Assad, not Obama,
to blame for atrocities
I feel like I am living in an alternate Bizarro universe!
When I was a kid growing up in the ’50s, Republicans were well-educated, white collar, rational and very patriotic Americans. I hate to admit it, but my own parents were Republicans. Now this group appears to be endorsing the viewpoint of a former KGB communist and blaming our president for the entire Syria debacle instead of President Assad, the depraved monster who gassed his own people to death. Their blind hatred of President Obama has finally overcome their professed love of America, something I never thought I’d witness in my lifetime.
US shouldn’t give up role as world leader
To those people against punishing Assad for the use of chemical weapons, are you willing to live with an unrestrained Iran and North Korea? Are you willing to accept Russia and China as the world’s leaders?
Americans have paid for our role as the leader of the free world through our support of a huge military industrial complex. Most of the world hasn’t complained too loudly, our own isolationists aside, because we’re usually on the side of the people against the despots. Are you ready for a world where only the authoritarian governments are willing to use force? Europe in the 1930s comes to mind.
Retired military, Tucson
Syrian tragedy poses no threat to US
I worked in Middle Eastern affairs for most of my life and have friends and colleagues throughout the region, including Syria. No longer the idealist I once was, I am now realistically pessimistic about resolving the myriad problems there.
The war in Syria is a humanitarian tragedy, but it is not an imminent threat to the U.S. If countries in the region believe they are in danger, why aren’t they taking military action, especially since we provide most of them with weapons of war?
Over 100,000 Syrians have already been killed, over 2 million are refugees and at least 6 million have been displaced, all before the ghastly chemical attacks. Our military strikes would cause more deaths. If every person in the U.S. contributed $1 we could raise $300 million for humanitarian relief to those suffering. That would send a very different message than sending missiles.
Let Syria resolve
its own problems
Why does the U.S. always have to be the first and sometimes one of only a few countries that have to stick their nose in other countries’ affairs? Did any other country intercede when we had our bloody and violent Civil War?
Why don’t we just leave the conflicts of the Syrians to their own resolve? Why don’t we address the actual threat to our nation to be dealt with when it actually happens, not when the bureaucrats and politicians speculate it might? Let’s get on to dealing with our own messes: health care reform, immigration reform, tax reform, unemployment and underemployment, veterans benefits, energy reform and many others. My Lord, what a list of dirty laundry we have and we talk about bombing another population on the other side of the world.
Retired, Green Valley
Tucson Citizen takes courageous stand
Re: the Sept. 2 column “Why the president must leave Syria to the Syrians.”
Thanks to the Tucson Citizen for its courageous stand. It’s good to read a common-sense look at what a U.S. attack on Syria would mean, and what a hypocritical move that would be, with our own history of chemical weapons use.
I think Obama’s decision to let Congress have the final word was nothing more than a cynical ploy, in light of his arm-twisting to get the lawmakers to agree with him. We all need to remind our congressional delegation that in a democracy you don’t attack a country that hasn’t attacked us.
The United Nations was formed to address situations like these. No one appointed the U.S. to override the U.N., which hasn’t even established who was responsible for the attack. Let’s demonstrate that we can do something more noble than raining destruction on other countries.
Re: the Sept. 9 article “No solid link ties Assad to attack: US.”
That the U.N’.s Carla Del Ponte earlier this year disputed similar charges against Assad and instead concluded that the evidence indicated that the rebels used chemicals doesn’t seem to figure into White house assertions regarding “common sense.”
Given that the rebels, many of whom are linked to al-Qaida, have been in retreat and losing popular support in Syria, one might have thought common sense proves that they had the stronger motive for such an attack. Since Assad gave the U.N. the green light to inspect the area in question, isn’t it strange that on the day of the U.N. arrival, Assad would launch a gas attack just 10 miles away from the U.N.’s location? The “red line” pretext handed over on a silver platter!