Comments about ‘Letter: No war with Syria’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 8 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
erichard
COMANCHE, TX

While the US supported Saddam in the war with Iran, Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians, and even against the Kurds in his own country. That was fine with the US, and they continued to support him. So even if Assad did use chemical weapons against his own people, which is denied by Assad and rejected by many analysts, it is totally hypocritical for the US to seek to punish Assad on moral grounds. Do a web search for "war plans wesley clark" and listen to a retired four star general explain how regime change wars with 7 middle eastern countries has long been planned by the pentagon. This is all orchestrated.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

1st of all -- where were you people for the past 12 years?

2nd - Why was Romney talking about invading Syria BEFORE Chemical weapons - a Good idea by Republicans, and now suddenly it's a Bad idea?

3rd - 100,000 killed in civil war in Syria is a public outrage, yet when 2,000,000 are hacked to death by machetes in oil-less Rwanda you didn't make a peep?

I just want you people to be consistent.
I just want you people to show an ounce of integrity.

They one's making this a political issue are the one's seeing an invasion into Iraq under Bush for NOTHING [but oil] as good, and under Obama for humanitarian efforts as Bad.

And if it's political stunts you want to call it - call it for what it is; a "BUSHesque" political stunt.

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

Obama says he didn't draw a red line. He also says he doesn't need permission from Congress to go to war in this instance. John Kerry says we shouldn't even call it a war.

Yes, U.S. credibility is at stake, but not in the way we had thought.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

The new peace movement will save trillions. We will not need the level of military in the new age of isolationism.

Hutterite
American Fork, UT

A couple points: First, substitute "Iraq" for "Syria" in your second paragraph. Where were you ten years ago? Why were we being told to shut up and get behind the president then and not now, even though your second paragraph argument here was at least as much if not more valid back then? Secondly, and I couch this in context of personally not wanting the US to strike Syria, I think it's a cheap shot to accuse the President using Syria as a political distraction. There are real reasons to consider a strike, such as horrific human rights violations and chemical attacks by a government on it's own people. A valid discussion in favour of a strike could be made with as little argument as 'because we can', or 'it's the right thing to do'. Whether we do or not, we'll see.

HaHaHaHa
Othello, WA

I don't think Obama intends to declare war, so does he really need to get congressional approval? He just wants to get "involved in the conflict a little bit. I think he is getting congressional approval, more as a measure to cover his own backside. As with everything with this guy, when things go bad, he wants someone else lined up for taking the blame. Funny how the investigation into Benghazi is still ongoing and we may never get to the bottom of what happened there, but we have known for a couple of weeks now, what happened in Syria last month.
I am not 100% opposed to action in Syria, in fact I would like to see us do something more than the usual list of meaningless UN sponsored actions. I wish in these instances, we could just be a little more surgical, instead of deploying large amounts of the military. If only we could just get the influence of the bleeding hearts out of military control.
The second half of this letter is fairly brilliant. It is very possible that obama is using all of this as a distraction.

Iron Rod
Salt Lake City, UT

Wow what fantastic comments.

One thing that is not mentioned that any action we take in the middle east will be done on borrowed money.

I wonder how many "Hawks" would still have that position if we had an excess tax to pay for our military adventurism. Pay as you go rather than defering it to future generations?

If we had to cut something domestically to pay for our military adventurism what would it be that would be acceptable?

SEY
Sandy, UT

I take issue with "one vote" and his sarcastic characterization of non-intervention as "isolationism." This is a standard ploy of war-mongering neoconservatives to disparage those who favor non-intervention. There is a world of difference between non-interventionism and isolationism. We can be fully engaged diplomatically, economically, socially and other ways without intervening militarily. This is what the majority of Americans prefer at this particular time.

Stepping back from the question of Syria in particular, it should be plain to see that Obama and the major lobbying effort from AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby, have their target set on Iran. This is not about Syria, it's about the larger picture referred to above by erichard.

one vote
Salt Lake City, UT

A hawk is a hawk and a chicken is a chicken.

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

This is not about Syria. It's about chem warfare, which must NOT go on with impunity. No precedent can go unpunished.

