Comments about ‘Obama steps up military aid to Syrian rebels’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, June 14 2013 8:25 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
SME
Bountiful, UT

"...how to ensure it stays out of the hands of extremists battling for control of Syria." Sounds good in principle, but in practice I don't see how we can possibly control that, particularly without "boots on the ground" which I think would be a big mistake.

"shoulder-fired remote-propelled grenades"?! Does one control them with a joystick after launching? Or perhaps they are ROCKET-propelled.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

Obama and Hillary unwittingly helped the Muslin Brotherhood take control of Egypt, Libya and now he is ignorantly working to help them control Syria! At least Iraq is still free at least for now!

Happy Valley Heretic
Orem, UT

Obama is acting like a fool republican getting us involved in Syria.
It's bad enough that he's still cleaning up after president cheney in those other two debacles of the conservative warhawks. We need to stay out of the middle east for a while let them beat on each other without the US trying to pick the winners, this includes Israel and Iran, they want religious wars, let them.

Just in for MtnMan…Iraqi officials say gunmen have killed a provincial election candidate in a drive-by-shooting in a restive northern city.

Insurgents struck cities across Iraq on Monday with car bombs, suicide attacks and gun battles, killing more than 70 people in worsening sectarian violence.

Yep still free, we did a great thing there?

Tators
Hyrum, UT

I'm often an Obama critic. But in this case, I say kudos to the president for keeping his word about an enemy crossing his pre-announced and pre-established red-line.

Had he not done so and not now taken action, both opponents and allies alike would've had a hard time believing any warnings he might make in the future. This is a positive step in reestablishing some credibility along those lines... in the face of so much controversy lately.

Eliot
Santaquin, UT

McKinley - the Maine - Spanish American War
Wilson - the Lusitania - World War I
Roosevelt - Pearl Harbor - World War II
Johnson - Gulf of Tonkin - Viet Nam
Bush - weapons of mass destruction - Iraq War
Obama - chemical weapons - war in Syria?

There is a pattern of history which demonstrates that it little matters who is president or what their stated beliefs are on war. The people must first be convinced, as the result of some outrage, that war is inevitable and they must send their sons and daughters to fight and die. Obama is no different. Many who voted for him thought he would be different but he is not. There is no change. There is no hope. Not in man-made institutions anyway.

FelisConcolor
North Salt Lake, UT

So to sum it up, a brutal Middle Eastern dictatorship is using chemical weapons against its people, and we must stop it.

Let's see...now where have I heard this before?

John Pack Lambert of Michigan
Ypsilanti, MI

How far are we going to go in supporting the rebels in Syria? Are we sure we want to openly support a rebellion that has taken on the tones of opposing Assad as from a religious minority. In Iraq there was a massive exodus of Christians. It seems quite likely that the same will happen with both Christians and Shi'ites if the Assad regime falls in Syria.

How far are we going to go to ensure that regime falls. Its fall will not be pretty for many people. Will we wend troops on the ground?

worf
Mcallen, TX

Aid to Syrian rebels, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Iraq, but not to West Texas?

Go figure.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

I am still trying to understand why the liberals are not all up in arms over this.

The liberals said that Bush went into Iraq to help his friends in the oil businesses. Obama is going into Syria and is helping known terrorist organizations. The Muslim Brotherhood is helping the Syrian rebels. The Muslim Brotherhood helped establish Hezbola, and other similar groups. Why are we sending terrorists weapons?

Doesn't this go against Section 3, Article 3 of the Constitution?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
"I am still trying to understand why the liberals are not all up in arms over this."

A lot of liberals I know, including myself, strongly oppose this. In that senate committee vote a couple weeks ago, 2 of the 3 no votes were from Democrats (Murphy and Udall, the Republican was Rand Paul).

"The Muslim Brotherhood is helping the Syrian rebels."

I'm rather concern myself with the actual group that is helping the rebels in large numbers on the ground, Al-Nasra, which is Al-Qaida affiliated.

m.g. scott
clearfield, UT

Broken record time. Here we go again. Redshirt I too wonder where all the Democrats who so opposed Bush are on this one. Just remember everyone who supports this move to send weapons to "rebels" in Syria. When the U.S. supported the Afghans against the Soviets in the 80's, and the Taliban/Bin Laden types took over, some of those weapons were used against us in the current war there. In the meantime, our dear leader is headed to a big vacation in Africa in preparation for his vacation out on Cape Cod. Have I been watching a Monte Python movie for the last 5 years? Is that what this is? I guess the jokes on us.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

Divert attention from the I.R.S. scandal, the AP scandal, the wiretapping scandal, and the Bengahzi scandal. Oh wait, he's already used the Benghazi scandal to cover to be elected.

Foolish people believe a foolish President who does foolish things to divert attention away from his his failures and his failure to be honest about anything that he does or says.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments