When to remove foreign leaders?

A promising thread recently got stalled on technical grounds, so I thought a different approach might fare better.
In the past 236 years there have been many foreign leaders the US and its citizens have seriously disliked.
If you could set permanent criteria for US policy regarding foreign leaders, how would you divide them between those we should remove by force, up to and including a declaration of war, those we should oppose diplomatically and those we should ignore?
I welcome input from non-Americans, including people from countries whose governments may have been altered by US intervention.

 

Go home and shoot all your generals.

 

What if the U.S. House had decided just that on December 11, 1941?

I'm sure glad you aren't in any kind of position of power.

 

Why? I can't shoot your generals, and what I was saying, essentially, is mind your own business and stoop interfering where nobody wants you.

 

Then you should say that. These little one-line sensationalist posts detract from the quality on PF.

 

The best Foreign Policy NATO could possibly have at the moment is to get Russia on our side. It could be done, quite easily. Culturally, Economically and Socially we are not miles apart. Culturally, Economically and Socially both sides would gain massively.

It seems every day that Russia is becoming more westernised...and as we see this new shift in world power, we should act upon it before they get involved to heavily with the rest of the BRIC's.

Imagine how the 2 sides would benefit if Russia was able to trade military goods with the rest of Europe/NATO? Imagine if Russia and the EU became a free market? Imagine if Russia became part of the EU? Imagine if Russia shared a missile defence system in Europe, with the EU nations? Imagine the influence this alliance would bring?

The fact is, if we don't get them on our team, someone else will. As the world sees a shift in power, Russia has an awful lot to offer.

I know my fantastical idea sounds a bit looney, but is it really that extreme?

BRIC's vs NATO = Stalemate
BIC's vs NATO and Russia = No contest.

 

Matter of taste. I find most American extremists unbelievably wordy - and prosy with it. Is it slowness of intellect, birdie, I cried/Or a very tough worm in your little inside?

 

I think removing three foreign leaders are enough for one decade.

 

I think there is room for one more....

 

You'll have to translate that into 'Merican english.

 

You can have diplomatic relations as you see fit. As for military entanglements, I would think a nation should have none. As for humanitarian endeavors and warfare, there is only one basis - that of self defence. This means that when it comes to intervention, the country in question must have an internally popular desire for intervention, plus there must be a decisive collection of data to suggest clear victory and positive outcomes. Given the overwhelming majority of US military endeavors have been aggressive, oppressive and with poor outcomes, these basic requirements should be respected before any new grand strategy for world order is constructed.

 

Sorry - I don't speak anything simple enough - and I don't have to do anything: I am not an American.

 

Sorry - I assumed the immanent British manners would overwhelm your bitter heart for a moment and you'd take the time to decipher for a lowly provincial; Apparently, I was wrong.