How many of you are aware that Syria and Iran have a self defense treaty
requiring each to come to the others assistance if attacked?How come
the news media is not speculating what will happen if Iran enters the fray on
the side of Syria if Syria is attacked by outside forces?Will Iran
attack Israel or US facilities in the Middle East?Does Iran have a
capability to cut the flow of oil thru the staits of hormuth?If they
do cut the flow how will that impact the world's economy?Although we only receive 10" of our foreign oil from the middle east
during the last embargo we shipped our own oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezula and
domestic oil to Europe to make up for their short fall. How will that impact
the price we pay here at the pump?Do you still support a military
attack on Syria and the consequences?
President Obama had no business declaring a red line if the Syrians used
chemical weapons. This because he has no authority to attack Syria under these
circumstances. If He wanted a red line drawn he should have consulted with
Congress and got a provisional declaration of war in the event that such and
occurrence happened.Too often presidents have gotten us into ill
conceived wars but there is wisdom in numbers. To prevent this from happening
Congress passed the War Powers Act. This has not been effective. Congress should
now pass a law that if a has not declared that no soldier can be prosecuted
for refusing to go, and if the ever draft is ever brought back that no drafte
can be prosecuted for refusing to go.
Do Democrats realize its Al Qaeda that is fighting yet another dictator in Syria
for gassing his own people and now Obama and the Democrats want to help Al
Qaeda? Do Democrats remember 9/11, Benghazi and many other attacks on America
perpetrated by Al Qaeda? Do Democrats remember their outrage when President Bush
stopped another dictator for gassing his own people (Kurds)? No wonder the rest
of the world laughs at us and has no respect for America!
The world laughs at us for the Iraq fiasco. This will restore lost credibility.
I hope all of the writers to this forum that pounce on the 'unfunded
war' band wagon, are ready to jump on this same bandwagon, and this same
president for the same thing, can you say; Iraq, Pakistan, Viet Nam?
@ One vote; Al Qaeda is laughing the loudest! Obama and the Democrats think our
enemy is now our friend? Talk about lost credibility!
@ShimlauI'll take your challenge. I'm ready to jump on
the bandwagon to decry this upcoming military action. As much as I hate to see
human suffering anywhere in the world, I don't think it is necessarily the
United States' problem to solve. Having actually served in
Iraq and not seeing much improvement based on the amount of sacrifice (money,
lives lost, lives damaged, etc.), I see the same thing happening here. We may
see a temporary quell of the fighting, but as we have learned (maybe we
haven't learned), the people in the Middle East are VERY patient and will
wait years, decades, centuries to settle old scores.
"Any president who takes lightly the responsibility of deploying troops to
combat, like President Bush and unlike President Obama, is not fit for the
@Mountanman7:12 a.m. Aug. 28, 2013======= Yes, and
I'm against Obama military actions in Syria FOR THAT very reason!BTW - Where were you been hiding for the past 12 years?Don't tell
me you've changed your stance -- that's called being a hypocrite.
I agree with some of statements of this author. Syria is a very difficult
situation. However, in the beginning of the conflict it was not so difficult.
Had Obama acted quickly in the beginning, the US could have helped several of
the innocent people who have suffered in this conflict. The Syrian citizens
that were/are being abused deserved our help in the initial uprising. This help
could have come by way of supplies: money, food, munitions. I do not think it
would have been wise to be there physically.However, since we did
nothing, now terrorists organizations are involved and we are in a lose lose
situation. At this point in time, it is better to stay out of the conflict, but
support the 100s of 1000s of refugees that are stuck in neighboring countries in
makeshift camps. We should spend money and seek donations from other countries
to establish a safe haven for those refugees (the victims).
The military war machine is incredibly effective at keeping us in a constant
state of war for their own benefit and soldiers blindly march on to the
propaganda thinking they are saving the day. The country has been duped and
continues to be duped. Don't believe the lies.
So the Emperor will kill even more innocent women, children and non-combatants
to make a point, not judgement which is the domain of GOD. Missile guidance
systems fail and if your neighbor is the target, you are going to the Promise
Land also. The Emperors of Rome believed themselves Gods, but faced judgment by
the one and only God.
Any conflict would be attacks from ships and aircraft, there won't be US
ground troops. It'd be an attack similar to what the US and its European
allies used with Libya.While I'm on that matter... isn't
it funny how conservatives attacked Obama when it came to Libya for "leading
from behind" and letting Europe take the lead on that one, but now that
it's Syria and he's more at the front of things they're mad at
him again? Heaven forbid there ever be any consistency.
The Bush war had nothing to do with WMDs. Had the American public known before
that the real purpose was commercial business for the control of the worlds oil
we may not have let it happen. Please tell us the truth about what
are the United States interests in Syria that may mean death to thousands of
Americans and people of Syria. And possibly start WWIII in a hot mode.
Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without Islamic nations?
Here is my guess - Barack will lob a few cruise missiles in to Syria and that
will be it. Just a symbolic response which in effect will just further prove to
the bad guys that the US is a patsy and they can use chemical weapons at
will...which they will most certainly do. Barack just wants to check the box
that states he actually did act ...he did something ... even though it did more
hard than good. It was the same thing Clinton did back in the 90's when he
lobed a few cruise missiles into some empty tents as a response to the USS Cole.
As we all know the bad guys ..a couple years later...carried out 911. The
symbolic use of force is useless but it is predictable from patsy liberals who
care more about what their voting base will think rather than the actual real
outcome and results of the use of force. The lesson here is - better to do
NOTHING rather than tease them with some meaningless missile strike. What also
might happen is Israel might get attacked if we do some symbolic strike which is
MUCH worse now.
When I saw the link "Obama is Right" I had to look up to the top of the
screen to see if I was still on the Deseret News Page.
we have an expression in our language, it says : "if you want to do some
foolish job, don's waste time to seek ridiculous excuses, just do it"
this is what West always do in Middle East. WMDs, Chemical weapons, democracy,
human rights,.....West just wants to protect it's Oil resources and
security of its naughty boy, Israel. everything else is just funny jokes. Syrian
rebels and Governments have killed 120,000 of each other and innocent people for
more than 2.5 years. many village have been massacred from two sides.....
Al-Qaeda is on the side of rebels. Extremists have executed many Christians and
destroyed many church in Syria. why now West notice it?I tell you why.
they just waited until one of the Israel's neighbors completely devastated
so it can't stand on its foot for following 30 years and now they feel
responsible for human rights. moreover, I am completely sure that Assad
didn't perform gas attack, just someone else did it, maybe who was behind
11Sep events. dirty world
@patriot"Here is my guess - Barack will lob a few cruise
missiles in to Syria and that will be it. "I wish other
conservatives thought like you on this (heh, even if it comes with the rant that
made up the rest of your comment)... half the comments here seem to think
we're getting into a multi-year ground war despite there being nobody
(other than McCain who never met a potential conflict he didn't want to
send wave after wave of troops at) who is talking about sending in ground
So, it's ok to kill over 100,000 people with bombs and bullets but once a
few hundred are killed by gas, the line has been crossed? Killing is killing.
Period. The U.S. has no business being involved in Syria's
civil war. Any action on the part of the U.S. would be an act of war, which
would require approval by Congress. I haven't heard that congress has taken
any action on approving or disapproving our involvement in this war. It's
just plain wrong to get involved regardless of which side would benefit. Sadly,
in this case, the U.S. would be assisting and provoking an enemy that would turn
on us and other Middle Eastern countries, namely, Israel. It's just a
potential horrible escalation of death and destruction beyond what it currently
is. Just say 'No' to getting involved in Syria.
@USALover"Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without
Islamic nations?"I'm sure the Muslims in 1272 (after the
9th Crusade) said - "Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without
Christian invaders." If you think Christians are all about
peace, I suggest you take a college-level European history class. I warn you
that you may not like what you learn about your Christian forefathers.
