This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
OK, so while you're thinking about or ignoring my other question (no problem there) what about this: Why is it any of our business to be involved in Syria in the first place? If you say, "Because this faction did such and such and we don't agree with that so we are going to bomb the shit out of someone", then other countries will say, "Yeah, well we don't agree so we're going to start bombing the shit out of you" and pretty soon everybody is bombing the shit out of everybody and in 2018 THIS IS NOT A FUCKING GOOD IDEA!
Syria is only on the US radar because of an oil pipline
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Rwanda... never went at all.
Clinton made an appearance after things had settled down and apologized for western indifference, but he did so as Air Force One idled on the runway- which he hopped in immediately after speaking and flew home.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Rwanda... never went at all.
Clinton made an appearance after things had settled down and apologized for western indifference, but he did so as Air Force One idled on the runway- which he hopped in immediately after speaking and flew home.
I didn’t know that. For some reason I thought a few hundred troops were sent in.
I guess Trump's airstrike were constitutional after all: "The president has asserted authority under Article II of the Constitution for these strikes, but any sustained military action in Syria would require congressional authorization," Senator Melendez (D) said. "I expect the Trump administration to promptly brief Congress on these strikes, their plan for Syria, including countering Russian and Iranian support for the regime, and any future use of military force." http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/how_njs_senators_reacted_to_trumps_air_strikes_in.html
I guess if it is one and done it is cool but anything else needs to be authorized by congress.
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
I’m not sure China is my moral compass. I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
I’m not sure China is my moral compass. I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
Add North Korea to that sentence.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
people who would normally be anti-war would not support intervening against a country unless it is believed that the country is evil and/or the leader is satan reborn ... the so called humanitarian cause for war ...
I'm not normally anti-war. I'm always anti-war.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
My point being, presidents do what they want and then the opposite party ridicules and complains. A few years later, a different political party does the same type of complaining when the same issue occur. Double standard. You can’t be a Democrat and bitch and moan about trump s Syrian strikes but support Obama’s just a few years before. Same can be said of Republicans.
“Our number one priority is to see this president fail.”
I just saw this. A common phrase used by both democrat and republican.
I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
so Afghanistan 01 was ok? and going with pearl harbor...remember the japanese invaded china first which resulted in the u.s. cutting japan's oil supply. they needed oil in the dutch east indies so they thought they could take america out by a sneak attack. however japan was ignored during the treaty of versailles so we could actually put blame on the english and french.
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
I’m not sure China is my moral compass. I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
so the countries we know have lied are trustworthy but china and russia aren't ... at the end of the day - what is wrong or irrational with what they posted ... what if anything they wrote is unreasonable ...
isn't that what justice is founded on? ... get the evidence ... get the facts ... then decide? ... avoid war at all costs?
My point being, presidents do what they want and then the opposite party ridicules and complains. A few years later, a different political party does the same type of complaining when the same issue occur. Double standard. You can’t be a Democrat and bitch and moan about trump s Syrian strikes but support Obama’s just a few years before. Same can be said of Republicans.
“Our number one priority is to see this president fail.”
I just saw this. A common phrase used by both democrat and republican.
Please quote me the democrat senate majority leader who said this mere hours after an election. Please quote me any elected dem member of the house or senate who may have said it. Please quote me any elected dem in the history of the republic who said it.
Both sides are not the same, unless you believe in false equivalencies.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that onliy happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Pittsburgh 2013 Cincinnati 2014 Greenville 2016 (Raleigh 2016) Columbia 2016
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
so Afghanistan 01 was ok? and going with pearl harbor...remember the japanese invaded china first which resulted in the u.s. cutting japan's oil supply. they needed oil in the dutch east indies so they thought they could take america out by a sneak attack. however japan was ignored during the treaty of versailles so we could actually put blame on the english and french.
WWII is was as clear cut as we're taught in school. Yeah, China really got screwed (and eaten) by the Japanese. Maybe if we had given more supply support, I don't know. The Japanese were under some weird emperor worship spells. The were a screwed up people then. But the Japanese culture is also marvelous in ways. I dig the Japanese of today and in other periods of their history too.
Afghanistan? My feeling is that's another resource war. I never saw any real purpose for our being there.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
OK, so Syria. Do we even really understand what's going on there? It reminds me of the Angolan Civil war- a complete clusterfuck where you had all these factions ebbing, flowing, weaving in and out. A ridiculous mess. Same with Syria. Getting involved in Syria is like stepping into the ring with ten rabid dogs. I say, give the refuges a hand but stay the hell out of the pit. It's pointless to get involved that way.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.
0
Options
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,682
It also might be worth noting that it is very unlikely for a war-time president to be impeached.
Hmmmmmmm...
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
My point being, presidents do what they want and then the opposite party ridicules and complains. A few years later, a different political party does the same type of complaining when the same issue occur. Double standard. You can’t be a Democrat and bitch and moan about trump s Syrian strikes but support Obama’s just a few years before. Same can be said of Republicans.
“Our number one priority is to see this president fail.”
I just saw this. A common phrase used by both democrat and republican.
No not one Democrat stepped up and said that about this current president at least not a high ranking Democrat , we can all remember clears as if it was yesterday Turtle face McConnell saying it the next day after Obama won election ...
