Obama: Congress, world credibility on the line over Syria

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 5, 2013 7:26 a.m.

    To "atl134" actually, you are wrong. The Free Syrian Army doesn't really have problems with Al Qaeda.

    See "Al-Qaeda-linked rebels assault Syrian Christian village" in CBS News

    "Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War" - NY Times

    "Who Are the Syrian Rebels? A Basic Intelligence Briefing On the Assad Resistance" at Policy Mic. Here we find that key rebels have pledged alegiance to Al Qaeda.

    Nice try, but again, Syrian Rebels are accepting Al Qaeda more and more.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 7:54 p.m.


    What part of I do not have the answers confuses you? If you slow down and read I agree with much of what you are saying. It is one of hose rare times we mostly agree. i think something needs to be done if possible to address the treaty ciolation but i appose military intervention in syria. Someone suggested that the actual treaty outlines what the consequence is, perhaps that's the place to start.

    @ happy
    It is my understanding the treaty was not done until the mid to late 90's which would be after the horrible attack on the kerfs.

  • happy2bhere clearfield, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 6:49 p.m.

    For those of you who are bending over backwards in favor of enforcing the treaty against chemical weapons, ask yourself why the world did nothing when those types of weapons were used against the Kurds in Iraq. And why when Iraq and Iran were fighting and using them there was nothing done. As Hillary would howl "What difference does it make?" Face it, Obama put out his red line comment, and now he is the one whose reputation is on the line. No one elses, including we the U.S. In spite of what many politicians both liberal and conservative are saying, I don't agree that the U.S. has to do squat on this one. And when we do have to act, it should be going after the leader like we did Bin Laden. Otherwise our military action looks and is weak. I know assasinations of leaders is considered illegal, but "What difference does it make?" No one minded when we killed Bin Laden.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:33 p.m.

    re:spring street

    The SMART thing to do is first have clear objectives and an exit strategy. The DUMB thing is to just go ahead regardless and hope things somehow work out. A 4 star general was asked yesterday at a briefing to congress what exactly his objectives were...and his reply was "I don't know". WOW!! That is vote of confidence for us all. We all know this proposed action would have never come about had it not been for Barack opening his mouth prior to the 2012 election and drawing a "red line" just to puff himself up politically pre-election. As the old saying goes "fools go where angels fear to tread". We are about to find out the consequences of that saying and make no mistake Barack will have a list of people to blame when things go south. He actually already started the blame game in Sweden today attempting to detach himself from his red line comment and place it on ...every NATO nation. Nice try Barack. They didn't make the comment - you did!! Own it now for once!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:13 p.m.


    I will refer you to my post I actually agree lobbing missiles seems like a bad plan to me. Someone else mentioned in a thread that the actual actions to be taken are outlined in the treaty. if that is true we should be following that plan not setting our own agenda. As far as other credibility I think that is their problem but we must maintain our own by following the treaty we signed.

  • jayhawker kearns, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    Why don't we just send them a very nasty letter.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:54 p.m.

    To "spring street" why does the chemical attack matter? So far there have been about 100,000 killed in Syria. Why does it matter now that chemical weapons have been used on only 2,000? Do the other 98,000 not matter because they died because of guns and knives? Why does it matter that a few were killed slowly by chemical instead of quickly by bullets?

    If chemical weapons are the issue, why are we not preparing to go into places like North Korea that also have chemical weapons?

    Also, who are we going to support? Do you support Assad, who used the weapons, or do you support Al Qaeda that will take those weapons and use them elswhere?

  • I M LDS 2 Provo, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:28 p.m.

    spring street wrote:

    "What is the answer? Honestly I don't know, we must find someway to address the chemical attack without getting into nation building. people on the far right seem to think you are smarter then the president or any of the world leaders why don't you tell us what he answer is?"

    I will just guess that it might have something to do with drones and air strikes against select targets of the Assad regime, and maybe additional support for the opposition.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:24 p.m.

    @spring street:

    ***"people on the far right seem to think you are smarter then the president or any of the world leaders".***

    Most of the world lives in poverty.--Perhaps people on the far right are smarter then the president, or any of the world leaders.

    What grades did Obama have in college, and how did he pay for his Ivy League school? As his employer, we should have this infomation.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    You oversimplified the situation. The Free Syrian Army (the major rebel group) is generally not fond of the Al-Qaida affiliated Al-Nusra front even if they're fighting on the same side of the conflict. It's argued that a lack of international action only would lead to further dependance of the FSA on the Jihadist backed groups.

