[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

The reason this is important, is because it shows the 'official' use of violence and the acceptance thereof. There is not much protest against the wars in the public in the U.S.

That has far more to do with how these wars started than anything else. Plenty of people protested against war in Vietnam, but it becomes hard to argue against when they crashed a few planes and killed thousands.

You see nothing problematic with the assassination of civillians?
They are bad guys -> we kill the bad guys -> problem solved.
When it is the government of the country doing this, don't you think this sends certain signals?

Uh, they are not civilians, they're enemy combatants - remember, this is a war. It's one thing if you were talking about actual civilians that gets caught up in the cross fire, but that doesn't apply to enemy fighters. Civilians don't setup IEDs or fire mortars and RPGs.

Same thing here: The criminal is a problem -> kill him.

It's not about "solving" problem, at that point it's about justice, holding people accountable for their actions, and to a lesser degree deterrence. This is a deeply controversial topic all by itself, and is by no means settled in the US, where many states have abolished capital punishment, and some others have suspended them. Even in those that have them, for the most part there are so many mandatory reviews and appeals that it would be decades before someone sentenced to death actually gets executed.

Remember, this is all about wether in the general public opinion, lethal violence is a viable solution to problems.

All the time? no. In specific cases? yes, and in some cases, the only viable solution. You don't have to like it, I certainly don't, but that's reality.