Not necessarily. A lot of times society is not the product of a ruler but the ruler is a product of society. If it is the latter, an assassination will only bring in a new, most likely worse, [insert whatever].

Point taken.

FUUUUU.....hhh.
 

Eighteen-inch guns?? Missouri class???

I keep telling you, tw: copyedit, copyedit.

The name ship of the class was the IOWA (BB-61), you nonGoogling good example of a bad example! Your carelessness outside your specialty (about which you do not write) keeps your credibility in the negative numbers. And never, ever, do you clean up your act. Standards in your writing? Either you have none, or you leave them too low.

I'll leave you the chance to discover the actual size of the Iowa class' main battery on your own.

It's actually pretty fun. Battleships have an ominous yet undeniable beauty to them, like a fighter plane or a naked sword.

Better to look at Hugo Chavez. Bush said things that were pretty blunt. Blunt is not the same as stupid. Did bluntness get in the way of consensus? Perhaps so, but it only flaked off what would have been the weak sisters and other myopics insufficiently committed to democracy to see it emerge in places there hadn't been any recently. As you know, I regard such insufficiency with a very jaundiced eye.

Our foreign problems all come from places that don't have democracies running them. And those problems are general; they are not directed solely at America.

What happens if this equation changes and democracies run those places?

It's a war. Quacks like a duck, etcetera.

Congressionally declared states of war carry with them enlarged government authority, so declaration is heavy with internal political consequence: Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the duration. Jane Fonda might be either in exile as long as Roman Polanski, or only recently out of prison after being convicted of treason per Article III, Section 3 para 1, US Constitution. Things like that.

But, since the Constitution does not forbid calling out the Army without a Congressional declaration, and it is clear that the option of sending troops, and quickly, without having to put the entire nation on a war footing each time has some real advantages in promoting national policy, the precedent runs about 150 shooting affrays with or in foreign places to 5 Congressional declarations -- and they're still wars. Just various sizes.

Come to 9-11, the feeling both nationwide and on Capitol Hill was that while a declaration of war would very much focus the nation's energies on beating the kaffiyehs off the foe, such a response was somehow misaimed or disproportionate. Not, in the end, right.

None of which tergiversation makes trying to win the fight illegal.

Were it illegal, we're, what? Not supposed to win? Keerist. What's up with that?

And when you really think about what's up with that, it gives you the creeps.

Which is why the exhausting, expensive business of being defeated in a war proves a better resetter of societal rules, viz., 1939-45 Germany, Italy, and Japan. Everyone has their nose rubbed in and-how'd-that-work-for-you? They realize it didn't, and make the necessary sweeping ruleset change.

Did the CIA 'Cook the Books' on Iran?
By Herbert E. Meyer
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/..._books_on.html


Herbert E. Meyer served during the Reagan Administration as Special Assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence and Vice Chairman of the U.S. National Intelligence Council. He is widely credited with being the first senior U.S. intelligence official to forecast the Soviet Union's collapse, for which he later was awarded the U.S. National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal. He is author of How to Analyze Information and The Cure for Poverty.

Obama (out loud): "Iran, remember when you asked to meet... back in post #205? I'm ready to meet with you now."

NY Times: U.S. to Accept Iran’s Proposal to Hold Face-to-Face Talks

Obama (secretly): "Guys, meeting with Iran isn't going to actually work... get ready to fuck them."

Jerusalem Post: US shifting Iran policy toward sanctions

Making one more attempt to talk first to determine the seriousness of Iran's interest in negotiation seems reasonable.
If talks are unproductive...proceed with sanctions.

Makes sense to me.

Makes sense to me too. The dance is being danced, and being danced well.

Diplomacy is dancing and talking while keeping the big stick visible at your side. IMO, that is always a better approach then waving the big stick first and attempting to publicly bully and/or humiliate your adversary.

Yea, and when they drop a nuke on Israel or visa versa I will remind you of this.

So what would you prefer America to do in relation to Iran?

Negotiate. Force them to keep the Nukes they and everyone else knows they are making on the table. I would and think we need to continue to foster elements within their country who oppose the current radical elements.

In the end we may need to allow Israel to bomb the fuck out of the infrastructure and defense. They have one large gas refinery. They have lots of oil but one refinery. Bomb the hell out of it. Do not invade. Give them payback for the damage they did to US and UK troops in Iraq. Otherwise I would just sit on them. We owe the government nothing. I say we embrace the people.

Iran: "We're ready to cooperate with you."
UN: "If you ship your uranium to Russia, we will return to you uranium that's ready for use in nuclear power plants."
Iran: "Fuck you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/30/wo...er=rss&emc=rss