Should we kill

[azzaman333]

Kill everyone, and the State wont be able to kill anyone.

 

[Brighteye]

Of course. A state has obligations only to its own citizens. Others may be considered as chaff to be destroyed as it pleases, unless there's a treaty in place.

 

[RubricousMidget]

Well, international society will, at that rate, pretty quickly end up consisting only of Lichtenstein . . .

Liechtenstein, the Scandinavian countries, Switzerland (I believe), Iceland, Taiwan, Japan, Luxembourg, Monaco, Vatican City, and a few others.

Important to note, though, that when the entire government that committed the murders (Even the opposition. Obviously, they weren't opposed enough is out of office, the country would, in my eyes, be able to redeem itself through an unconditional apology and guarantee that the crime will not be repeated.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Yah, Japan has never caused the death of anyone from another country . . .

And we do not know all that the governments of the world do.

 

[RubricousMidget]

And we do not know all that the governments of the world do.

For the last 60-odd years, they haven't. No death penalty either.

 

[Swedishguy]

YES, we should kill! But don't kill me, it would be really uncomfortable.

 

[RubricousMidget]

^

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

the country would, in my eyes, be able to redeem itself through an unconditional apology and guarantee that the crime will not be repeated.

For the last 60-odd years, they haven't. No death penalty either.

I am waiting for the apology then . . .

 

[RubricousMidget]

I believe it was issued right after they were occupied by the US.

 

[Shaihulud]

It should be voted on, by the people of the state. Public opinion is golden.