Mick
Murray, Utah

Open minded Mormon-

Where were you when 2 million people were slaughtered in Rwanda? Or better yet, where was your president Clinton? Who is the flip flopping hypocrite?

Obama has made horribly wrong choices un the Middle East on who he supports. Look at Egypt. He is worse than jimmy carter.

CLM
Draper, UT

Great posts, SEY and erichard. Using "isolationism" as a pejorative definition for non-intervention is being thrown around over the Syrian question as yet another tactic to get us behind the current administration. Let's get the definitions straight.

Isolationists build walls around their country, are against international trade, are pro-sanction, and discourage relations with other countries. In a global economy, no industrial nation can sustain itself successfully solely on the resources it controls! Non-interventionism encourages foreign relations as SEY points out, but not to the point of entanglement.Non-interventionists are, simply put, good neighbors whereas isolationists are not.

Intervention into the affairs of other nations almost always result in deleterious consequences, such as the blowback that has occurred by the US intervening elsewhere in the Middle East. The unintended consequences of intervening in Syria may be some of the most drastic to date, considering Syria's allies.

SEY
Sandy, UT

There is also a huge difference between bravery and stupidity.

airnaut
Everett, 00

To accuse the Obama admistration as using the atrociticies in Syria as a political "Wag the Dog",
is to imply that the United States slaso had some sort of hand in the access and use of chemical WMDs against civilians just to divert attention from Obamacare.

Ridiculous! is what I say,
and fabricting such "Conspriacy Theories" is childish, if not dangerously foolish!

But there certain radio shows who have made them selves insainly wealthy by suggesting such crazy "opinions".

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I guess the ONE good thing we have for have the Republicans suddenly about face and become such anti-war pacifists --
Is they won't be able to spend another $3 Trillion in another unfunded war!

pragmatistferlife
salt lake city, utah

I have an idea for Obama. A way he can intervene both militarily and give arms to the rebels without using borrowed money. First the aid. All he needs to do is sell "small arms" to North Korea for cash. What harm can "small arms" do. Next take that cash and buy weapons and munitions and other aid for the rebels he thinks will build an American democracy. There's only 1,000 different groups so the decision shouldn't be hard.

Next just go ahead and attack the targets you think will be in our best interest and just after you give the launch command call Congress and tell them what you have done and ask what they think about it.

What do you think..good idea? Some how the idea sounds familiar too me but I can't think where. I've only followed politics since around the late 80's so maybe it was slightly before then.

Hemlock
Salt Lake City, UT

Irrelevant comments such as "Where were you 10 years ago?" are representative of Mr. Obama's flawed war plan. He is fighting the last war as are those who keep looking back at Afghanistan and Iraq. Apply what the US learned in Libya and Egypt - there aren't any good guys. The neo-war hawks like Pelosi and Biden are only supporting the president and they have no concept of the unintended consequences. When in doubt, don't do it and especially don't do anything certifiably dumb.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@erichard
", it is totally hypocritical for the US to seek to punish Assad on moral grounds."

Different administration, it's not Obama's fault that Reagan supported Saddam's use of chemical weapons.

@Hutterite
"I think it's a cheap shot to accuse the President using Syria as a political distraction. "

Besides, the first rule of political distractions is to pick something that has more than 30% approval.

Nate
Pleasant Grove, UT

@airnaut "To accuse the Obama admistration [sic] as using the atrociticies [sic] in Syria as a political "Wag the Dog",
is to imply that the United States slaso [sic] had some sort of hand in the access and use of chemical WMDs against civilians just to divert attention from Obamacare."

Not true. Tragedies are exploited all the time by people who didn't cause the original circumstances.

Never let a good crisis go to waste, right? Think of how Obama exploited the financial crisis to pass Porkulus. Or how he exploited the auto crisis to bail out his union friends. Or how he exploited the BP spill to bring a halt to oil exploration. Or how he exploited Newtown to push for more gun control. He has a pattern of exploiting crises. This, apparently, is how community organizers "govern."

No one is saying that Obama caused all of these tragedies. He only exploited them after the fact.

NedGrimley
Brigham City, UT

"...fabricating [sic] such "Conspriacy [sic] Theories" is childish..."

What is more childish: Believing conspiracy theories or denying their existence?

to comment

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