were considered. Their graphic shows the same tendency of monuments being built in a time of racial struggles: The Washington Post notes that many of these monuments ...


17

The treaty is geared towards international threats, so that would be unlikely. It could theoretically trigger article 4 of the treaty. The latter states that: The Parties will consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened. It got used only a few ...


16

Apart from whether your approach would be conducive to justice or a better political system or even just any improvement whatsoever — it will not work. Do you think you are the first one who has the idea to kill the president or other politicians? They are quite well protected, and after the first few incidents the protection will be watertight. But ...


15

Western powers (or any powers in fact) do not just support a side in war because they like their ideology. War is business. As a person or a party, showing public support for one side in a war can increase your political power, or mean political suicide. And if you bring in military support, you start bleeding money very quickly. Assad has been vilified by ...


15

In a word, what I think the OP is missing is the depth and breadth of the Neo-Confederate movement. An ideology of the Lost Cause emerged in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, and variations on this general idea remain highly influential. It is not necessarily the case that everyone who supports the Confederate flag still wants to secede (some do) or ...


14

Letting aside the ethics, who gets to decide who is corrupt? Taking the USA's political state since 2015-2016, i.e. the last POTUS election we have: a large proportion of US voters who believe Hillary Clinton is corrupt. a large proportion of US voters who believe Donald Trump is corrupt. It could be that they are both corrupt. Or that neither is corrupt....


11

Obviously Putin is against the overthrow of Assad, even with the recent chemical weapons attack. The Russian government has already stated that it does not believe it was the Syrian government who was responsible for the gas attack and has clearly signaled that it would veto any UN security resolution. Now as you mentioned yourself, that does not block the ...


10

The question is titled: Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman [to kill corrupt] politicians? Well, from a moral standpoint, it's wrong. It depends on your yardstick for corruption, but let's say as you imply it's some run of the mill embezzling/defruading the state. You've implied a benchmark of: whenever politicians became too shameless in their ...


10

First of all, what's the problem you're trying to solve? You want better government? Then consider that corruption may not be as big a problem as incompetence, ideology or partisanship, in some societies. So you kill all the corrupt politicians, but leave the incompetent, ideologically-driven, hyper-partisan ones in place. You may not have solved the ...


9

The Mideast does not have an especially high number of wars when compared to other non-European regions. The largest war in the Mideast was the Iran-Iraq war, which killed 2 million people. The Chinese civil war, the Vietnam war, and other conflicts in Asia killed a lot more. If you are talking about the present day, there is plenty of violence in India, ...


8

They use mostly satellite internet providers. Some of them are maintained by Iran, some are European. They are not used only by ISIS but also by Hezbollah and Al-Qaida. ISIS has very advanced equipment in terms of communication and internet connection. Nowadays you can't just "shut down" internet in some area, it's widely distributed and the process of how ...


8

In addition to what everyone else mentioned, another possible cause of the current situation in the Middle East can have roots in the demise of the Ottoman Empire. Usually, after the collapse of a big empire the countries created after are not very stable for decades. For example, after the Roman Empire collapsed, Europe was in wars for a thousand years! I ...


6

It is common for civil wars to involve substantial aid from foreigners. Sometimes this aid includes genuine volunteers; sometimes it includes hired mercenaries; sometimes it includes financial support; and sometimes it includes intervention by foreign armies and/or navies. For example, there have been three major civil wars in what is now the United States:...


6

Tl;dr: The quotes are a mixture of provocation, sloppy word choice and metaphorical use. A true civil war is prima facie inconceivable in the UK. Missing root causes and missing recruiting potential make it impossible. A note about forecasts. It is no accident that this is the term used for weather; there are strong similarities. We know that "prediction is ...


6

No. Revolution is still possible. While there are factors which make revolutions more difficult, there are other factors which make them easier. Revolutions happen when the population no longer believes in the legitimacy of the government. This affects the military and police as well. If there is widespread popular discontent, the military becomes ...


5

This is the kind of thing that Antonin Scalia used to say. It's a bit facile. The actual precedent was set after the Civil War in Texas v. White: When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, ...


5

Since you specified a fixed list of organizations, its pretty easy to look up when they were founded and what was going on at the time. As a reminder correlation does not imply causation. The fact that an activity was going on at the time does not inherently mean it was the cause of the rise of an organization (nor does it mean that it wasn't). Al-Qaeda, ...


5

So, the question is: Has there been any war that the Russia has ignited since WWII ever in its history, that has NOT been self-excused as a support of a newly-created marionette "Republic"? Well, any point of Russian history is acceptable, right? We have a lot of interesting candidates. Let's see some of them: The Russo-Swedish War of 1590–1595 between the ...


5

Non-military aid is still support, most of the stuff you listed is as important as having guns to running a successful rebellion. It was a while ago but the U.S. did send weapons to rebels in 2013. On a more controversial note it could be argued that the U.S. did attempt to indirectly support the rebels by leaving massive stockpiles of weapons and money in ...


5

Not the Civil War itself, but the court case that followed. In Texas v. White, there was a dispute in 1869 over who owned bonds issued to the state of Texas after being sold by the state legislature to fund the Confederate states during the Civil War. The majority opinion written by Justice Chase stated: The Union of the States never was a purely ...


5

There are really just two big wars in the middle east, plus a unique combination of post-colonial "strongman" leaders sitting on top of oil wealth who occasionally get dragged into conflicts or trigger US reprisals. The two big ones are "Israel vs the Arab World" and "Iran vs US & Saudi Arabia". The state of Israel was acquired by a mixture of political ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible