|
|
On March 04 2014 10:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:22 Pr0wler wrote:On March 04 2014 09:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 09:49 mahrgell wrote:Well, it would not have the same effect as an embargo on North Korea, surely... But the way the economy works right now, the blow would still be fatal. Self sufficiency isn't enough in modern economics. Even the damage to the the rest of the world would be big. Surely, Russia is not as crucial to the global economy as China, but still... Yeah, well, Russia doesn't have extreme overpopulation and wage slavery that produces goods for cheaper than anywhere else. But to try to intensely hurt Russia or do something that would severely piss them off would not be without extreme reprisals of some sort. I'd hate to imagine what they would do. Even without any reaction from Russia, the global economy would be hard-hit anyways. EDIT: Also what mcc said below. Actually there is something about Russia that can hurt them really bad. It is a huge country with all kinds of raw materials and everything, but the one thing that they lack is food. USSR had problems feeding themselves during the cold war even with Ukraine (which was called Russia's granary) part of it and many countries from the soviet block exported food for them. China is hardly an option, because they have food problems too. In the Soviet era, the main problem was huge mismanagement and disastrous collectivism. Does Russia's agriculture have these issues today? It appears things have improved from the Soviet era and 1990s, at least.
Well the Holodormor didn't help with food shortages either. Apart from killing off millions on Ukrainians, it also has a lasting impact on food supply. And I don't think you can call that mismanagement.
|
On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. Was against RU might not be an option but serious sanctions definitely are. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's pressure them that way.
Because that certainly would subdue a guy like putin. And russian media certainly will have "trouble" explaining why russians are dying of hunger, already painting a caricature of western governments.
I'm not too sure that fighting a "war" on the back of civilians is the way to go, even america understood that after WW2.
edit: "war", not war.
|
On March 04 2014 10:45 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. Was against RU might not be an option but serious sanctions definitely are. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's pressure them that way. Because that certainly would subdue a guy like putin. And russian media certainly will have "trouble" explaining why russians are dying of hunger, already painting a caricature of western governments. I'm not too sure that fighting a war on the back of civilians is the way to go, even america understood that after WW2.
Fighting a war is always on the back of civilians. They pay for it. With money. And lives. There is no idealised war where noone gets hurt but the professional military.
|
On March 04 2014 10:43 Jaaaaasper wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:38 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 10:22 Pr0wler wrote:On March 04 2014 09:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On March 04 2014 09:49 mahrgell wrote:Well, it would not have the same effect as an embargo on North Korea, surely... But the way the economy works right now, the blow would still be fatal. Self sufficiency isn't enough in modern economics. Even the damage to the the rest of the world would be big. Surely, Russia is not as crucial to the global economy as China, but still... Yeah, well, Russia doesn't have extreme overpopulation and wage slavery that produces goods for cheaper than anywhere else. But to try to intensely hurt Russia or do something that would severely piss them off would not be without extreme reprisals of some sort. I'd hate to imagine what they would do. Even without any reaction from Russia, the global economy would be hard-hit anyways. EDIT: Also what mcc said below. Actually there is something about Russia that can hurt them really bad. It is a huge country with all kinds of raw materials and everything, but the one thing that they lack is food. USSR had problems feeding themselves during the cold war even with Ukraine (which was called Russia's granary) part of it and many countries from the soviet block exported food for them. China is hardly an option, because they have food problems too. In the Soviet era, the main problem was huge mismanagement and disastrous collectivism. Does Russia's agriculture have these issues today? It appears things have improved from the Soviet era and 1990s, at least. Well the Holodormor didn't help with food shortages either. Apart from killing off millions on Ukrainians, it also has a lasting impact on food supply. And I don't think you can call that mismanagement.
Pr0wler whom I replied to mentioned food problems in Cold War-era USSR, which were due to agricultural mismanagement and collectivism. This was after Holodomor. My question was about 21st century Russia, which is significantly different from post-WW2 USSR or 1990s Russia, (and certainly nothing like the era between Russian Civil War and WW2 which you bring up), which has nothing to do with Holodomor. :s
|
On March 04 2014 10:48 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:45 m4ini wrote:On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. Was against RU might not be an option but serious sanctions definitely are. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's pressure them that way. Because that certainly would subdue a guy like putin. And russian media certainly will have "trouble" explaining why russians are dying of hunger, already painting a caricature of western governments. I'm not too sure that fighting a war on the back of civilians is the way to go, even america understood that after WW2. Fighting a war is always on the back of civilians. They pay for it. With money. And lives. There is no idealised war where noone gets hurt.
