Syria has no King. Nor is the U.S. selling weapons to Syria. The reference to Syria's "King" was a rhetorical device to try to get the reader to pay more attention and reflect.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Why "king"? Just because Assad inherited his post from his father, > that doesn't mean that he's a king. Being a king usually requires some > sort of formal institution of kingship. Did the fact that Lurleen > Wallace inherited the governorship of Alabama from her husband George > make her a "queen" and him a "king"? In the case of both the Assads > and the Wallaces, there was some sort of election (however bogus) for > handing down the leadership role, so at least on paper, we're talking > about (small-r) republicanism. Of course, there's no point in arguing > about definitions. If Assad is a king, Kim Jong-un is one too. > > (I've always preferred the Ace or the Joker.) > -- > Jim Devine / If you're going to support the lesser of two evils, you > should at least know the nature of that evil. > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l -- Robert Naiman Policy Director Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org [email protected] _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
