Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Public Records | Contact Us | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS

Let’s not rush in Syria

August 30, 2013

Terming use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war a “red line” that, if crossed, would result in decisive U.S. action was a mistake on President Barack Obama’s part....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-06-13 3:46 PM

Perhaps it is just me, but I truly struggle in regards to who the good guys are & who the bad guys are in the Middle East countries that are engaged in such chaotic fighting among themselves.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:26 AM

The perceived red line may have been around for a long time but it is its recent reference that has painted Obama into a corner. Now he is attempting to distance himself from his own comment stating the red line isn't his but rather the world's. If that is indeed the case why is he willing to "go it alone" with no coalition standing by our side ? It appears congress isn't even willing to stand with the president on this one. At least this is one of these rare cases where congress is listening to the will of the people.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-05-13 7:34 PM

The red line is nothing new. That has been international law since World War One.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-05-13 8:40 AM

Why Sven, are you announcing your candidacy for Congress ?

You seem to know the ropes quite well.

If we expect nothing from Washington that's exactly what we'll get.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 5:23 PM

I do not feel at ease when our president quotes "The American people and the Congress have a credibility problem" but goes onto say he does not. IMHO, President Obama sounded the war drums quite a while back when he set the redline but now has backed off since he maybe blamed for any action as he did when President Bush chose the same action to be taken. The question I have wondered why do we have to have a "declaration of war" passed when one can get a resolution passed to do the same thing. Does a declaration of war carry a broader scope of what can be done versus that of a resolution? It appears so due to discussions I have heard.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 5:14 PM

You seem disheartened about our beloved Congress, JR.

You expect too much. You think they should read stuff before they vote on it, for example.

That's why they hire (we pay for) policy wonks to read all the fine print. Senators and Congressmen have much better things to do with their time. For example: soliciting funds for the next election, doing favors for big donors, and hiring hot babes for interns, to name a few that are far more important (and interesting) than actually reading bills.

Come on, man. Lower your expectations.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 3:04 PM

Sven, it is obvious those two have not seen your gams. Oh the injustice... voting for something without being given the opportunity to review it first. I'm sure glad that never happens in our beloved congress.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 12:20 PM

No, no, no, JR. This is what the Founding Fathers, bless 'em, intended. Let's get the story-line straight, please. I'm sure Puke is pleased as...puke.

(Can you believe it! Two people disagreed that I have pretty shapely gams.)

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 8:39 AM

Yes, the baton needs to be passed to Congress to make this monumental decision. Obama's hands are too sore from all the wringing (the only red lines are the ones on his palms these days) and he just needs a little help making up his mind...

I'm sure our esteemed elected officials will reach the right decision just as they did in October of 2002. (sarcastic emphasis added).

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 5:49 PM

Thank you for your kind words, JR. You, too, are a model citizen of great maturity with a deep concern for humankind.

(By the way, I have pretty shapely gams.) Isn't it wonderful that Congress will have an opportunity to figure Syria out and give us their thoughtful input.

This could be better theater than the Republican presidential nomination debates.

It will probably take as long and have the same fabulous results.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 9:45 AM

Better yet, we should send you Sven. You are the ultimate solver of the world's problems. And, I hear you don't look half bad in a dress - forget Rodman.

The time do effect any positive change in Syria passed quite some time ago. Now that the rebels have aligned themselves with the terrorist factions in the region our involvement today would only make a bad situation worse. Our military action now could very well turn this into a widespread regional war.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-02-13 7:33 PM

This whole Syria business is nuts.

We have one of the greatest diplomats in U.S. history, with proven capability, who has already dealt with the N. Korean crazies more effectively than anyone else.

Now is the time to send Dennis Rodman to Damascus.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 10:40 PM

Give it time, Halliburton and other military contractors will be lobbying congress to go in and create a lot of damage in Syria.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 10:22 PM

At least he won't have Bush to blame it on ------- yet. ;<)

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 12:46 PM

I also don't see the need to rush into a muslim country to help muslims fight other muslims. We had no plan to pay for the last wars, and we have nothing to pay for another. You need to pick your battles, and as unfortunate as it is what this dictator is doing, I don't see that it is solely our business going in there. Let the blood be on Russia and other countries that don't want to do anything about it.

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 9:20 AM

It isn't Obama that will need to save face now. He just handed it to Congress, who will be the last people to decide if we're going in or not. More political games.

Of course we shouldn't go in. It is sad what Syria is doing, but we won't be able to fix it, so why spend the money and risk the lives?

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-01-13 8:41 AM

Military action would result in more innocent lives lost. US should get off their high horse and quit worrying about saving face for Obama.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web