This is a very interesting discussion in my opinion. I certainly see Polaris’s point in the sameness game plan each time and people always buy it. My initial reaction to all of this was that Assad gased people and the missiles are justified. But I’m trying to look around a bit more. I will say it’s a huge freakin leap to declare the US/UK/France as evil empires and cast Assad as a humanitarian man of the people and Russia and Iran as protectors of all that is right.
As usual, it’s probably somewhere in the middle.
* the two previous alleged chemical attacks were debunked * the OPCW is about to do its investigation in Dhouma * if there is so much actual evidence of Assad atrocities ... gaining Congressional approval and UN Security council approval should be easy * these strikes are illegal on all fronts ... goes against UN charter
definitely please do look around ... i've posted a bunch of stuff and I welcome you to critically think about all of it ... question, as you have, everything ... if you do it with an open mind ... then that's all I could hope for ...
Russia used their veto 12 times in regards to Syria? I mean, being one of the only “no” votes and blocking so has to be part of the problem.
you mean like how the US vetoes everything related to Israel?
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
Yes just like that. So why is it bad for the US and ok for Russia?
well ... it's not as simple as no one should veto because we know that each member state has their own interests ... it's why I mentioned china ... china would never approve of a military strike in Syria ... did you read the chinese statement? ... what part of it is potentially unreasonable to you?
I’m not sure China is my moral compass. I read it. I’m still not sure what I think, but I sure as shit don’t think China or Russia is going to be 100% honest and transparent and take them at face value, ever.
so the countries we know have lied are trustworthy but china and russia aren't ... at the end of the day - what is wrong or irrational with what they posted ... what if anything they wrote is unreasonable ...
isn't that what justice is founded on? ... get the evidence ... get the facts ... then decide? ... avoid war at all costs?
I’m not saying that. And if you don’t think we know russia and China have lied about things then I’m not sure what to say. My point is it’s pretty weird to me to go railing on how awful the us/uk/France are and pretending russia is a prom queen.
i think you are going way to far in your willingness to believe some of those sources...similar to what you are saying about others and their media.
IMO: World war 2: justified Korea: justified Cuban Missile Crisis: justified Vietnam: not justified Cambodia/Laos: I see why they did it so on the fence Grenada: justified Nicaragua: justified Kuwait/Iraq 91: justified Rwanda: justified but went in too late Serbia/Bosnia: justified Afghanistan: justified Iraq: not justified ISIS: justified based on a not justified war Syria: too soon to tell
Sorry McG but I only agree with maybe 8% of this.
say what? so you agreed with me on only two of these?
No McG, sorry, only 7/8. But then, I suck at math so...
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
Wow, so if Japan didn’t bomb Pearl Harbor, you’d be okay letting Hitler kill every Jew, gypsy and gay? And that’s just to start, he would have moved on to other ethnicities from there, but as long as America never made the list there’d be no reason for us to stop him? Is that what you’re saying?
Comments
in any case - you have the US/UK and France ... known war mongers ... then you have China ... what is China's position on syria? ... here it is ...
http://bw.china-embassy.org/eng/xwdt/t1076201.htm
Dublin 2010
Madrid 2018
Werchter 2022
London 1 2022
London 2 2022
Krakow 2022
we will find a way, we will find our place
You must be Irish lol. Why all the hate?
Rwanda... never went at all.
Clinton made an appearance after things had settled down and apologized for western indifference, but he did so as Air Force One idled on the runway- which he hopped in immediately after speaking and flew home.
"The president has asserted authority under Article II of the Constitution for these strikes, but any sustained military action in Syria would require congressional authorization," Senator Melendez (D) said. "I expect the Trump administration to promptly brief Congress on these strikes, their plan for Syria, including countering Russian and Iranian support for the regime, and any future use of military force."
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2018/04/how_njs_senators_reacted_to_trumps_air_strikes_in.html
I guess if it is one and done it is cool but anything else needs to be authorized by congress.
No, seriously, only WWII only only partially. The others? No, can't say as I agree. We stick our nose where it doesn't belong. Only reason MAAAAYBE for war is if we are attacked and that only happened sort of in Hawaii (never would have if we hadn't armed HI).
and going with pearl harbor...remember the japanese invaded china first which resulted in the u.s. cutting japan's oil supply. they needed oil in the dutch east indies so they thought they could take america out by a sneak attack. however japan was ignored during the treaty of versailles so we could actually put blame on the english and french.
isn't that what justice is founded on? ... get the evidence ... get the facts ... then decide? ... avoid war at all costs?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5616533/Former-head-Britains-special-forces-says-Assad-doesnt-need-use-gas.html
Both sides are not the same, unless you believe in false equivalencies.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Cincinnati 2014
Greenville 2016
(Raleigh 2016)
Columbia 2016
Afghanistan? My feeling is that's another resource war. I never saw any real purpose for our being there.
Hmmmmmmm...
. Its all fuckin annoying now.
astoria 06
albany 06
hartford 06
reading 06
barcelona 06
paris 06
wembley 07
dusseldorf 07
nijmegen 07
this song is meant to be called i got shit,itshould be called i got shit tickets-hartford 06 -
i think you are going way to far in your willingness to believe some of those sources...similar to what you are saying about others and their media.
I kinda feel like it had to be an all or none situation. If getting involved we should have a plan to take in refugees etc