No war with Syria

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 4:02 p.m.

    To "atl134" is that the same "Free Syrian Army" that had a member of its militia filmed cutting out the heart of an enemy soldier, and eating it? (See "Face-to-face with Abu Sakkar, Syria's 'heart-eating cannibal'" in BBC) The Free Syrian Army is also attacking and destroying Christian villages. (See "Syria: Christians take up arms for first time" in UK Telegraph.)

    So again, what group is fighting for freedom? You have the the Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels, Al Qaeda backed rebels, and the Free Syrian Army that is looking to implement its own brand of Islam.

    Which brand of Islam do you want in Syria? What do you think will happen to the groups that lose.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 2:38 p.m.

    "In this case, there is no group fighting for freedom. "

    The Free Syrian Army, the largest subset of rebels. Those are the Syrian people who were protesting at the start and are the primary opposition. In the intervening two years there's been primarily foreign groups that you referred to who have fought against Assad as well. The Free Syrian Army is not fond of these groups but right now rather needs them as an ally of convenience since well... they're losing, and nobody else is really doing much to help them.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 1:11 p.m.

    To "Irony Guy" and who do you attack in Syria? Do you attack the Dictator who has killed 100,000+ people or do you attack the terrorist supported rebels that have?

    In this case, there is no group fighting for freedom. We have 2 thugs fighiting for control.

    The bigger question is who set off the chemical weapons? It was documented earlier this year that Syrian rebels had some chemical weapons. Since they were being supported by terrorists, it is reasonable to assume that they would use them if it would pull the US or other nations into helping them.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 10:59 a.m.

    Barack's "little war" is about as well thought through as Obamacare. Tuesday those who can stomach to listen and watch Barack attempt to justify his "shot across the bow" will hear a teleprompter speech crafted by his campaign advisors other words this will be a lot of blame congress and blame the GOP and blame blame blame...mixed in with a heavy dose of hypothetical hot air. Rewind time and erase that silly and stupid red line comment made to puff up Barack for the 2012 election and I 100% guarantee you there would be ZERO talk of bombing Syria. This is ALL about Barack and NOTHING to do with US interests. Again - the low information crowd will be impressed on Tuesday night - the rest ought to not waste your time.

  • NedGrimley Brigham City, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 8:57 a.m.

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

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

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 9, 2013 1:03 a.m.

    @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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 5:38 p.m.

    ", 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.

    "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.

  • Hemlock Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 5:17 p.m.

    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.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 8, 2013 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 8, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    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!

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    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".

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    There is also a huge difference between bravery and stupidity.

  • CLM Draper, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:51 p.m.

    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.

  • Mick Murray, Utah
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Irony Guy Bountiful, Utah
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:12 p.m.

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

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 11:42 a.m.

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

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 10:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 10:15 a.m.

    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?

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    Sept. 8, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    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.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 8:09 a.m.

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

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    Sept. 8, 2013 6:27 a.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    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.

  • erichard COMANCHE, TX
    Sept. 8, 2013 12:30 a.m.

    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.