No, it's a civilian instrument of death. Power is, when distilled to its basest form, the ability to create or end life. The People only have true power over their government, when they are capable of directly exercising power over their government.
So you are claiming people only have power over their government when they have the ability to murder government officals? Look at Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. Lots of armed attacks on government their. Are these countries truly free? Look at Norway, Sweden and Japan. Stable, peaceful, democratic countries. Strict gun control. Almost no anti-government violence or treat of violence. I would say that these countries might be free than the United State.
The 2nd Amendment guarantees all the others, when coupled with diligence.

Skengman!

You are an awesome set of contradictions.

You have upped the IQ of the forum, despite your toxic arrogance, which fortunately comes just short of cancelling out your worthwhile contributions to the forum.

Damn... I hate to say this... but it's good to have you back.

The Syria issue is FAR from clear cut.

And for the record
There is NO way skengman is anyone's sockpuppet. You just can't make this shit up. So let's put that to rest.

You scare me... and there is plenty I don't agree with you about... but stick around.

No. I called your bluff and now you are moving the goalposts. Or else, what? Russia can supply China the energy, along with other countries as well, under adverse conditions. Then what?

No superpower surrenders its sovereign freedom of action and if you do something like that they will dig in. Then you have to up the ante, so then what else?

Doesn't matter how you gussy it up, ultimatums is ultimatums. There's no way the Chinese government would cave in, in front of its nationalistic base, to some sort of American blackmail. That's why they have nukes and that's why they are on the security councils Permanent Five. They are very touchy about being taken seriously and they are fiercely protective of their independence. Not to mention that they have a lot of client states that supply them, that wont go along with that, in the general assembly. So what then?

You think Australia is going to agree to stop selling China coal... for Syrians? How is that in Australia's national interest?

the syrian government is fighting an armed insurgency by sectarian religious militants,

I'm a superpower. I gets my energy, or I make trouble for you. Simple as that. Not getting what you want with ultimatums.

Now, maybe I'm worried about my image, or keeping my options open if Assad falls, but don't fuck around.

I'll decide what is an attack against me, and economic warfare has a double edged sword. Cuts both ways, mutherfucker, so you'll regret poking me in the eye, bet that.

got it. but didn't you get what i meant? sun tzu said the worst strategy is siege because of the resources required. after that comes invasion because of the resources required to supply an army away from home. the best way to defeat an enemy is by removing his ability to fight through diplomacy, alliances, and economics. yes it is all the aimed at making a neighbor do what you want, which is where we are in syria. but there are better ways to do it than direct military action. are you with me on this?

the scenario was a hypothetical way to address a situation without firing shots. sure it isn't always applicable or maybe even ever, but it was an example to try to illustrate what i was getting at. there are always other cards on the table than sending in the marines. additionally there is the question of whether or not it is for us to do anything at all, but that can be assumed when talking about hypotheticals over what to do, not whether or not to do.

Clinton suggests Syrian rebels will get arms
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton suggested on Thursday Syria's opposition will ultimately arm itself and said she would bet against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's staying in power.

Speaking directly to Russia and China, which have blocked U.N. Security Council resolutions designed to end the violence in Syria, Clinton said the government's "brutality" against its own people was unsustainable in the internet age.

"The strategy followed by the Syrians and their allies is one that can't stand the test of legitimacy or even brutality for any length of time," Clinton told reporters in London.

"There will be increasingly capable opposition forces. They will from somewhere, somehow, find the means to defend themselves as well as begin offensive measures," she added.

"It is clear to me there will be a breaking point. I wish it would be sooner, so that more lives would be saved, than later, but I have absolutely no doubt there will be such a breaking point."

Speaking ahead of a gathering of Western and Arab powers on Friday, U.S. officials separately said the group planned to challenge Assad to provide humanitarian access within days to civilians under assault by his forces.

The officials, speaking before a "Friends of Syria" meeting expected to gather more than 70 nations and international groups in Tunis, did not say what specific consequences would follow if Syrian authorities failed to provide access.

The Syrian military pounded rebel-held Sunni Muslim districts of Homs city for the 20th day on Thursday, despite international protest over the previous day's death toll of more than 80, including two Western journalists, activists said.

"One of the things you are going to see coming out of the meeting tomorrow are concrete proposals on how we, the international community, plan to support humanitarian organizations ... within days, meaning that the challenge is on the Syrian regime to respond to this," said a U.S. official. . .

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/23/us-syria-conference-challenge-idUSTRE81M23R20120223

Can't chirp at Russia and China about international law, or "responsibility to protect" once you have picked a side.

But we will.