2 ms·

> Populace there is unarmed So, we should give them weapons? > disorganised and divided You think that overthrowing their government would work? Maybe with s

> Populace there is unarmed So, we should give them weapons? > disorganised and divided You think that overthrowing their government would work? Maybe with some "special military operation" perhaps? > "we're afraid to confront your bully, he's just too strong and cruel for us." Or maybe - we have a rule where we don't try to assasinate leaders unless strictly necessary. And before you say about Iraq and nin Laden - that was USA operation, not NATO. But I still think that would be best solution which minimises losses in people. But try to do this, even bin Laden was not found in one week, it would be much harder to find Putin in some vault. Plus, after he is killed, there will be some other former KGB agent to replace him.

philovivero 5y ago
> we have a rule where we don't try to assasinate leaders unless strictly necessary And yet, here we are. Maybe this is the rule that needs to change. How many of these wars will we see in the coming decades if we simply start assassinating the leaders of aggressive countries? I understand there are often power vacuums and things can be worse afterward, but maybe a good, 20-year run of assassinating aggressive world leaders would lead us to a better place. Why is it always the average Joe that has to pay his life for the leaders?