> 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

> 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?