The Deseret News censors are sure busy today. They let a comment like
"Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without Islamic nations?"
through, but if a comment is made that Christians are hardly blameless in the
history of religious warfare. Nine separate crusades by Christians that ended
in 1272 have much historic value that we could learn from.
re:atl134The BIG problem with just launching a few cruise missiles
is that it does absolutely NOTHING to stop Syria from mounting further chemical
attacks. To destroy their entire chemical weapon capability would take a month
of sustained bombing and even then they most likely have much of their store
hidden underground or inside large urban areas. Secondly Syria has the right to
respond on an attack by the United States ...and the most likely attack will be
on Israel. Where will that lead? Any guesses? Barack Obama has cornered himself
with his stupid thoughtless political "red line" comment and now he
wants to fulfill that promise by lobbing a few missiles into Syria ...just for a
day or two as he has said ...and then calling it good. Really? You call that
leadership? I listened to several congressional Democrat's today CONDEMN
ANY military intervention by the US into Syria - even they sense this is ALL
political and not in the interests of the United States strategically. Unless
the US intends on staying in Syria for a long protracted war the sane thing to
do is to NOT start what you can't finish.
Where is Obama's authority to use the military when the United States is
not directly attacked? The War Power's Act is vague on that point. Why is the President in tumoil when 300 people were killed? What about
the other 100,000 people why have died in Syria since this civil war started?Where is Congress on this matter? Other countries who are thinking
about becoming involved had consulted with their version of Congress. Why does
Obama think that this decision to send troops and munitions to Syria is his
decision alone?Which side do we support? Which side has the voice
of the people? Obama is rattling his sabre to save face. He
doesn't have a clue about what to do or how to go about it. People will
die. The question is, "Would you send your son or daughter into that civil
war?" If not, why would you support Obama? Why would you allow him to send
our sons and daughters into that civil war?
@mike richards. Where were you when bush did the same thing?
How is attacking Russia's main ally a good idea? There have been over 100k
killed by bullets, bombs and knives and Obama didn't care now all of the
sudden 1000 or so killed by gas and its worth us going to war. And bombing and
launching missiles is war. It would be if someone bombed us. The leader of the
rebels eats the organs of his enemies yet we want to help them. Stay out of
other countries problems. Didn't you learn anything from Iraq?
@Mike RichardsSouth Jordan, UtahGee Mike, Can I now call
you an "un-Patriotic", "un-American", "anti-war
protestor"?Because that sure is what you called me for the past 12
years for not supporting the Bush wars.BTW - I'm against ANY
offensive wars or military action including this (see, that's called being
honest, consistent, and having personal integrity), and I want to know what
Syria did to attack us?orare we being goat roped and snookered into
yet another "un-funded" conflict?
alt134, I'm with you. The situation is deadly serious, but the
conservative responses here are amusing. A key component of the conservative
criticism of Obamas foreign policy is he is weak, doesn't act, leads from
behind. Now? What I do hope is that those who call the Obama
supporters, kool aid drinkers, sycophants, sheep etc. are taking notes (to be
referenced later) about the criticism the President is receiving from the left,
not just about possible actions but the policies that got us here (fat chance).
Likewise I partially agree with Patriot. There will not be boots on
the ground, this will not be a sustained effort. It will be at worst a few
missals with a ton of rhetoric, and it won't do anything other than dim the
red line to a pale shade of pink. The whole red line policy was a bad
mistake.BTW mountainman, the Iraq war had nothing to do with Kurds
being gassed. The war was in 2003 and the gassing incident was in 1988. So
where was Regan when the Kurds needed him?
What was that about all our friends joining us. Let's see France wants to
wait until they hear everything from the inspectors and the British parliament
has handed cameron and 0bama a big defeat! At least cameron stood in the
parliament and answered question after question without a teleprompter! And
since the vote was against him, he said he would not be involved. So we go it
alone! Just us against the syrians, russianx, chinese. That should really work
out well, eh prof davis?.
the Iraq Syria flip flop is amazing to behold.
Based on this author's passing judgment on what qualifies a president to be
fit for office, it's clear he supports Obama--something I do not do
although I agree that we don't need to be rushing into action unilaterally
as Bush did. And although I felt Bush had ulterior motives--if it's not
obvious, I am fairly skeptical of both parties--the fact that Hussein balked at
allowing UN inspectors into the country gave an extremely strong impression that
he did in fact have WMD's even though that turned out not to be the case.
Why was Hussein unwilling to let inspectors in? Machismo? He frankly would still
be in power if Bush didn't have that very palpable "he's obviously
hiding something" argument on which to base the invasion. But if this
author is going to talk about what qualifies a person to be president, he needs
to include every position the president takes. Based on that, neither Obama nor
most any other president would qualify.