We can only hope that the information presented to congress and to the American
people is honest and complete so that we can ALL make rational and informed
decisions.Presenting one side of the story or overly inflammatory
statements (dont want smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud) to get the public
behind military action forces congress to make poor decisions with incomplete
information.Looks to me like Obama is joining the war hawks (Graham
They used machetes in oil-less Rwanda - and we did nothing.Why would
a dictator who wishes to keep Western forces out his country, use chemical
weapons, 8 miles from the capital, on civilian targets? He has nothing to gain,
and everything to loose by it.Could it be that WE made those
weapons, sold them to Saddam Hussein, they smuggled them into Syria [hence- NO
WMD's found in Iraq] and the weaponless, nothing to loose rebels used them
to draw in foreign help, and the only U.S. interest is to cover-up and hide that
fact?BTW - Before all you Obama haters pile on, let's remember
that Mitt Romney promised several times that he'd invade Syria and
Iran...so something about GWBush's list of the Axis of Evil is still
working in the background.
It's interesting to see Obama "evolve" from a "dove" to a
"hawk". What's even more interesting is his attitude toward the
lives of Syrians. He's going to bomb them. When I was enrolled in
military science, we were told that bombs don't know the difference between
the good guys and the bad guys. We were told that bombs were not to be used on
civilian targets. Syria has warned him that they will store "nerve
gas" in civilian areas, which will require massive "collateral
damage", i.e., innocent men, women and children will be killed.Obama has no business interferring in Syria's civil war. His actions
will cause Syria's government to be overrun by the Taliban. If he
continues, we will have to assume that he wants the Taliban to be in charge in
Syria.It's time for our elected Representatives to refuse to
declare war on Syria and to refuse to fund any military action inside of Syria.
Russia, Germany and Great Britian can see the folly of getting involved. Why
Obama has gone from a "dove to a hawk" because he made a stupid red line
statement, and he wants to save face, with our young men and women in the
military to pay the price for his stupidity. I say save the lives of
our military people and let the president own the cost of his ill-considered
statement. Egg on his face is better than lots of dead people. Even
Obama worshipers should be able to see that, and suggesting that it is
Bush's fault is so ludicrous that it has actually become laughably idiotic.
We will do well to avoid any further intervention in the mess in Syria. We know
little about the religious and political motives behind the various factions.
We are not capable of filling any kind of political vacuum that may be left
behind if the current government falls. We have neither the treasury nor
manpower to waste in this mess.We have fools for leaders, on both
sides of the political spectrum.
Some people refuse to acknowledge that Obama is the President. In their dreams
they still wish that Bush was President so that they could continue to blame him
for everything. It's time to wake up. Obama IS the President. He has
been President for more than a full term. It is HIS policies that aren't
working. It is his "pronouncements" that have put him in a bind.There is no way that he can "surgically" strike Syria and
destroy only enemy combatants without killing innocent people. He will be
blamed by the Mid-East for causing an all-out war. Does he think that those
countries will just sit back while he drops bombs on Syria? If he
has any compassion for human life, he will not add to the misery by killing
innocent men, women and children with his bombs. Unless he is willing to send
in troops, he has no way to "surgically" strike the enemy, assuming that
he even knows who the enemy is. No other world leader knows who is responsible.
Where did Obama get his information?Congress needs to do the right
thing and refuse to play Obama's war game.
I agree that we should not go into Syria. Think things would be different under
Romney who was beating up Obama for not taking stronger action?Just
dont make it sound like only Obama would do such a thing."Mitt
Romney will call for an escalation of the conflict in Syria by arming rebels
with the heavy weapons needed to confront president Bashar al-Assad's
tanks, helicopters and fighter jets."And if we listen to McCain
and Graham, we would already be in an all out war.
The only thing worse than a 2 faced politician, is those who cheer one
side, and boo the other for doing the exact same thing.They are
hypocrites!Wouldn't you agree Mike and J?
The line is an International line not a US line. Should any action be taken it
must be Internationally not just the US/France and small countries that will
have little to no impact. It is deplorable about Assad but then so is every
dictator. If the International community chooses to not respond that is what
must happen. I would hope our leaders (Obama/Congress) would shame other
countries for not taking a stand as they should.
L Liberal,Just a friendly reminde, I am not the topic of discussion.
If you have an issue with Obama and the way that he is trying to bomb Syria,
then the proper thing to do is to call your Congressional Representative. And
another gentle reminder: Bush had the support of both the House and the Senate
before starting military action against Iraq. Bush had the support of world
leaders. He had the support of the United Nations. Unfortunately, Bush is not
the President. Obama is the President. Obama has only partial support from
France. He has NO OTHER support, including the United Nations. Obama has been
warned by Russia to stay out. He has no support from Germany or Great Britian.
Unless I've missed something in the Deseret News, he has no support from
anyone, yet he expects Republicans to support him. Is that the burr than is
" Bush had the support of both the House and the Senate before starting
military action against Iraq. "That is true. However, the Bush
Admin was not exactly honest (or forthcoming) with congress and the American
people. He had various information to support the assertion that Hussein had
WMD. But, they also had conflicting information which was not presented.Additionally, when you go on TV stating that there is "NO doubt"
and then assert with weak or conflicting evidence the claim that Hussein was
looking to source yellowcake uranium, people get worked up. Throw in the
"mushroom cloud" comment and the American people would have hung
congress for not approving.So, don't make it sound like our
eyes were open. We were fed cherry picked information.
Not like Iraq.
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahL Liberal,If you
have an issue with Obama and the way that he is trying to bomb Syria, then the
proper thing to do is to call your Congressional Representative. ======= No, what "bothers" me is those who are
inconsistent and lack integrity over what is right vs. what is wrong.Especially over issues to suit a political party or agenda.BTW -
Syria actually HAS weapons of mass destruction and has used them recently
against civilians - and I don't think we should get involved.Saddam Hussein DIDN'T have weapons of mass destruction and when he did
use them, it was several decades before Bush declared his war. And I didn't think we should have gotten involved then either!That's called being honesty in ALL your dealings, being consistent, and
showing integrity Mike.
L Liberal,Take a breath. You're going to hyperventilate. Has
Syria attacked the United States twice? Are we under attack for the third time?
What does your religion say about going to war? Isn't there something
written in your copy of the Book of Mormon about suing for peace the first two
times that your enemy attacks and that you are not justified in going to war
until the third unprovoked offense? Where is the inconsistency in
asking Obama to not drop bombs on innocent people? From all the times that
you've quoted the "brethren", I really don't believe that you
want Obama to bomb innocent people. That would be inconsistent with your
previous posts.Why would you condemn others for being on the same
side as you've picked in this argument? Do you want to be the only person
who thinks that bombing innocent people is evil? I'm afraid that
you're too late for that. Obama is rejecting the advice of
world leaders. He is rejecting the advice of the citizens who have asked him to
NOT bomb Syria. He's going to act regardless of the harm that he will
Going into Syria or not has nothing to do with supporting the President. It has
to do with supporting a tyrant or terrorists.Unless Obama plans on
hitting both rebel and Syrian military targets, he is in a situation where he is
helping evil men.The other issue is the fact that we still
don't know who used the nerve gas.According to news reports
from Turkey there were rebels arrested in Turkey trying to smuggle sarin into
Syria. How do we know that the rebels did not unleash the nerve agent in order
to force the US into action after Obama's red line comment?So
those of you who want to go into Turkey, what is the plan? Do we help the
tyrant, the terrorists, or engage in nation building by taking out Assad and the
When your enemies are already killing each other, it seems a shame to get in the
I thought the case was made by Barack...fire a shot across the bow and get out.
Nothing lost - nothing gained. Make sense? Stupid is as stupid does (Forest
Mike -- Talk about hyperventilating...1. I AGREE with you.So, you agruing with me is you arguing for argument's sake.2.
Obama would be stupid to follow GWBush example by attacking Syria.[even
when we KNOW Syria has WMDs, and has used WMDs]and Syria and Assad [like
Iraq and Saddam Hussein] has not attacked us, has not provoked us, and is not
threatening us, our familes, or our country. So as far as I'm concerned we
have to right or reason, NO justification.All I ask is that you show
some honesty, consistancy and integrity on your part.Thanks.
If only one could believe that all this dovish thoughtful contemplation from the
right was because of lessons learned in Iraq. Sadly though I doubt it. Mitt
Romney didn't show such concern so I fear this is mostly opportunistic anti
Obama ranting. It would almost be funny if the subject wasn't deadly
serious and the discussion the proper thing to have. The next time this takes
place with a Republican President we'll have the discussion just don't
expect the right to be the doves. I've been all over the place
personally with this but I've landed in an unpopular place of supporting
the President (I adamantly did not support his escalation of Afghanistan so
don't do the kool aid thing). Chemical weapons do have a
particularly heinous place in warfare that the world has said can't be
tolerated. I also tend to believe the President that this will be limited and
targeted. Non combatants may be killed and injured, I strongly doubt however
that the President would target weapons hidden in a neighborhood. Once a
citizenry rises up against it's leader correctly or not there are risks.
There is absolutely no question in my mind that some of the posters here that
are ruthlessly attacking President Obama for his stance on this issue, would be
100% in support, and criticizing anyone who wasn't, if Mitt Romney were
president and taking the same stance as Obama. No question
mark,Pretty judgmental of you, to assume you KNOW how somebody else would
act in a hypothetical situation (based just on their political affiliation).
That's the problem with our discourse now days, and why these conversations
go nowhere, every time. Minds are already made up, and you KNOW what everybody
else will do in any given situation. Doesn't leave much room for anybody
to change or NOT be framed by your political stereotypes. You are probably
right though.Problem is... many open minded Republicans and
Libertarians learned a painful lesson during the Bush Administration. But it
seems many Democrats didn't learn the same lesson. They were too busy
scoring points against Bush to see the real lesson to be learned.War
and violence don't bring peace. Many hard core Republicans learned that
(towards the end). Maybe the hard core Democrats can learn the same lesson if
it's THEIR guy making the mistakes.
"Pretty judgmental of you, to assume you KNOW how somebody else would act in
a hypothetical situation (based just on their political affiliation). . . You
are probably right though."Okay 2bits, you castigate me, and
then say I'm probably right. That's funny stuff there. But
anyway, I'm not basing my opinion on others political affiliation, but
rather their comments on these boards over the years. Many Republicans right
now, in this country, are having a very hard time with opposing this president
on things that they supported when there was a Republican in office. It seems
like a lot of knee jerking going on among conservatives. But,
anyway, you already said I was probably right. I know I am.
This issue has many talking out both sides of their mouths. This will hopefully
be the high water park of pure political partisan spin on every single issue not
matter what. The letters of Romney supporters supporting Putin are crazy. Good
thing we have the leader that took out Bin Laden.