Comments about ‘In our opinion: Consequences?’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, Sept. 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

So then, DN --
What are the "Consequences" if we [the United States] are wrong, again?
[like we were in Iraq?]

Another 12 years?
Another $3 Trillion?
Finding out after the fact that we ended up supporting Al Qaeda?

Whatever we do, there will always be consequences.

After the Bush mistakes and worldwide fiascos --
I think we should err on the side of caution.

Assad's not going anywhere.
Let's not rush to anymore false conclusions based on outright lies.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

What is the real problem? I think that it is Obama, not Syria and not chemical weapons. Obama blusters and pontificates. He has no support from Congress for Syria. He has no support from the people for Syria. He has almost no support from other world leaders for Syria.

What is wrong with that man? A real leader would first get the support that he needed from those who had the authority to make something happen. He would have talked to Congressional leaders and those leaders would have talked to Congress. AFTER he talked with his generals and had gained the needed approval from Congress, he would still need to convince other nations that a "world" problem existed.

He acted alone and he now sees the folly of acting alone. He has been severely rebuked by Russia, by Congress and by the citizens. Hopefully, that will be a lesson that teaches him of the folly of trying to be a "king".

Syria is a sovereign nation. The United Nations would be the proper venue for action; instead Obama tried to force his will on that Sovereign nation.

LiberalEastCoastMember
Parkesburg, PA

Interesting observation Mike Richards. Have you been paying attention to global events and development regarding Stria over the last 3 to 4 weeks . . . at all?

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

Was the DN always pro-intervention or did this turn only happen after the administration pulled back from it?

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

@ atl134

The Dnews has always been pro-intervention unless Obama is. Then, it become a lamb/dove almost isolationist.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

I just want to know ---

Are the Republicans FINALLY going to admit they were dead wrong about GW Bush,
or
Are do they sell their souls, Flip-Flopping their moral convictions and integrity based solely on matters of political party affiliation?

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Open Minded Mormon" don't worry about finding out later that we are supporting Al Qaeda. Obama knows right now that he is upporting Al Qaeda. Just the other day he suspended a law that said you can't give arms to known terrorist groups for the stated purpose of being able to send weapons to Syria. See "Obama waives ban on arming terrorists to allow aid to Syrian opposition" in the Washington Examiner.

Some people would call that treason.

Fitness Freak
Salt Lake City, UT

"flip flopping" is an excellent way to describe this admnistration for the last 3 weeks.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
He's giving arms to vetted elements of the Free Syrian Army, not the Al-Qaida affiliated al-Nusra Front. The reason for waiving the ban is just in case some weapons accidentally end up with unsavory elements of the rebels since the vetting might not end up being 100% perfect.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Military intervention must be the last option...If given that this is a civil war, there should be any role for the U.S. to play other than diplomacy. By why is it DN that whatever Obama does you must find a way to be critical? If he had attacked without congressional approval you would have been calling for his impeachment. And now that he has latched on to a possible way to remove the weapons without war, you must find that he vacillating and indecisive. That ax you are always grinding just gets bigger and bigger.

4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Mr. Obama was the hawk who wanted to punish those who used poison gas, but not facilitate a regime change. Then it was a transitional position with no one, including John Kerry, knowing what the plan was. Now that Mr. Putin has saved the day, Mr. Obama is the neo-dove, the negotiating statesman that claims it was his position all along. Neo-hawks, such as Nancy Pelosi and others who support the president regardless of his position, have to phone home to find out what the latest flip flop position is. Mitt is smiling.

Strider303
Salt Lake City, UT

While the use of chemical weapons is extremely distasteful in the public mind, it would seem that the use of napalm, phosphorus munitions, cluster bombs, and artillery as well as small arms fire will leave people just as dead and wounded.

Any intervention has consequences for the nation. It is our treasury, our young people who are placed in harm's way initially and all of us potentially (think Boston Marathon) due to an inability to maintain our borders.

This "rebellion" is none of our business. We do not own the world, we are not commissioned to make the world safe for democracy or establish it in societies that have no experience with free anything other than the religious/political line they suffer under.

We could support Jordan and other Arab countries with refugee aid, but as the OPEC nations are among the richest nations on earth, I say let them care for their kith and kin. The editorial board ignores the fact that these societies are ancient and have old feuds and scores to settle. There are policies and issues that go back centuries.

The security of this nation is not threatened. We should stay out of it.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

@4601
Salt Lake City, UT

Mitt is smiling.
8:34 p.m. Sept. 19, 2013

=========

Mitt and the rest of the GOP promised to attack and invade Syria BEFORE chemical weapons were even used.

Do you ever ask yourself WHY the GOP disagrees 180 degrees with everything Pres. Obama says or does, except with this? and the GOP leadership was all in favor of going along with Obama and attacking Syria?

I'm still amazed by it.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "atl134" if that is true, then why does he have to make the change to allow giving arms to terrorists?

The next question is why would he be giving arms to people that are just as bad as the terrorists? The Free Syrian Army is just going to implement their own version of Sharia law, and make Syria less free than they are under Assad.

If the goal it to make Syria better, why are we backing any of the factions? None of them want to make it a better place.

Mickey Kovars
Tampa, FL

Kerry talking about consequences is about as noteworthy as Obama talking about red lines.

atl134
Salt Lake City, UT

@Redshirt1701
"if that is true, then why does he have to make the change to allow giving arms to terrorists?"

Because accidentally doing it likely is still a violation of it.

"The Free Syrian Army is just going to implement their own version of Sharia law, and make Syria less free than they are under Assad."

It's difficult to get less free than the guy currently systemtically slaughtering his own people... and your assertion of what a FSA win would result in is hardly guaranteed.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

To "atl134" again how is that different than the FSA? As you well know, they are going around killing any and all Christians. They are also now engaged in fighting other rebel groups.

So, what is the difference? Under Assad you could be killed for opposing him, and the FSA has proved that they will kill you for opposing them. As a reminder, read "
Syria rebels 'beheaded a Christian and fed him to the dogs' as fears grow over Islamist atrocities" in the UK Daily Mail.

Again, the only choice is which version of Islam do you want? Assad's, Al Qaeda's, the Muslim Brotherhood's, or the FSA's version. No matter how you look at it, anybody who opposes any of those groups is dead.

If it is possible to "accidentally" support terrorists by giving arms to any of the Rebel groups, doesn't that mean that non are fully vetted and that there is a strong possibility to arm terrorists.

Alfred
Phoenix, AZ

"Saddam Hussein famously gambled his power away by pretending to move around a non-existent arsenal..."

Saddam moved his 'non-existent arsenal' to... Syria.... where they were used on (gasp) Syrians.

to comment

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