Thank you for the A2A .. What has been your biggest heartbreak during your adult years? Had I answered this question 20 years ago, it would have been the death of my Daddy Had it been 12 years ago, it would have been the death of my Mother Had it been 10 years ago, it would have been when my son turned his back on God so far that he went into satanism As it is now ~ I would have to say that the biggest heartbreak in my life was 3 years ago when I discovered (online) that my beautiful daughter had begun taking Testosterone injections. Believe me ~ I've been told time after time that her decision to do so is her own to that fact I will agree. What I cannot agree with though, is that I have no right to feel hurt, upset, or any of the other assorted emotions that come with having a transgender child!! It's not okay to be devastated by the choices my little girl makes Its not okay to not agree with what she's doing to herself It's not gonna have an impact on her family It's not something that is allowed to affect our relationship The ONLY thing that matters ~ is the transgender person and how they feel!!!! One of the biggest things that bothers me is when I'm told that I can't love my child ~ unless I accept that she wants to be a male and give her support with that decision. I can say that I do love my daughter ~ I always have ~ and I always will. A mother's love doesn't go away. ***To those who wish to attack me for what I have to say on the topic of transgenderism ~ I respect your right to tell me your opinion and why you think I'm wrong but my feelings matter, too, and deserve that same respect from you.*** Wishing you the best!! Question: Who did her son turn his back on? === The answer to the above question is

OPTIONS:
- Jesus.
- His mom.
- The Church.
- not enough information

Answer: not enough information

Problem: OPTIONS:
- after they were told that the Taliban would not negotiate.
- not enough information
- when a top official told them that the U.S. was still open to negotiations.
- before Trump said he wanted to talk to the Taliban.
Q: U.S. lawmakers grilled Trump administration officials Tuesday about the war in Afghanistan, saying the new White House strategy was inconsistent and was not producing results. The comments made at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing reflected growing frustration in Congress about the U.S.-led war, which is entering its 17th year. As recently as November, General John Nicholson, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, acknowledged that the conflict remained a stalemate. Since then, a wave of high-profile insurgent attacks have rocked the capital, Kabul. The Taliban now controls or contests almost half the country, according to latest U.S. estimates. Despite the setbacks, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, who is helping oversee the new White House strategy, gave a positive assessment of the conflict. "The president's South Asia strategy is showing some signs of progress," Sullivan said. "On the battlefield, we are seeing the Taliban's momentum begin to slow." But lawmakers from both parties expressed skepticism. "Something is clearly not working," said Senator Ben Cardin, a Maryland Democrat and longtime Afghan war critic. "By any standard, the current security situation is grim." Some lawmakers took aim at President Donald Trump, who last week said he didn't want to talk with the Taliban a statement that seemingly contradicted his own strategy. After Sullivan and a top Pentagon official told the lawmakers that the U.S. was in fact still open to negotiations with the Taliban, lawmakers pressed for more details. "You can see that the world and those involved in the peace process may be pretty confused about what the U.S. position is. What is it?" asked Senator Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat. Sullivan said he thought Trump was expressing a reaction to last month's terrorist attacks, and was pointing out that "significant elements of the Taliban are not prepared to negotiate." "And it may take a long time before they are willing to negotiate," he added. But many in the Senate appear... Question: When did lawmakers ask for more information? === The answer to the above question is
Answer: when a top official told them that the U.S. was still open to negotiations.

input with options: SEOUL The recent U.S. missile strikes against Syria could increase pressure on North Korea to give up its nuclear weapons, or reinforce in Pyongyang the need for nuclear deterrence. The United States, France and Britain fired 105 missiles at three Syrian chemical weapons facilities on Saturday, in response to an alleged Syrian chemical weapons attack in the city of Douma that killed at least 40 people and wounded or sickened hundreds of others. The Syrian government has repeatedly denied any use of banned weapons. The combined military strike on Syria comes as the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the government of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un are preparing for an expected summit in late May or early June to discuss dismantling the North's nuclear program in exchange for security guarantees. Trump's willingness to use force against Syria can be seen to reinforce his "maximum pressure" campaign message, that in addition to imposing tough sanctions banning most North Korean exports, the U.S. would take military action, if necessary, to force Kim to terminate his nuclear program and end the continued development of a nuclear armed intercontinental ballistic missile that can reach the U.S. mainland. Calling the U.S. attack on Syria "a warning for Pyongyang," the South Korean newspaper the Korea Joongang Daily, in an editorial on Monday said, "If Kim wants to be free from the fear of a potential raid, then he must be willing to denuclearize." From this perspective the U.S. show of force in Syria will increase pressure on the leadership in North Korea to offer meaningful nuclear concessions at the Trump-Kim summit. "Unless it abandons at least part of its nuclear and missile capabilities then the Trump administration will not be satisfied," said Bong Young-shik, a political analyst with the Yonsei University Institute for North Korean Studies in Seoul However the U.S. military strike on Syria could also reinforce concerns in North Korea that giving up its nuclear deterrent would make the... Question: Why did Trump want to attack Syria? === The answer to the above question is
OPTIONS:
- To support South Korea
- To intimidate France and Britian
- not enough information
- To provide a deterrent to North Korea
output:
To provide a deterrent to North Korea