Quantcast
Opinion

Letters: Obama's surrender

Comments

Return To Article
  • embarrassed Utahn! Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2013 6:17 a.m.

    President Obama has the near-impossible task of repairing the damage caused by Bush's war on terror. Our standing as a respected world-leader may never recover from the fraud and mismanagement of the Bush years. Bless our Amazing President Obama! His so-called "blunders" are a hiccup compared to the disasters Bush caused.

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    May 31, 2013 6:58 a.m.

    Huh? Where did this come from? May we see some solid documentation that there is any degree of truth behind this nonsense? And hate radio stations do not count as valid confirmation.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 31, 2013 6:59 a.m.

    Obama has a problem with reality. This is why he refuses to admit his malfeasance in Benghazi, it contradicts his arrogant assertion that HE already defeated Al Qaida. Perhaps Al Qaida didn't get his memo or have not listened to his speeches?

  • isrred South Jordan, UT
    May 31, 2013 7:07 a.m.

    You can't "Win" a war with no opponent, so to say that this is "defeat" is ludicrous.

    But hey, at least Obama didn't hang a giant "Mission Accomplished" banner up a few weeks into it.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    May 31, 2013 7:14 a.m.

    So then how would you describe victory? How would you know when terrorism has been finally defeated?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    May 31, 2013 7:28 a.m.

    We are still spending nearly $700 billion annually in defense. More than we ever did during the Cold War, Vietnam War, Korean War, and WWII. I don't think that is an indication of surrender.

    Besides, what would you have Obama do to PROVE his stance on terrorism? Kill Osama? Yeah, he already did that.

    So what else? Invade Iran or Libya?

    Have we learned nothing from Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq?

    To what end is this war on terror? Spend $1 trillion annually? Own the entire Middle East? What do repubs want? There will always be some bad guys in the world. Sorry!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 31, 2013 7:40 a.m.

    The "war on terror" is just another corporate welfare scheme to give billions away to the Military Industrial complex. It isn't even a real war?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    May 31, 2013 7:45 a.m.

    It's one thing to disagree on policies, and expected outcomes, but what has seasoned political observer shaking their heads and saying they have never seen a political environment like this is the massive misinformation and willful ignorance displayed by the right today.

    Should we arm Libyan rebels is a debatable question, but to say the President has surrendered to extremists in the middle of the debate about the Presidents use of drones is beyond being misinformed.

  • thatthatguy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 31, 2013 8:03 a.m.

    In 2004, Osama Bin Laden said “We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” Now, 10 years later, Osama's goal of driving America to bankruptcy is succeeding. Our goal of, what, killing all the terrorists, is no closer to completion than it was in 2001. Maybe we need to reconsider our strategy in the "war on terror".

  • Dave D Spring Creek, NV
    May 31, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    What if the best approach to "fighting" terrorism has been right under our noses the whole time? I say it's worth a shot. I'm guessing it would be cheaper and cost far fewer lives.
    "Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you."

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 31, 2013 8:17 a.m.

    @ RanchHand. Not even a real war? Tell that to those murdered on 9/11 or those murdered in Benghazi or at the Boston Marathon, among hundreds of others.
    No need for a military? Sprechen sie Deutch? How about Japanese? Pearl Harbor ring a bell with you? Ready to buy your wife and daughters a burka? Wise up! Life is shorter than you think!

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    May 31, 2013 8:32 a.m.

    1. There never REALLY was a "War on Terror" -- it was all a ruse to invade an oil rich country, and topple a rogue puppet dictator WE put in office, who then stopped playing by our Oil Corporation desires.

    2. Obama took out the mastermind and kingpin of the 9/11 attacks - [the terrorist] Osama Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is a side note in history, and like the Marshall Plan after WWII - it's time America starts building everything we spend years blowing-up -- most importantly our credibility through the Middle East.

    3. Benghazi? C'mon. When Republicans take the blame for 12 other embassy attacks, the deaths of 60 diplomats, 5,000 dead soldiers, 75,000 wounded protecting "Oil" and not America or our Constitution -- then we can chat.

