Quantcast

Comments about ‘Obama weighs 'limited and narrow' Syria action’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 30 2013 2:45 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
DN Subscriber 2
SLC, UT

There is NO vital U.S. national interest in Syria, period!

It is not our job, nor within our capabilities to attack every nut job dictator, or intervene in every civil war, especially religious wars, in foreign lands.

It is directly AGAINST our interests to meddle in Syria to help one band of Islamic terrorists against another, and to simultaneously risk confrontation with the Russians who have several ships in a Syrian port.

And, despite Kerry's insistence, we do not have sufficient evidence to prove that it was the Syrian government who used chemical weapons, instead of a cynical move by the rebels.

Finally, Obama ignores the very real threats that Israel will be targeted if we attack Syria, which will likely be the spark for all out war in the middle east. Of course Obama despises Israel, so he does not care.

Have we learned nothing from the chain of unintended consequences from trivial incidents in August 1914 that resulted in World War I? Are we doomed to repeat that, but with the added dangers of nuclear weapons in hands of many participants.

Ignore Syria. If the U.N. will not engage, then just stay out!

worf
Mcallen, TX

When ever this guy is in deep thought it's either:

* changing health care
* greedy people needing to pay more taxes
* some group of people being discriminated
* some video tape causing anger in Libya
* a need to lecture the American people on sacrifice, and tightening the belt.
* how to send tanks, and fighter jets to the Egypt

Now it's how to get away with bombing Syria.

VickieB
SLC, UT

We should never get involved unless the majority of the world is in agreement.

No support except from France, and not Americans in danger. America needs to realize we can't solve the worlds problems by ourselves.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

Hopefully, next time we have an election for the President of the United States of America, we will have someone who has some leadership and management experience instead of a temporary or part-time professor or a law review editor. His cohorts from the Senate, Hagel, Kerry, Clinton have not been sterling scholars in the world arena of politics and national defense with all the security requirements. Security for them is what is on Twitter or facetime on FaceBook. National and International media just can't wait for the next debacle waiting to happen. This is not the same type of activity as getting Bin Laden in his fort. This is retribution for a violation of the United Nations Chemical Weapons Convention treaty 189 countries have signed and are signatories.

Russia, France, Great Britain and of course the United States of America have that treaty in-force in those countries and are obligated to ensure that process is secured by all nations, even those who didn't sign it, such as Syria.

The reason this President doesn't have written policies is because he would partially have to go by his own policies. His responsibilities are in the US Constitution.

Morgan Duel
Taylorsville, UT

Wonder how long he will think when radicals strike the US again. Why not bomb the palace of the Syrian leader. Maybe if the big boys had to worry about dying we would not loose so many of the little people. Saddam and Osama set a great example.

dell
San Antonio, TX

"Edging toward a retaliatory strike..."

RETALIATORY? What did Syria do to us that we need to retaliate against them? I guess such is the state of journalism today. This could be a "punitive" strike to punish the regime for chemical weapons being used inside it's borders, even if it turns out it was a third party terrorist group; an "obligatory" strike since Obama handed over decision making power to whomever launched the chemical weapons when he declared his "red line"; an "opportunistic" strike if Obama sees some political gain (Clinton during his impeachment)...any of those would work. Invading Afghanistan was retaliatory for 9/11. Unless he lets the families of those gassed push the button to launch the missiles there is no possible way whatever futile gesture Obama has planned could be considered retaliatory.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Limited and narrow? Fits Barack's presidential abilities to a tee

Albert Maslar CPA (Retired)
Absecon, NJ

Limited war is an imbecilic oxymoron somewhat related to "a little bit pregnant." Eventually push comes to shove. and in the case of limited war, just check on the preemptive never-ending Iraq and Middle East wars. Unforeseen but not unexpected consequences include $6 Trillion of debt, along with US Military suffering over 6,000 dead and about 50,000 serious and often permanent injuries serious. As Einstein said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and over again but expecting different results." Another axiom, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Still another, "Fool me once,Shame on you, Fool me twice, Shame on me."

ThornBirds
St.George, Utah

As in everything else in President Obama's presidency...
He's in trouble if he does(noticed I did not use an offensive word).
And....he's in trouble in he don't.

Elcapitan
Ivins, UT

Obama is a Christian? The middle east troubles are biblical. I would advise him to read the Bible and get the prophets views on our middle east policies.His Muslem roots are too deep. Zechariah 12 and 13 would teach him a lot of reasons why we do not deal with the Muslem problems and their desire to kill each other. Leave them alone, they are our enemies.Stand by our friends in Israel, Stay out of the middle east braul, it is only going to get worse.

worf
Mcallen, TX

Videos of people dying from chemical weapons were taken in Iraq (2003). Not Syria---BBC news

Like the Benghazi video, -are we being tricked again?

to comment

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