Advertisement

Discussions

Reader comments

On Letter: How many?

Comments

Steven Gaudreau 7 months, 2 weeks ago

It's not our fight, stay out. if the U.S. wants to attack every brutal dictator in the world, we will be at war with 25% of the world. Every time we remove an evil dictator, a new one pops up. We need to take care of our own country and let the others take care of themselves.

0

Abdu Omar 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I will tell you, Freddy, that the people of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, etc. don't hate Americans. They hate the American Government for supporting the most brutal and terroristic state in the world: Israel. The expansion of Israel is the problem and our government allows it to happen. IF Israel would have stayed within the boundarys set up by the UN back in 1945 0r 6, there would be less violence between the Arabs and Israelis.

0

Larry Moss 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Our enemies are killing each other, so I on one hand I want to just make some popcorn and watch. On the other hand, the President, rightly so, has drawn a red line with Iran and it's WMD program.

Syria's GAS weapons are unlikely to present any danger to the USA. A Nuclear Iran threatens everyone, everywhere. By doing nothing in Syria we send a message to Iran that maybe when the time comes, and it surely will, we won't do anything to them.

So, while the plan's put forth so far do not have my approval, I hope the plan that is finalize will. But, I'm just one guy. Unlike many of my friends on the left who took and take shots at Bush in our past Wars, I will support and hold judgment on Obama until actions are complete and results are known.

As to "boots on the ground", I believe the President when he says there are no plans for their use. That said, when combat of any type is proposed a President should not, nor should Congress take any options off the table. For one, it gives the enemy less to worry about and second, it puts the President and war fighters in a box.

Lastly, I hope the President has learned from the situation in Syria. That waiting to long to act can only make things worse and a pivot and laser focus on Iran is critical before they weaponize nuclear material.

0

bearded_gnome 7 months, 2 weeks ago

once again we get liberal big lies about our reasons for invading Iraq/2003.

radio intercepts showed Saddam's generals discussing Saddam's WMD's. are we supposed to know about Saddam's WMD status better than his own generals? crazy.

second, there was real evidence that near the invasion Saddam shipped his WMD's to Syria and now, lo and behold *Syria is using them, and maybe the rebels.

third, Saddam did have 550-tons of enriched uranium found during the invasion. he didn't have that to manufacture glow-in-the-dark garden rocks!

obama contradicts himself now vs then if you examine many of his statements.

1

bearded_gnome 7 months, 2 weeks ago

why must we be the ones to supposedly punish Assad?

Obama wants to throw our prestige and military force into Syria, waste it, and a year later has done nothing about the killing of an American ambassador and three brave americans in Benghazi, except lie to the american public and the dead americans' families.

Al-Qaeda is deep in the rebel ranks in Syria. no thanks.

"no boots on the ground" yu silly people think this means no casualties for americans or israelis? we have ships in striking distance of Syria/Iran.

1

Abdu Omar 7 months, 2 weeks ago

It seems that most of the world thinks that Al Assad used the gas. I don't want us in another war any more than the next guy, but do we allow him to do it again? What punishment is appropriate? Just a slap on the wrist or should we effect a no fly zone? I don't know, but I do know that:

"It is good that war should be so terrible, else we would become too fond of it." - Robert E. Lee

3

smileydog 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I saw video last week on a UK news website showing rebels unloading chemical weapons from a truck to be used on their own people in order to draw us in. Putin also mentioned this happened yesterday. Who do we believe, the UK news and Russia, or is this potential war based on lies by Obama?

0

Brock Masters 7 months, 2 weeks ago

War mongers, both left and right, on the Sunday news shows pleading with passion and urgency to use force to intervene in Syria.

Where is that passion and sense of urgency on our domestic issues, on our children dying everyday?

6

Richard Heckler 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Think about the hundred's of thousands of muslim children,women and men that are now dead or disabled as a result of an incident in which they played no part.