    Until then - this "letter" is just more ranting and parroting of AM hate radio.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 31, 2013 9:18 a.m.

    What a load of rubbish. Just because we get rid of the silly 'war on whatever' nomenclature doesn't mean preventing terrorism falls off the radar. The phrase was only designed to monger fear, and enable poor decision making. The president surrendered nothing except unnecessary hyperbole. The day to day activities encompassed in the 'war on terror' are still part of the normal function of law enforcement and government agencies everywhere, even though we despise the government that provides them.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    May 31, 2013 9:28 a.m.

    "It was revealed this morning that McCain, during his personal mission to Syria to meet with rebels, appeared in photos with Mohammed Nour and Abu Ibrahim, two members of the Sunni "Northern Storm" brigade, which kidnapped 11 Lebanese Shia pilgrims, who were on their way back to Lebanon, from Iran. The group is still holding nine of the hostages.

    This should give everyone pause when it comes to ramping up support for the rebels by arming them.

    McCain's office says that the senator didn't know who they were, and doesn't support their terrorist acts. . If a U.S. senator can unwittingly pose for pictures with terrorists in Syria, how can we guarantee that the arms McCain supports sending there won't also end up in the same place McCain did -- with terrorists? The simple answer is that we can't.

    What's worse, the Sunni side of the war, which McCain wants to support with arms, is not just affiliated with these kidnappers and terrorists, but also al Qaeda-affiliated groups, and Iraqi Sunni insurgents -- the very same Iraqi Sunnis who killed American troops, and the Iraqi Army."
    (Jon Soltz Vote Vets)

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    May 31, 2013 9:36 a.m.

    @Mountanman;

    That's right. The "War on Terror" is a war on an ideology, its not a real war. Who is the enemy? Every strike against "the enemy" that kills innocent civilians (and there have been many of these) creates more enemies.

    What nation attacked us on 9/11? What nation attacked the Boston Marathon? Who is the enemy? You can't even pinpoint who it is. You can't have a war on an ideology, it will always fail.

    Fortunately, reality is setting in.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    May 31, 2013 9:52 a.m.

    @ RanchHand. Perhaps you misunderstood my earlier comments? As President Bush told us, "we are not fighting a country but an ideology from many countries." If we can't win a war against an ideology, what shall we do? We have to win or be destroyed because to them you and I are "infidels" and the solution is our death! "Death to the infidels".

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    May 31, 2013 10:07 a.m.

    I thought Obama lead the "non-military seals" operation is take out Bin Laden? The term "war on terror" is so general and meaningless it could include shutting down roller coasters.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    May 31, 2013 10:24 a.m.

    I think if we just be nice to terrorists they will treat us nice too. Hasn't the past few years already proven that?? In Barack we trust!!!

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    May 31, 2013 10:35 a.m.

    Obama is right on this one. The only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2013 11:31 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    Hayden, ID

    If we can't win a war against an ideology, what shall we do? We have to win or be destroyed because to them you and I are "infidels" and the solution is our death!

    =======

    I can always tell someone who has NEVER served in the military...

    1. You fight fire with fire.
    2. You fight bullets with bullets.
    3. You fight bombs with bombs.
    4. You fight ideologies with ideologies. [BTW - That's what the "War in Heaven" was all about.]

    So, if one wants to get technical -- it is a war of Ideology, not a war on terror.
    But conservatives like GW Bush thought fighting Terror with Terror was the correct approach -- but still get it all wrong.

    BTW -- God didn't carpet bomb Lucifer and his followers into submission.

  • Ernest T. Bass Bountiful, UT
    May 31, 2013 11:40 a.m.

    Two republicans in my family claimed the US should nuke the middle east. Yes they believed it and yes they were serious.
    Peace is the only way to win a "war" against an ideology.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    May 31, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    Ernest T. Bass
    Bountiful, UT
    Two republicans in my family claimed the US should nuke the middle east. Yes they believed it and yes they were serious.

