Quantcast
Opinion

Richard Davis: Obama is right to move deliberately against Syria

Comments

Return To Article
  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:07 a.m.

    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?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 6:37 a.m.

    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.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:12 a.m.

    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!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:48 a.m.

    The world laughs at us for the Iraq fiasco. This will restore lost credibility.

  • Shimlau SAINT GEORGE, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    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?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    Aug. 28, 2013 8:23 a.m.

    @ One vote; Al Qaeda is laughing the loudest! Obama and the Democrats think our enemy is now our friend? Talk about lost credibility!

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    @Shimlau

    I'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.

  • Steve C. Warren WEST VALLEY CITY, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    "Any president who takes lightly the responsibility of deploying troops to combat, like President Bush and unlike President Obama, is not fit for the office."

    Amen.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    @Mountanman

    7:12 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.

  • The Solution Las Cruces, NM
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:51 a.m.

    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).

  • Skipray Portsmouth, VA
    Aug. 28, 2013 10:54 a.m.

    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.

  • Remery El Centro, CA
    Aug. 28, 2013 11:03 a.m.

    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.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 11:05 a.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 11:29 a.m.

    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.

  • USAlover Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 12:01 p.m.

    Imagine how peaceful this planet would be without Islamic nations?

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 12:04 p.m.

    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.

  • Lowonoil Clearfield, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 12:10 p.m.

    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.

  • friend82 baku, 00
    Aug. 28, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    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

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 1:02 p.m.

    @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 troops.

  • stuff Provo, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 1:33 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    @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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 3:41 p.m.

    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.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 4:14 p.m.

    re:atl134

    The 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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Aug. 28, 2013 5:40 p.m.

    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?

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    Aug. 28, 2013 7:15 p.m.

    @mike richards. Where were you when bush did the same thing?

  • onceuponatime Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 12:07 a.m.

    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?

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 29, 2013 6:23 a.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah

    Gee 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?
    or
    are we being goat roped and snookered into yet another "un-funded" conflict?

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Aug. 29, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    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?

  • Star Bright Salt Lake City, Ut
    Aug. 29, 2013 10:44 p.m.

    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?.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 3, 2013 6:12 p.m.

    the Iraq Syria flip flop is amazing to behold.

  • JT4 Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 11, 2013 2:16 p.m.

    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.