Think about the ten's of thousands of USA troops now dead and/or physically/mentally disabled that will also cost taxpayers billions upon billions to maintain these unfortunate military people. None went in expecting to die or become disabled.

"While unusually detailed, the assessment does not include photographs, recordings or other hard evidence to support its claims. Nor does it offer proof to back up the administration’s assertion that top-ranking Syrian officials — possibly including President Bashar al-Assad — were complicit in the attack."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nearly-1500-killed-in-syrian-chemical-weapons-attack-us-says/2013/08/30/b2864662-1196-11e3-85b6-d27422650fd5_story.html

Who would the USA attack with no hard evidence?

It seems to me politicians should keep tough talk to themselves rather than back themselves into a corner. Remember Iraq had no WMD's yet GW attacked in spite of NOT KNOWING. 11 years later the USA is mired and has expanded the war based on no hard evidence.

Strategic Errors of Monumental Proportions http://www.antiwar.com/orig/odom.php?articleid=10396

1

Brock Masters 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Obama does the right thing. He has said he wants to launch a military strike in Syria but is seeking Congressinal approval. Kudos. This is what a president should do.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-to-make-1-15-p-m--statement-on-syria-161723103.html

4

Larry Moss 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Chuck....don't worry the President is doing everything he can to lead from the rear. Unfortunately, no one wants the front. So, he'll hope congress gives him an out.

0

seebarginn 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I don't "want" to send US military personnel to Syria. Nor does the President. But if there is a chance that the Syrian govt. will stop murdering children with chemical weapons if the US carries out a strike, then a military strike is more than justified. This may be something the US needs to do. Wanting doesn't enter the picture.

President Obama has handled and is handling this situation with patience and intelligence, true to form. I'm glad he's the one making decisions and I'm even more glad that folks like Dolph Simons, George Will, Cal Thomas, and Mitt Romney aren't making them. Especially in this case.

0

Ron Holzwarth 7 months, 2 weeks ago

"I have one question to ask all you folks that want the United States to send military personnel to Syria."

Instead of one, you asked several fair questions I suppose, but before you ask them you should find someone that advocates sending military personnel to Syria. President Obama, and everyone in his administration, are not any of those people, at least not at the present time. Google this phrase:
"we're not talking about boots on the ground"
and you will discover that the first two pages of Google hits are all completely filled with that quote, and they are all referring to the situation in Syria. No one in the United States government administration has advocated sending any military personnel to Syria.

One of 20 examples, clipped from:
http://www.voanews.com/content/us-not-waiting-for-un-to-respond-on-syria/1739187.html

"The president has a range of military contingencies on his table regarding Syria for when and if he would ever need to use them. Again, we're not talking about boots on the ground. We're not talking about no-fly zones at this point."
-end clip-

To read that quote in context, you can open the 'DoD (Department of Defense) Daily Briefings' at this website:
http://www.savingreality.com/aggregator/sources/38

My personal opinion on the matter is that the United States should have stayed out of almost every internal conflict in other countries since World War II. Only rarely have the results of our involvement been good.

2

woodscolt 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Nice thing about our government. They are sending someone else to war. When the "someone else's" come back from war, if they are lucky, then they have to fight the government to get the help they need to cope with what the war has done to their lives.

When Kerry was talking about all the atrocities that were being committed, for a minute, I thought he was referring to the innocent people being killed by drone attacks.

4

Bob Harvey 7 months, 2 weeks ago

I wish there were some way to take off this Sheriff's Badge to the world that our country seems to have on. Let someone else be the moral crusader for a few decades.

6

Brock Masters 7 months, 2 weeks ago

Good letter.

To it I would add.

Would you support going to war in Syria if you knew it meant that you, your spouse or a son or daughter would die as a result of it?

I know many would have answered yes if asked this about WW I or II, but I certainly wouldn't answer yes about Syria.

1

Commenting has been disabled for this item.