    ===========

    As a veteran myself --
    I always ask myself if these sorts of republicans who want to go out and nuke and bomb everyone they take issue with have EVER served in the military?

    ...and -- Who and How are they gonna pay for it?

  • Ryan Phillips herriman, ut
    May 31, 2013 2:37 p.m.

    The only way to "win" a war of ideology is to change the ideology of your opponents. We will never change the ideology of terrorists. The way we "lose" this war is more terror attacks. This will always continue to happen. So you can either give up and let terrorists have their way, or continue to protect yourself. Announcing that we are giving up like Obama wants to do is not the answer. In the liberal fantasy world Bin Laden's death meant the end of terror threats. The lie about the Libya attack being a response to a video helped get him re-elected, so that's nice. If the "war on terror" is just hyperbole and nomenclature, then what, exactly, is Obama proposing to put an "end" to? If nothing is going to change, then why give the impression to terrorists that we are letting our guard down?

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    May 31, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    There is no need for the US to win any war. As long as we disrupt our enemies and they cannot unite against us we have already won, by being the #1 Super Power on planet Earth. We own the oceans, we own the commerce. The United States dominates the world. We have already won. Its now a matter of staying on top.
    Look at world events with that perspective and our strategy's make more sense.

  • wrz Pheonix, AZ
    May 31, 2013 9:31 p.m.

    @embarrassed Utahn!: "President Obama has the near-impossible task of repairing the damage caused by Bush's war on terror."

    What's so tough about closing down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, huh? Obama said he'd do it in his first term... musta been all talk. Either that or he has a very poor memory.

    @isrred:
    "You can't 'Win' a war with no opponent, so to say that this is 'defeat' is ludicrous."

    There is an opponent... the problem is, the opponent is not found in just one country but scattered amongst dozens of countries in the mid east and elsewhere... even in many countries in Europe now. They fight in one or two countries and hide in the others until needed.

    "But hey, at least Obama didn't hang a giant 'Mission Accomplished' banner up a few weeks into it."

    Neither did Bush. The sailors on the ship hung it.

    @SEY: "So then how would you describe victory? How would you know when terrorism has been finally defeated?"

    Very tough questions since terrorism has it's roots in a major world religion... and we see no effort to abandon the teachings.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    May 31, 2013 9:49 p.m.

    It is rather ironic that the day this was published, the number 2 leader of the Taliban - their military lead - was killed. If that is considered "surrendering", well I hope we surrender more often.

    There was an actual war authorization - a legal document - that was called the war on terrorism, and in it was specific authorization to go after the Taliban and Bin Laden and his gang of thugs. We don't need that authorization to continue to pursue these goals and pursue these people. The intent here is to do so inside the bounds of normal law, which the war authorization granted great leeway. Gitmo is one of those constructs - where normally you can not hold people from anywhere in prison without bringing charges... indefinitely.

    But I hardly think this is a relaxation in the pursuit of those who would go after American interest. Lets not get confused between a legal tool, and the mission at hand.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    May 31, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    @Eric Samuelsen:
    "Obama is right on this one. The only way to defeat terrorism is to refuse to be terrorized."

    And how do you do that? Stand around and repeat over and over 'I'm not terrorized, I'm not terrorized, I'm not terrorized?'

    @Mountanman
    "So, if one wants to get technical -- it is a war of Ideology, not a war on terror."

    The problem with that approach is... the terrorists have guns, IED's, and pressure cookers. They also know how to fly Boeing 747's.

    "BTW -- God didn't carpet bomb Lucifer and his followers into submission."

    Not yet... but He will.

    @Ryan Phillips:
    "The only way to 'win' a war of ideology is to change the ideology of your opponents."

    Good luck with that. There are 1.6 billion Muslims to change who have been developing ideology for over 14 centuries. Not a simple task. In fact, the Muslims are seeking to change the world's ideology.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 1, 2013 6:32 a.m.

