We all hold our breath to see how the fire before us will be extinguished. Fighting fire with fire sometimes works, but most of the time, it accelerates. So much determines the blaze, wind, rain, terrain. Should man intervene-- can be answered by will it eventually die out (or not)--in some places, it is better to let it go. Other times, it threatens the existence of many lives and can be considered a tinderbox, which be best extinguished as soon as possible.
It's really too late to talk about prevention when the fire has begun, and who would want to accelerate a situation like the current one regardless of the cause. Does it really matter who started it? It must stop before it spreads. Doing nothing also carries a risk. If it gets too big, who can handle it?
How do you stop a fire from accelerating further--try to remove the agents that burn or cause the damage. Why does it take a fire to happen before one understands that you don't let children play with matches? What happens when diplomacy fails?
Storage facilities of chemicals can become dangerous explosives--one must move carefully in determining what the course of action must be...the blaze must be contained, the risk removed.
Just how is that accomplished unless all are aboard working in unity toward its resolve? What IS at stake here? Fire can grow with every wrong move. It may not end well and serious concerns are best determined on our knees.
The crossroad--should we just walk away and let it burn...Or, intervene and cause a greater flame...knowing either way the fire may be unable to contain and at this point--a no win situation.
Do we walk away to face it on another day? Who started this fire that threatens the existence of so many? Lord have mercy on us all.
2 weeks ago