If you found out Putin had been assassinated...

What if the assassin was a former russian soldier who had defected to the US a few years ago, and claimed to be a patsy, and then shortly thereafter was shot in the stomach by Yakov Rubiov?

maxresdefault.jpg
 
I talk about this topic often, ts, I think assassinations are the way to go, government sponsored I mean, in the place of wars...at least in certain situations...for instance in the lead up to the Iraq war, anyone who knew anything new that eventually(after US/international forces overthrew Saddam, the Shiites and Sunis would be at each others throats, so if our goal was to remove Saddam from power, why not just send in a hit team and do it , rather than send in hundreds of thousands of troops to fight for years and waste hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives? The same should've been done to Assad, determine how besides himself in his inner circle needed to be killed, send in hit teams to do it and gtfo. As I said, only in certain situations of course, and the act should be restricted to government leaders, those who do not represent by their position the will of the people of the country they control, and who are known to have committed severe human rights violations, ie torture, slaughtering civilians etc...I know I've opened up a can of worms here, but if carried out with extreme human rights violations as the impetus, the policy could lead to a better place for more people. again, thered have to be oversight and debate before any given operation, and understand I'm a great admirer of Che...so I do not support the kind of policy/actions that lead to his death nor others like him who died so that US corporations could reap greater profits from poor countries, I'm talking about justice for crimes against humanity.
 
I don't think , so it solve me many headache.
 
Putin is a hero compared to George W Bush
 
Denter said:
If Hitler would have been killed in the 1944 plot against him, the officers were planning on immediately suing for peace with the Allies.

You think Count von Stauffenberg and the rest would have continued Hitler's genocide in his absence? I think not, they were already galled that people were being exterminated instead of being used as labor.

Yes, if Hitler was killed in 1941 or so, there might have been a different outcome, but the German general staff did not want to fight a war with the Soviet Union, so who knows where that would have gone.
Click to expand...

I believe some of the senior officers still hated on the Jews, and there is still the SS and Himmler to deal with.

A more competent leader would go to Stalin, and apologize, and be like "looks be friends and we can continue exterminating the Jews together, hows bout dat comrade"

And then turn around, and say to France, Britain, Belgium, Netherlands, and be like, " look I am so sorry for what Hitler did, and I assure you, it was all him. But he is out of the way now. We will pull out all our troops, and as for your jews, we will simply return them to you". They will do this knowing full well, those countries did not want their jews back, and be like, " nah you can just keep them and we will call it even."

Now I am not saying this is a good thing, but I believe Hitler built up support by blaiming the Jews, so if the new brass wants to stay in power, they need some kind of continuance of some of Hitler's policies to make the people think nothing has really changed.
 
I would just think "OH shit, this could get real ugly, real fast"
 
I'd find it interesting, but I wouldn't really feel anything.
 
longafan said:
I talk about this topic often, ts, I think assassinations are the way to go, government sponsored I mean, in the place of wars...at least in certain situations...for instance in the lead up to the Iraq war, anyone who knew anything new that eventually(after US/international forces overthrew Saddam, the Shiites and Sunis would be at each others throats, so if our goal was to remove Saddam from power, why not just send in a hit team and do it , rather than send in hundreds of thousands of troops to fight for years and waste hundreds of billions of dollars and countless lives? The same should've been done to Assad, determine how besides himself in his inner circle needed to be killed, send in hit teams to do it and gtfo.
Click to expand...

There are a great many questions regarding feasibility and legality to consider.

I know Hollywood has made such scenarios seem like a piece of piss, but I imagine the kind of operations you're talking about are altogether much more difficult in practice than they are in theory.

Besides, in your example above - assassinate Saddam and an immediate power struggle within Iraqi Ba'athist rule is triggered, most likely with his sons tearing Iraq apart vying for control. So then you need to assassinate his sons, and hope there aren't any top Ba'ath party figures, generals, etc. that don't have exactly the same ambitions and intentions because then you need to assassinate them and they've all tightened security following the initial assassination of their president. To get around the problem of removing an entire regime of shitheads and having the manpower to do so, you probably have to resort to a good old fashioned conventional invasion.

(This is all assuming that the international community is cool with an assassination free-for-all being a cornerstone of global security practices.)
 
I think killing democratically elected officals is generally a bad thing.

Sure their process has some serious issues, but you could say the about Dubya.


zgames said:
Russians wouldn't feel bad, not most of them anyway
Click to expand...

I think he is pretty popular actually. General impression I get.
 
Marsupial said:
There are a great many questions regarding feasibility and legality to consider.

I know Hollywood has made such scenarios seem like a piece of piss, but I imagine the kind of operations you're talking about are altogether much more difficult in practice than they are in theory.

Besides, in your example above - assassinate Saddam and an immediate power struggle within Iraqi Ba'athist rule is triggered, most likely with his sons tearing Iraq apart vying for control. So then you need to assassinate his sons, and hope there aren't any top Ba'ath party figures, generals, etc. that don't have exactly the same ambitions and intentions because then you need to assassinate them and they've all tightened security following the initial assassination of their president. To get around the problem of removing an entire regime of shitheads and having the manpower to do so, you probably have to resort to a good old fashioned conventional invasion.

(This is all assuming that the international community is cool with an assassination free-for-all being a cornerstone of global security practices.)
Click to expand...

yeah Saddams sons, aides de camp as well, kinda spoke to that when referencing Assads inner circle...my main point is just that its more humane to kill of the leaders, drop a bunker buster on their parliament building or whatever while in session if that what it takes, but full on invasions, years of sanctions generally hurt the general population more than those responsible for whatever evils we use to justify the invasions, sanctions or whatever...but yeah I see the difficulties you're talking about
 
That would be terrible. Russia would turn into chaos, many regions would push for independence and some radicals would come to power.
 
I would be counting hours untill some country that planned that sh it gets nuked.
 
ncordless said:
Problem with assassinating people like that is that you make heroes out of them. The dumbest thing we could have done in WW2 was assassinate Hitler. Would have reinvigorated them, and allowed them to replace Hitler with a more capable leader. WW2 ended the way it did in major part because Hitler was a fool who thought he was a military genius. It was best to have him calling the shots.
Click to expand...


He was a political genius but not a military one.
 
Compare Putin to Hitler is an clear example of the huge double dealing of the americans.
If a leader is not a pupput that just drains all the resources then is Hitler.

The killing of Putin would show how criminal and ruthless America has become .
And would lead a nuclear war.
 
NelmarksGhost said:
What if the assassin was a former russian soldier who had defected to the US a few years ago, and claimed to be a patsy, and then shortly thereafter was shot in the stomach by Yakov Rubiov?

maxresdefault.jpg
Click to expand...
Nobody will buy this. Don't fool yourself. Even an assassination attemp would saw like done by capitan america.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,282,675
Messages
58,453,899
Members
176,041
Latest member
jaybuff

Share this page

Back
Top