Say you were the leader of a large country, your populace was loyal to you, your military was the strongest in the area. You had no fear of your neighbors and they nearly paid tribute to you.

Say that recently you had started up negotiations with one of your neighbors to create an alliance, a new country. You proposed that it would be beneficial to everyone (mostly yourself) and their borders would be dropped. You never expected him to say anything but yes, but as soon as you finish the word 'dropped' he immediately stands up and says that the meeting is over.

Annoyed with this resistant leader, you start negotiations with the others. This time you're a bit more aggressive in pushing your agenda. Out of fear, they join you. They drop their borders and your troops pour over the borders to their new assignments on the other side. What you had hoped would be a satisfying day crinkles after all of your plans had not worked.

One country had refused without a word of discussion. Every time you think of the dismissal, your blood runs a little hotter, and you're angry at the once-afraid country that refused your proposal. So you make a plan in your anger, your western borders are still brimming with troops and you decide to declare war if another meeting is refused or goes badly.

You set up another meeting and he refuses once again. Before he leaves, you reach into your pocket and pull out a radio connected to your military commander and your guards outside. You have a couple seconds to think about it.

What would you choose? Be honest about it, I myself would declare war before he leaves and take him prisoner, I have the advantage, and I'd take it. Declaring war wouldn't cause too much pain, his people are poor and ignorant. They are already subservient to their strong neighbor (you) and would accept your leadership easily.

I'd like to seperate the humanists from the realists here. If you declare war, the pitious country with the rebellious leader would fall and you'd have completed your goals. On the other hand, if the leader is like this, maybe the country is stronger than you thought. The country is prideful and considering the leader's attitude, it is likely that many of the people would share that. The invasion could lead to the suffering of tens of thousands. Or none.

Again I ask, would you declare war on the country that resisted your will?

Consider the question carefully and answer.

__________________
"Currency is god."

"Life is eternal, but never meaningless."

"If there is anything America needs, it's more lawyers."
Lionel Hutz, from the The Simpsons

If was that leader, I would do the same thing. I would keep my lunch money away from the bully even if he has something "better" to do with it.

But since i am the bully, I would stay out of the situation. My purpose is to protect the people of the other country by brining them under a better government, and killing thousands would hardly help my agenda. Also, The resentment that would fester would most likely make this region unstable and dangerous for years to come.

Putting aside my own objections to the whole thought of invasion, the losses are to great.

__________________
Never assume conspiracy when incompetence will suffice

If it would benefit me and my country substantially, then yes, I'd declare war and take the leader captive.

However, If the country was heavily dependent on mine economically, I'd just place sanctions on it and pressure the leader into an agreement.

__________________

Taking my cue from the noble ruler in my sig. I would take the leader captive, place him in a large sack, and trample him to death with horses. Then burn their cities, kill the men, enslave their wives and take their daughters as my concubines......Its good to be the Kahn.

__________________
"Oh people, know that you have committed great sins. If you ask me what proof I have for these words, I say it is because I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you!" -- Genghis Khan, Bukhara 1220

If I was that bullying leader, knowing already that my military can easily roll over his nation and take it over. I will do it in a proper way in such a way that will be reputable in accordance to international law or to the Geneva Convention this will cause very little protest among neighboring nations. And project me as a decent conqueror

Of course I will present all kinds of justification and bribe other powerful nations to either stay out o fit or give their approval.

On the other hand if I were that smaller nation, in order for my nation to survive I must balance my foreign policies out; enter into a military alliance with other powerful nations but for that to happen I must be willing to give up certain sovereignty to the other powerful nations or else they will not support me. Negotiate with my bullying nation give in to their consention try to keep my little nation's sovereignty, use consention to buy time time for my nation to become powerful and influencial and or time for my bullying nation to become weak.

__________________
"The wise is never confused; the benevolent is never worried, & the courageous is never afraid." CONFUCIUS

Honestly, I'd let the guy go, and then pressure him economically and diplomatically. The military shouldn't be used for shock value, and in the end it would better for everyone involved.

__________________
"If Hitler invaded hell I would make at least a favorable reference to the devil"
-Winston Churchill

"It is dangerous to be right on matters where the established authority is wrong."
-Voltaire

you made me laugh for a hour
thank you

__________________
The nice thing about being right is that you don't have to change your mind.