General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsmorningfog
(18,115 posts)Taverner
(55,476 posts)By the rebels themselves...I wonder if this will just blow over
Or not...Hans Blix was ignored in the buildup to Iraq
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)bandied about. We do not know.
By going to Congress, the President is allowing more time to see which stories are true and which are not. A good decision on his part.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)MineralMan
(146,288 posts)What you posted may be true, or it may not. You do not know. None of us knows.
As for the decision on what is and is not our business, that's also an open question, and the answer isn't going to come from a discussion forum on the Internet, to be quite frank.
Personally, I'm of two minds on this whole thing, and don't have adequate information to draw any conclusions on the wisdom of acting in the face of this chemical weapons incident. I doubt you have any more information than I have, but you appear to have decided what should not be done. Good for you. Perhaps a press release from you is in order...
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Anyone who thinks this is a "good war" needs their head, soul and empathy checked.
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)My opinion is that I have not formed an opinion yet. Generally, my opinion is that we should not be involved in the Middle East at all. That opinion is not held by many in government, so it is unlikely to happen.
Given that, I have not decided what I think should be done about Syria yet. I'm still waiting for more information and more accurate information.
But, you certainly can have what every opinion you hold. That's everyone's right.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Other than stop watching Rambo movies
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)that I am. I'm not OK with the deaths of those who died from being gassed, and I'm not OK with the deaths of innocent people who have died in drone attacks, either. You will not find me saying I'm OK with any of that, because I'm not.
I'm not OK with warfare. That does not mean that I do not recognize that warfare exists. It does exist, and management of it is a very difficult thing, and way beyond my abilities.
Your assumption about me is incorrect. Please don't assume you know how I feel about anything. You're always welcome to just ask me, and I will tell you. In the case of Syria, the answer is that I'm not sure what should happen. I am sure that people have died, and equally sure that more will die, whatever happens.
That's why I'm not in favor of warfare. But, again, I'm not in any way in control of warfare.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)And that's OK?
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)You have no idea what actions are being contemplated by the President, if action is taken. Yet, you claim to know how many casualties there will be. I'm afraid I can't take you all that seriously on this. At this point, no actions will be taken.
We can discuss it again if there are actions taken, OK? Until then, it's not of any real value. You know no more than I do, so your predictions are relatively worthless at this time. I'm making no predictions, you see.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)Do you see a pattern here?
I don't think we have perfected the smart bomb that only kills bad guys
We only have depleted uranium, which kills thousands, indiscriminately
MineralMan
(146,288 posts)See ya.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Let them debate and vote. If they approve it, I will still be opposed, but at least Congress has appropriately been involved.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)well now. Good thing they are not thought of as speaking 'the least untruthful' thing and all.