Humanitarian disaster is unfolding in Syria; world is watching idly

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • red state pride Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 11:59 p.m.

    This editorial struck me as odd. I certainly have no ill will to any fellow man but what's the implied solution or reaction? I have a lot of problems but Syria ain't one of them. You want to go fight Assad forces? Here's an M-16, a few concussion grenades and 1000 rounds of 5.56. Have at it. Have fun. But you are on your own. I'm not with you and I would go to prison kicking and screaming before I would allow my son to go die for opposition forces who despise America as much as the regime they are fighting against does. Sometimes you just have to look the other way and keep moving. I'm sorry I feel this way but the fact is I'm tired of the best and brightest America has to offer being murdered by people we are trying to help. The MSM/ DN had no problem looking the other way on the Benghazi fiasco- why can't they look the other way on this?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 10:37 p.m.

    We shouldn't keep getting into wars. We can however help the offended by providing supplies, ... and training if needed provided they are able and willing to come here to get it.

    This is what we ought to be doing in Afghanistan instead of having our people over there.

  • Esquire Springville, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 3:11 p.m.

    Curious and myopic editorial. Syria is, unfortunately, different than Libya. With Libya, the rest of the world was on board, and several nations participated. The U. S., by the way, did not lead on it and no Americans were harmed. In Syria, there is a proxy war going on, Russia and China oppose intervention, and Iran is involved. The U. S. can't act unilaterally nor should we, and we can't be the policemen of the world. This is not to say that the CIA and other intelligence agencies, including from other countries, are not involved. So as unfortunate as it may be, a rush to judgment is not warranted, and we can't go charging into another war.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 10:48 a.m.

    Freak, the U.N. is vital to you, to me, and to virtually everyone else on this planet. The U.N. has defused many tense situations that could have led to war and had ended many conflicts that could have escalated into major regional -- if not worldwide -- battles.

    We need to give thanks for the wisdom of those who founded the United Nations -- and thanks to those members around the world who make sure it continues to keep working.

    Now stand by for the blasts from those folks who wouldn't understand something sensible if their lives depended upon it. (Their lives do, but they don't have capacity to comprehend it.)

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:54 a.m.

    War is the ultimate competition for commercial rights. Terms such as “long-term interests of many nations, including the United States” and “international power interests” simply mean the interests of commercial business.

    Winning a war is nearly always a guarantee of prosperity and happiness for the victor. However, it seems like a very long time since the United States has won a war. I think it’s because we are trying to use yesterdays weapons to fight today’s war. But it’s really hard to give up the wonderful profits that military arms create.

    The business strategy of giving money to foreign governments to buy American arms, though very profitable, has sewn the seed of our destruction because the rulers of those nations used the weapons to oppress their own people. So as the oppression boils over, we may get burned.

    While we are not totally to blame, neither are we not part and party to the problem.

  • Fitness Freak Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    I had hoped with the end of the Vietnam war we would have learned our lesson to stop trying to be the worlds policeman.

    But, sadly, we haven't and the military expenditures to be the worlds policeman are bankrupting our own nation.

    What good is the U.N.?

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:35 a.m.

    "President Barack Obama made the situation worse by indicating the United States won't intervene unless Assad begins using chemical weapons against rebel forces."

    An absolutely false statement. What was being said is that the use of chemical weapons would trigger an automatic response = period. It did not in any way preclude other responses to other situations. That like inferring that if you told your kid that if they didn't clean their room, they would be punished,and twisting that to infer that "not cleaning your room" is the only thing that will trigger punishment. Common DN... let do better than that.

    The problem is we don't want a direct confrontation with the Russian military. We can not attach Syria without putting Russia's military assets in Syria in an uncomfortable situation. No one wants to watch this tragedy to continue. But what is also wanted is to avoid seeing this spread into a much wider conflict.

    So DN, lets not over simplify this situation. There is much more in play here, as you do lay out, than there was in Libya. We don't want to create another Iraq nanny state the US must prop up.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Sept. 28, 2012 8:25 a.m.

    But Syria doesn't have enough oil for anyone to be concerned.