I'll take that as a "yes" - you do support the military strikes, just not "blindly." But I think "blindly" fits anyways.
I guess I need to ask in Saudi Arabia. It seems we have decided to back the Sunnis in their age old battle with the Shia. Perhaps only they know what victory looks like. Sort of odd though, it seem like it kind of Sunni civil war in which the Shia also are against ISIS. I don't have a good feeling about this.
That's pretty dangerous thinking. Having a "no opinion" on matters where our government is killing thousands of people is crazy.
I consider it dangerous thinking when people pretend to have very certain, knowledgeable opinions on things they have no training to deal with. I also have no opinion on much of the research at CERN, because I don't have an advanced physics degree. It's silly to act like we are all qualified to have serious opinions on everything, whether it's an important issue or not. You're free to "have an opinion" even if you have no real knowledge or experience in making such decisions. I'm free to think your opinion is probably uninformed.
Okay so you are blindly following those that have "official training", because you don't have the "know how" to make an opinion? Would you take that same account if they decided to nuke Siria?
Since you apparently don't know what "no opinion" means, it means that I neither endorse nor condemn the air strikes. I recognize that it's one reasonable approach, but I'm not sure that it's the best one, nor am I sure that there's a better option. Using a nuclear weapon isn't really in the constellation of reasonable approaches, so I'd condemn that.
Holding "no opinion" is giving our government the right to do what they see fit without recourse. "Your opinion" is the "checks and balances" our constitution talks about
I didn't actually. I waited to see how it played out and then criticized Bush for going to war on what turned out to be flimsy evidence. Having no way to evaluate the truth claims (since I am not privy to CIA reports and such), I have no ability to decide the merits of a case until the information comes out, one way or the other. I know it stupefies blowhards like you not to shout opinions with 100% certitude every step of the way, but it's actually smart in cases where you don't have all the information.
Giving uninformed opinions isn't what "checks and balances" mean. Checks and balances apply to the branches of government, who have far better information than individual citizens, checking the power of each other. Your "no recourse" thing is also clearly silly. Whether I agree or disagree with an action, neither I nor anyone else outside of Congress can immediately remove a politician from office. Recourse for politicians is being voted out, which can be done after seeing what they do, what the results are and what information they turned out to have. You know, informed voting. Or you can pretend to already know what's going to happen.
I don't know everything that is happening, but I definitely have an opinion on the matter. And that is hardly a foolish way of thinking. I want to make sure our government knows there are concerned citizens that want our government to stay on their toes. Having "no opinion" doesn't do that for them. If you wait for all the information, it maybe too late. The damage will already be done and it's too late. We can use the GW invasion of Iraq as reference. You waited until it was too late to make your "opinion" count. The damage was already done
Yes, absolutely. If I had said on an internet message forum that I was against it, even before I was against it, the Iraq invasion would never have happened. All the lives lost in that war are on my head, and I accept that. And yet I still have no opinion on these air strikes currently.
You can make a hyperbole response all you want, but it's not just you. The combined voice of hundreds of millions of Americans speak loud. It's those that think like you that make the voice less powerful. This "message board" is just explaining your lack of concern, with openly admitting that you have no opinion until the damage is already done.
What did you think when Clinton said Saddam had WMDs? When he said he had them within months of leaving office? When he said he had them within days of W's decision? I think you duck the question because it shows you change your mind with the party in the executive office.
It is just me. And people shouldn't speak up for or against something when they aren't sure. That's stupid. It's also stupid to be sure on every topic, no matter how complex.
Do you have all the information on the GW invasion? I would bet not... Yet here you are with an opinion on the matter.
