For the life of me, I don't know why we enter some horrific areas and not others. I don't buy the we did not do "x" therefore we should do nothing (not your argument) that I have heard. I also do not buy we have to do everything. I fully approve of our more communal approach to the world (a la Libya or Bush 41) and feel we have an important role in that community.
Originally Posted by The Schmooze
In another thread I spoke of the middle east as being as complex as three dimensional chess, and Syria is a great example. Assad has had Iran and Russia on his side. Both have had a defined interest in keeping him in power. Russia looks like it is peeling off, leaving Iran alone. Iran has a relationship with Russia, so, I am guessing they are being pressured. It might be that this will end up with the diplomatic ending that is the best of all possible endings, with Assad fleeing, no bombing, Russia keeps its port, etc.
On the other hand, if Assad did not learn from Libya, he might meet a similar end, and unfortunately, Syria has a huge stash of chemical weapons (they were a non signer to eliminate them) and there would then be a lot of blood shed. Lets hope Assad goes to what ever country will offer him asylum before the blood bath that is already Syria, gets worse.
Here is the question of the day, does anyone think that wealthy people should pay a lower percentage of their income to taxes than middle class people? Don't argue tax brackets, just a simple question. Do you think someone earning 46 million dollars should pay a lower percentage of their income than say someone earning sixty thousand?