    "Good luck with that. There are 1.6 billion Muslims to change who have been developing ideology for over 14 centuries. Not a simple task. In fact, the Muslims are seeking to change the world's ideology."

    True...but the vast majority of them want the exact same things we want - a safe place for their kids to grow up, and most believe in peoples rights to believe as they wish. It is only a minority that feel they need to compel others into belief. In fact the vast majority of those don't live by Shiria law.

    What scares them the most is what they see in western media - and it should scare us too. Violence, Sex, drug abuse - all mainstays of what we can entertainment. But that is the image they see... and they want nothing to do with the west. That is the ideology devout Muslims are fighting against. That is part of the fight that "conservatives" should share in common with them.

    We can argue over if God has blue eyes or brown later. But those differences are not worth killing over.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    June 1, 2013 3:32 p.m.

    Alfred
    Pheonix, AZ

    Good luck with that. There are 1.6 billion Muslims to change who have been developing ideology for over 14 centuries. Not a simple task. In fact, the Muslims are seeking to change the world's ideology.
    10:23 p.m. May 31, 2013

    ======

    Why do they fight us Alfred?
    They see out culture full of;
    Sex
    Drugs
    Alcohol
    not praying to God
    and stealing their oil [i.e., pillaging - something the Romans, Vikings and Nephites all did before their demise as well.]

    To be quite honest - from a purely Moral "ideological" Stand point,
    I see more positive in the Muslim world than I do the Western World.

    But I also value Free Agency, and Free Will over be forced to do what's right even more.
    I learned from Alma about freedom - the wicked must allowed to do their wickedness.
    Forcing or taking away free agency is worse than always choosing what is deemed right.

    The Founding Fathers knew that.
    And I can't understand why conservative today trample that freedom in the name of righteousness.

    Right or Wrong, it's what makes me a "Liberal".

  • Rikitikitavi Cardston, Alberta
    June 1, 2013 11:29 p.m.

    Let's get one thing straight: Obama DID NOT kill Osama. He did not even issue the order to do so. Obama dithered indecisively when Panetta presented him with the decision to carry out the operation. Panetta was a "GO" with or without BO>

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    June 2, 2013 8:57 a.m.

    "Obama DID NOT kill Osama."

    You can't have it both ways..... you can't say Obama is responsible for all the misdeeds of government - then not give him credit when the government does something right.

    Rikitikitavi - you need to decide..... you can't have it both ways. Did you hold Bush responsible for 9/11? For the abuses in Iraq prisons? For Scooter Libby? For the myriad of other 'scandals' in that administration?

    Somehow I don't think so. Did you hold Bush responsible for failing to get Osama Bin Laden? I doubt you did that either.

    Partisan silliness.

  • Alfred Pheonix, AZ
    June 2, 2013 4:47 p.m.

    @UtahBlueDevil:
    "... the vast majority of them want the exact same things we want - a safe place for their kids to grow up..."

    Let's say that only one-tenth of one percent were Jihadist terrorists... How many would that make of the 1.6 billion Muslims, huh? I think over one million. That's a fairly sizable army.

    "It is only a minority that feel they need to compel others into belief. In fact the vast majority of those don't live by Shiria law."

    See above.

    "What scares them the most is what they see in western media - and it should scare us too. Violence, Sex, drug abuse..."

    How's that differ from the 9/11 carnage?

    "That is the ideology devout Muslims are fighting against."

    Not so... they are fighting for a western world caliphate. Make no mistake. They've already made significant inroads into England, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and several other European nations.

    "But those differences are not worth killing over."

    Tell that to the Muslim jihadists.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    June 3, 2013 12:48 p.m.

    So alfred's answer is another holy war, of Christian vs Muslims.

    If you follow "actual" history you'd find muslims far more tolerating then the christians, when they would gain power in Europe or the holy land.

    I have muslim friends, who are not the people you claim, and I have Christian friends who sound like you and think that we should start some kind of pre-emptive strike against muslims in general and believe they have God on their side.
    Sad little people who have given up on the golden rule for old testament revenge.