While that is true, more or less, there's a difference between actively starving civilians, and actively trying to avoid civilian deaths (more or less efficient). People went apeshit over a civilian fueltruck being attacked by our planes, i don't think actively going for their "people" is in any way, shape, or form desirable.
|
On March 04 2014 09:32 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 03:49 Kamille wrote:
David Chamberlain's government has already decided for the EU. Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia  So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. I am ashamed people think the way you do. You are the one thinking war is a joke. There is a reason Ukraine has not intervened itself yet. This ís exactly a political game. The reason Ukraine hasn't intervened to defend itself, is because of people who think think "well as long as it doesn't happen to me I don't care" which this thread if full of. If Ukraine knew the west would support them, then Russian troops would have been getting shot at when they tried to cross the border.
You couldn't be more wrong, I don't think most people outside of CIS block realize how different this situation is compared to other conflicts are around the world. A large number of people in Ukraine have relatives and friends Russia and vice versa. Military vise you need to understand that a lot of the officers, specifically higher up chain from both sides, have the same background ( the Soviet Army one ) etc they know each other, they trained together and so on. If given a choice between standing down or obeying orders from a newly formed government with a lot of questions behind it, they will stand down.
|
On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. What was impossible against the USSR might not be against RU. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's fuck them up that way.
Oh, only on the internet do we hear such pearls of wisdom. One would think Iranians would be starving to death by now.
|
Lets be serious here. Even the US donates food to North Korea. The modern international community will not contemplate or accept to deliberately starve the population of a country as a political tool, only as a tool of total war.
In any case, the political elite of any country will never be affected by food problems directly, they will always ensure themselves to be well fed, no matter the cost to their own people.
|
On March 04 2014 10:51 kukarachaa wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 09:32 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:30 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:On March 04 2014 09:27 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 09:21 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 09:08 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 04 2014 08:29 mahrgell wrote:On March 04 2014 08:27 Cheerio wrote:On March 04 2014 08:06 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 03:50 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
Confirmed: Anyone leading Great Britain with the last name Chamberlain has no backbone. European leaders are doing exactly what their populations want from them, which definitely is not a war. Democracy in action. US will do exactly the same. Few warmongering fanatics that never experienced war, yet would love to plunge the continent in it are just pathetic. Right, that's why all kinds of concessions need to be made to local dictators. I think it is for the better of Ukraine, if there is no war between Europe and Russia So better be thankful, that not everyone on the world is that triggerhappy What did you think about the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990? Did you think the response, which eventually led to a military force invading and removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait was "trigger happy"? Did you think it was the wrong thing to do? Was it acceptable to you that Kuwait was occupied by a foreign army? If you don't think the invasion was acceptable, and didn't think the coalition forces were too "trigger happy", then your logic is inconsistent. Even if your logic is consistent, the argument you presented is that of humans beings who have no moral fortitude and only care for themselves. It is the argument of "well, as long as my home town isn't invaded and occupied I don't care" and "as long as it happens to someone else but not to me..." Frankly, It is absolutely disgusting and I'm ashamed that people still think this way. What if this were your home town? What if it was you and your family, your life? Does that make a difference? The people of Crimea deserve better. Your attitude that other people in Europe or Russia are somehow more important than those in Crimea is revolting and stinks of elitism. In fact, it is just purely elitist. Russia invaded a sovereign country and has occupied a region there. That is unacceptable. Just like when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Totally unacceptable and the world responded then the correct way. With military force to free the people of Kuwait after a political solution was tried. In this instance, are we scared because Russia is stronger? Or do we simply not care for those in Ukraine? Are human rights being trampled in nations other than NATO nations acceptable but because Ukraine never signed on the dotted line? If the political solution does not work, the world must responds with force. