Making the case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2013 10:55 a.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 6, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    "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.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    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.

  • mark Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 5, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    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 whatsoever.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 5, 2013 8:01 a.m.

    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.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 4, 2013 6:27 p.m.

    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.


  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:52 p.m.

    I thought the case was made by a shot across the bow and get out. Nothing lost - nothing gained. Make sense? Stupid is as stupid does (Forest Gump).

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:24 p.m.

    When your enemies are already killing each other, it seems a shame to get in the way.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    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 Rebels?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:50 p.m.

    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 cause.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:15 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    L 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.
    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:43 a.m.

    Not like Iraq.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:37 a.m.

    " 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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    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 bothering you?

  • DeseretDebbie Corona, CA
    Sept. 4, 2013 10:37 a.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:22 a.m.

    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.

  • Strider303 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:02 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    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 can't Obama?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 6:53 a.m.

    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 something about GWBush's list of the Axis of Evil is still working in the background.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Sept. 4, 2013 5:40 a.m.

    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 and McCain).