There comes a time when the inner workings of a democratic Nation must assemble behind their leaders. Such is the case today. Sometimes the International sphere gets out of balance and belligerent words begin to dominate the International rhetoric. Of course, the International sphere has more variables than any one National sphere. In a democracy, each Nation has an obligation to its People, but it also has an obligation to the International sphere. However, some Nations are not concerned with the first obligation and instead think about ways to acquire control and rule other Nations. The only possible reason for that attitude has to be because of the need for more egoistic,personal Power over the International sphere, or more weapons of mass-destruction with which to acquire more personal power over the International sphere. But, this attitude pre-supposses that the peoples of the Nation are totally behind their leader. There are two reasons underlying that National attitude. Either all the people support their leader or they become the victims of their leader's whims. I doubt very seriously that every man, woman, and child,including young people, who are in the military and those who are not, prefer a condition of war instead of some peaceable solution.( especially in the International sphere) So,the issue is how does one get some control over such a dangerous condition? Unfortunately, the problem reduces itself to a personal problem. If the leader had weapons of mass destruction, he would have already started something besides just talking. Hence, the problem gets very personal; one that requires a better relationship between the leader and his People. Of course, Revolution within the Country is the answer. However, it's an over-simplification to state that that solution is easy. The reason being that they don't have a First amendment, viz. the right to assemble. The Peoples of a dictatorship are compelled to follow their leader. Hence, either the leader 'changes' his mind or the People revolt. Revolution is difficult in a dictator-ship; the former can only be viable in a leader that understands his primary obligation to his own people. Surely, there's enough work to be done within the Country, than to extend the limits of personal power outside its boundaries into the International sphere. This attitude calls for a re-focus of personal power within its proper political domain (where it belongs) and not Internationally. There are many Countries that in their 'togetherness' can organize for the purpose of imposing International stability. Lets hope the leader re-evaluates his decision. Sometimes 'power-hunger' is 'allowed' within a Country, but extending it Internationally is not allowed.