Obama delays Syria vote, says diplomacy may work

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 2:06 p.m.

    All I can say is I HOPE diplomacy DOES work. We don't need to be involved in yet another war in the middle-east where it doesn't matter which side wins... we lose.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:27 a.m.

    Yes, our congressional delegation wants to channel the Obama hate and vote no to get support for their reelection. Time to not be partisan on International affairs.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 11:24 a.m.

    @ atl Yep I am sure that you are correct. Obama scared them right out of their boots.

    Assad I am declaring that I am going to attack you. First I need to go play golf, then I am going to Russia for a few days. Oh and here are the targets I am going to bomb. This attack will only last a few days and it will be amazingly small, and won't result in your removal.I just want to knock your garage windows out. I don't have to but I think I will wait and see if I can convince 500 plus members of my Congress to go along with it and I need to convince the American People if its alright. And I have assembled a coalition of one to join in this effort. This my friend will not be shock and awe but shuck and jive. Yep it was credible to a T. Did I leave any detaiils out?

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:51 a.m.

    The only reason we have this chance of getting Syria to give up its chemical weapons without us having to fire a shot is because they (Syria and Russia) thought there was a credible enough chance of a strike and wanted to avoid that. We might get exactly what most of us want (no conflict) with the bonus of getting their chemical weapons too, that should be a win. However, you all are so determined in your hatred of Obama that you refuse to see any result as positive.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    "That would be a rare case in his narcissistic life, someone telling him no."

    Oh get over it... this Congress sets record breaking numbers of filibusters. It's practically expected that if he sends something to the House they'll reject it automatically because it's something he wants. He didn't get his immigration bill (at least not yet), or cap and trade, or the public option in Obamacare, or all sorts of judicial and administrative appointments.

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Sept. 11, 2013 9:45 a.m.

    pragmatistferlife, you are right in so many ways. However, if absolutely no retaliation outside of their borders happened, by degrading his capabilities, we would have taken a definite action supporting the rebels.

    Samson01 is right on with the refugee thing --- that is a "heart in the right place" action.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 8:47 a.m.

    The Community Organizer and his minions that like to have control over us lacks real leadership. He shoots from the hip and the military and Generals have to be in awe and shock with his tactics. Diplomacy should have been on-going for the last 2 1/2 years. He had an election campaign to run and our dedicated men in Benghazi paid the price for that error a year ago. The President forgot about his "four fastest ships" that he was supposed to have deployed.

    He is dealing not with Syria but the big guys from Russia that our country has been thwarted by for 80 years or more. The big guy is the most experienced and seasoned KGB person that there is with the power and influence of a country that has lost in Afghanistan and seen it's power and influence drop out of sight.

    Russia has a larger place in the world of terrorism now. Russia is a permanent member of the Security Council that can ruin everything we try to do, with one vote.

    We are at their mercy in a world where power and influence is vital to the media's presentation of what we do.

  • Samson01 S. Jordan, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 8:41 a.m.

    My issue with this whole situation is that there are no good guys. There are bad people killing bad people with innocent lives as collateral damage.

    Perhaps the best that we can do here is throw our resources behind the refugee camps and allow the innocents to flee to a safe place.

    There is, at this point, no right answer that I can see.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 11, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    OlderGreg, no one call for tell the future, but I think it's reasonable to believe that there won't be a significant backlash, and the Syrian government accepting a deal that would destroy their chemical weapons is a sign of that.

    First of all, the government has been fighting the civil war for two years so their capabilities to retaliate are definitely diminished. Like Hussein who warned and promised but had nothing to back it up because of wars and sanctions.

    Secondly their easiest retaliation would be to launch missiles into Israel. You may question what the Americans can accomplish but Syria would have no questions about what Israel would do or accomplish, and it certainly isn't good given they are all ready swamped in a civil war.

    Thirdly even though Russia and Syria are allies the last thing either need is a completely unstable or radical Syria. Which is exactly what you would get if they retaliated. Russia all ready has serious radical Islamist problems in the area and Iran is moving more and more away from war talk.

  • mohokat Ogden, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    Delay the vote in favor of diplomacy? Ya maybe but most likely because the vote will be no.That would be a rare case in his narcissistic life, someone telling him no.Something his ego would not handle

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 6:50 a.m.

    When the ground troop were massed around Iraq I wonder if this option was available to President Bush or did he want to attack Iraq?

    I seem to remember reading some where that Saddam had confidentially expressed the desire to realistically negociate and he was more than willing to do what ever it takes to remain in power.

    He saw the handwriting on the wall and would do anything we wanted.

    Had we used this option we would have saved many US lives and three trillion dollars.

  • JimInSLC Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 3:32 a.m.

    Obama, in his speech, said that we should go on the internet and watch the videos taken of victims of the gas attack; emphasizing the way children were killed.

    Obama, go to youtube and watch videos that come up when you search "Syria Rebels admit to chemical Attack" and "Fallujah The Hidden Massacre". The use of depleted uranium weapons has assured that babies will be still born there for the next 4 billion years, the half life of depleted uranium, if this toxic material is not cleaned up. The images of babies with multiple heads, single eyes, multiple limbs, internal organs exposed is horrific. If Obama cared so much about the children, he would ban the use of these weapons by the US military. The truth, he does not care. Hypocrite!

    Obama appears to be a shill for the war mongers and war profiteers in the world. He is not listening to the American people, the majority is against any military action in Syria. Ask yourself "What will happen when we choose to look away when our own government is responsible for such atrocities."

  • OlderGreg USA, CA
    Sept. 10, 2013 11:23 p.m.

    "This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective:-- degrading--capabilities"

    Like the Japanese strike at Pearl Harbor? No backlash, or "whoops" results?