I don't buy into the premise of their arguement

[IsItJustMe]

In a nut shell, the Obama administrations arguement for bombing Syria is "We can't afford to not take action".

I find this arguement exremely weak in three different ways

1) The arguement is just to damn simplistic. It reminds me of GWB's bumper sticker mentality of, 'You are either for us, or against us'.

2) Does the Obama administration have a chrstall ball? Maybe we can afford to do nothing, and maybe that is exactly what we should be doing. Inaction is action and sometimes when nothing is done, evrything gets done.

3) Who says that the only action that can be taken here has to be bombing Syria? I am absolutley sure that if enough smart people put their heads together they could come up effective ways to deter Assad from using chemical weapons without militarily involving this country in their conflict. Just because you have a hammer (US military) does not mean that everything else are nails (bombing Syria).

[JustAnotherGen]

1. What the Syrian government has

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014589850#post28

Really needs to be handed over to the internationl community immediately. Even Russia says so. . .

[FSogol]

2. Exactly and maybe "talk" of war is enough to make it happen.

There will need to be some dialing back by the bash Obama and Kerry crowd.

[JustAnotherGen]

3. I hope so

If this works - they better mea culpa all day long. I said on Friday I had comfort and hope in the very long process of determination . . . Had this been Bush/Cheney it would have been 'done already'. And they know it.