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve it. We should not have one set of rules for this group of humans, and another set for another group of humans. That is elitism, and we are all children of the earth. There is a clear right and wrong here. What Russia did is wrong. We've got to make it right. It is just really sad that people present the argument that you did. The people of Crimea and Ukraine deserve better. If it were my hometown, I would certainly hope, that not some idiot across an ocean decides, that it should be the next battlefield... And my allies tries to negotiate a way out of it first... Tanks can roll, if all is lost. It may be unknown to you, but some people think of violence and military escalation as the absolute last resort measure. But of course armchair general from the US, who have not experienced any modern war on their own soil, and invaded a dozen countries post WW2, knows how things are done... Seriously, I just wish sevastopol was your own home town... Maybe the idea of bombs on your own head would cool you down, great desperado. Sanctioning stuff now basically finishes the issue... Russia gets it's territoroies, the west made it's sanction, story over... Neither side has any reason to move from this position anymore, the results are in place. Leaving the final position of the west open, also allows to get changes to the Russian one by negotiations, And if those fail, and the Russians finalize their position(e.g. by annexing crimea or creating a puppet nation), it won't take a week to sign those sanctions... You went from saying that you'd negotiate and if that didn't get you what was right and if that didn't work, then tanks could roll, to sanctioning stuff finishes the issue! What? Russia just gets it territory! That is absolutely the worse scenario! I wish you were a citizen of Sevastopol too, so you could understand exactly what that means. This isn't a joke. This isn't some political game. This is people's lives and self determination. Read the UN charter. You're just so willing to give up on people because your an elitist. I am ashamed people think the way you do. You are the one thinking war is a joke. There is a reason Ukraine has not intervened itself yet. This ís exactly a political game. The reason Ukraine hasn't intervened to defend itself, is because of people who think think "well as long as it doesn't happen to me I don't care" which this thread if full of. If Ukraine knew the west would support them, then Russian troops would have been getting shot at when they tried to cross the border. You couldn't be more wrong, I don't think most people outside of CIS block realize how different this situation is compared to other conflicts are around the world. A large number of people in Ukraine have relatives and friends Russia and vice versa. Military vise you need to understand that a lot of the officers, specifically higher up chain from both sides, have the same background ( the Soviet Army one ) etc they know each other, they trained together and so on. If given a choice between standing down or obeying orders from a newly formed government with a lot of questions behind it, they will stand down.
Relevant blog:
http://maidantranslations.com/2014/03/02/alexander-babych-it-will-be-easy-for-us-to-kill-russians-and-for-russians-to-kill-us/
Worth reading.
On March 04 2014 10:56 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Lets be serious here. Even the US donates food to North Korea. The modern international community will not contemplate or accept to deliberately starve the population of a country as a political tool, only as a tool of total war.
In any case, the political elite of any country will never be affected by food problems directly, they will always ensure themselves to be well fed, no matter the cost to their own people.
A tool of total war? Oh, like Iraq 1991-2003 where countless people starved and the first and only country to receive complete trade/financial embargo (the Food for Oil program didn't really provide much of anything, especially for a country that previously didn't have issues with mass starvation)? I guess that means the US was at war with Iraq for 20 years hehe. A conveniently forgotten episode of brutality by the US, but if you say this qualifies as "war" (and total war at that), then Iraq was the longest war in US history lol.
|
On March 04 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. What was impossible against the USSR might not be against RU. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's fuck them up that way. Oh, only on the internet do we hear such pearls of wisdom. One would think Iranians would be starving to death by now.
http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-protests/15952-protests-over-food-water-and-power-shortages-continue-in-iran
|
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much.
|
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game.
|
On March 04 2014 10:56 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. What was impossible against the USSR might not be against RU. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's fuck them up that way. Oh, only on the internet do we hear such pearls of wisdom. One would think Iranians would be starving to death by now. http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/news/iran-protests/15952-protests-over-food-water-and-power-shortages-continue-in-iran
Interesting, thanks for the link. They are not starving to death though. Anyway badly picked analogy. Should have just said that his economic prognosis is just wrong.
|
On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game.
Yeah... I'm surprised the Russians haven't pulled the Kosovo card yet. It's most relevant to the situation in Crimea/Ukraine. Not that Russia has enough leverage considering how hypocritical their accusers are, but the Kosovo one would be a big trump/troll card in this drama fest.