    Now that's not to say everything's going to turn out alright with an intervention (personally I oppose it) but it's hardly as simplified as "Assad or Al Qaida".

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Sept. 4, 2013 3:16 p.m.

    Well, as we all know Obama's approval numbers are sliding in nearly all polls. So, its time for another distraction! Yes, Obama will fire a few missiles into Syria and the new media will whistle and cheer about what a wonderful "success" it was. Not shown or talked about will be what was actually accomplished nor will be shown the innocent women and children killed by collateral damage. All unintended collateral damage was shown ad museum by the news media during the Iraq war but you see, folks, it depends on who the President is!

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:53 p.m.


    While I think they international community must do something to address the chemical weapons, I and many "liberals do not support military intervention. What is the answer? Honestly I don't know, we must find someway to address the chemical attack without getting into nation building. people on the far right seem to think you are smarter then the president or any of the world leaders why don't you tell us what he answer is?

  • CG Orem, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 1:46 p.m.

    spring street

    Aren't Great Britain, France, Russia, and Syria, amongst more than 100 other countries, also signatories to the chemical weapons ban treaty?

    If other countries aren't concerned about their "credibility", why is it our responsibility to defend the credibility of the rest of the world?

    How will lobbing a few missiles into Syria enhance our credibility?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:21 p.m.

    Ok Obama supporters tell us, who do we side with in Syria?

    Do we help the Dictator that is killing his own people or do we help the Al Qaeda backed rebels that will kill any non-conformists once they take power and begin to spread out across the globe?

    If you say neither side, explain to us why the US should engage in the evil nation building that you accused Bush of.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 12:19 p.m.

    re:one vote

    Peace doves? Probably a better description is just common sense. You NEVER go to war with no clear objective and start lobbing bombs into the middle of a civil war ...among two sides who both hate you. As I recall - Vietnam was also making good on a promise from some ignorant politician and it too was supposed to be a small and limited police action. Ten bloody years later with 60000 dead Americans it didn't exactly turn out that way did it. The point is you must not only have a clear objective but you must also have a clear exit strategy. We have neither. What are we blowing up? The chemical weapons have long since been hidden among the people of Damascus and the rest of the important military weaponry has disappeared. Blowing up some airport run way and some communication towers won't do squat other than throw gas on the already blazing inferno. What if Israel gets attacked? What if Iran responds or perhaps Russia? Baracks "little war" could then explode in his face. Sometimes doing nothing is the best part of valor...and smartest.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:49 a.m.

    The spin everything against Obama crowd is looking like peace doves on this issue.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:02 a.m.


    You do have it figured out. It's not that complicated. "Just stay out of Syria".

    I don't know that exact reason, but it appears Obama has another agenda he's not telling.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 11:00 a.m.

    @badger and CG

    So if the world community draws up a treaty banning chemical weapons. which we have, and our congress ratifies it, which they have, then fails to enforce what do you suppose happens to the credibility of the world community and our government, including or president and our congress? Yes Obama credibility is on the line as well but he is far from alone.

  • CG Orem, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    If the world's credibility is really at stake, why is the President the only world leader who seems to be concerned enough to call for military action?

    As Badgerbadger said, it seems that the President is more worried about his own credibility, than that of the world.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:47 a.m.

    Badger - You call your post evidence that you have the whole matter "figured out"? I just don't think one wobbly paragraph gets it done.

  • Shawnm750 West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    So...McCain wants more than missile strikes, but doesn't want to use troops...what does that leave? Our army of robots?

    I'd say at this point, our credibility on the Syria issue is shot. We've stood by as over 100,000 people have been killed by conventional methods, but now that 1,400 are killed with chemical weapons, SUDDENLY we need to do something! Where's the UN been during all of this? Oh...right, sitting on their hands per usual... And where are all the other countries in the world that typically chastise us for interfering too much? Well, they're just content to let they Syrians kill each other off (with the shocking exception of France!)

    You say our credibility is on the line Mr. Obama? I'd say we lost that several thousand-Syrian-lives ago...

  • Badgerbadger Murray, UT
    Sept. 4, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    It isn't the world's credibility Obama is worried about. It is the credibility of number one, himself. Sad for a man who is supposed to be a public servant by virtue of the office he sought and won.

    If there is to be intervention in Syria, it needs to come from the neighboring countries, or it will be rejected completely. Christian are not welcome, nor any friend of Israel. It has to be a Muslim nation. Perhaps we could support Jordan in their efforts to help their neighbors.

    I am not even president, and I don't even have tons of advisers to show me the light, and I am smart enough to figure this out.