On March 04 2014 10:54 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:41 Derez wrote:On March 04 2014 10:24 Liquid`Drone wrote:On March 04 2014 09:17 BronzeKnee wrote:
The US invasion was terrible and a joke. I'm ashamed the US did that and I stood against it. Still, it doesn't mean Russia can do this.
The point is that the same thing happened then as what happens now. Almost everyone outside the US was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. US still followed through, no consequences, because they're so strong. In fact many European countries went directly against the will of their population and supported the invasion. Russia, same thing, war against Russia is not an option, and then we cannot make empty threats. Even North Korea gets away with their insanity because actual war is actually so incredibly terrible - and the atrocities felt by the North Korean people dwarf all possible non-war scenarios for non-Russian Crimeans. What was impossible against the USSR might not be against RU. Push Russia for another month and the price of bread in Russia won't be affordable for the average farmer anymore. Let's fuck them up that way. Oh, only on the internet do we hear such pearls of wisdom. One would think Iranians would be starving to death by now.
You forget Iraq during the sanctions. There was lots of starving to death. Please don't make a sarcastic comment like that when such a grave tragedy did actually happen in recent years.
|
On March 04 2014 11:00 mcc wrote:
Actually now that I think about it, Iraq is no the best scapegoat for Russia, Kosovo is. NATO militarily forcing independence of sovereign country's region. What does that remind me ?
The problem for the West is they actually lost any high ground long ago and created the precedents themselves and now can only play the diplomatic blame game.
In Kosovo there was actual mass killing occurring, in Crimea, there is not. A very, VERY big difference.
And west still has moral high ground compared to Russia quite clearly.
|
Norway28785 Posts
On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much.
Firstly it's easy to understand why leaders are opposed to this system. Secondly it's not easy to assassinate leaders, especially not in totalitarian regimes. Cuba's not even so bad in that regard - yet CIA failed a spectacular amount of times vs Castro. Thirdly it's not like Putin is without domestic support and ubiquitously hated in Russia, it's impossible to estimate how he would fare in actual fair elections but it's safe to say that his assassination would cause a lot of outrage - we would be far, far from a "thank you for freeing us from this horrible dictator" response.
|
On March 04 2014 11:09 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much. Firstly it's easy to understand why leaders are opposed to this system. Secondly it's not easy to assassinate leaders, especially not in totalitarian regimes. Cuba's not even so bad in that regard - yet CIA failed a spectacular amount of times vs Castro. Thirdly it's not like Putin is without domestic support and ubiquitously hated in Russia, it's impossible to estimate how he would fare in actual fair elections but it's safe to say that his assassination would cause a lot of outrage - we would be far, far from a "thank you for freeing us from this horrible dictator" response.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_attempts_on_Adolf_Hitler
Relevant. Except if he meant "dronestrike on his office", which would be pretty retarded.
|
I never said or implied that Russia would like us for it.
I just think mutually going after leadership yields fewer overall casualties.
It's a pity people can't just be good.
|
On March 04 2014 10:57 zlefin wrote:
It would make more sense to just kill Putin and whatever oligarchs are pushing for this. Pity they can't just be good.
I never got why people opposed the leader assassination system. It seems like there'd be far fewer total casualties if both sides on a war just focused on taking out the other's leadership, rather than killing regular soldiers and risking civilian damage so much.
You seem to be missing the point that this situation is not exactly a "war". In modern warfare, there generally isn't any compunctions against taking out each other's leadership; indeed it is a basis of military strategy. Except to use as a figurehead after the war in the case of certain victory, like Saddam Hussein or Gaddafi, in which case USA killed everybody around that figurehead, (especially brutal in the case of Gaddafi as virtually every male relative of his was killed).
|
The land of freedom23126 Posts
You need to understand that killing leader/sudden death of leader or other stuff like that makes absolute chaos like in Ukraine now.
So it has to be done if I can put it like that, only in absolute clinical situations plus you need to have some person who has nuff authority to lead country after it.
It's basically trouble of every CIS-country. There are almost no new faces in politics in comparison with end of 90s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
