Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Tearsheets | Media Kit | All Access E-Edition | Routes | Photos | Home RSS

Congress, vote no to Syria strikes

September 2, 2013

We’re glad President Obama has asked Congress to decide whether the United States should send its military to Syria for strikes against the government ther....

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Sep-02-13 9:35 PM

If you don't support military strikes, what do you support? Because I can't see how anything else would do anything other than to show Assad and other like-minded dictators that what bare international standards we have really are meaningless and they can use banned weapons with impunity.

Yeah, yeah, we all know that there are some bad people in the resistance. There are a lot of good people too, and they're fighting against a brutal dictator. It doesn't make sense to do nothing and let everyone suffer because there's a minority of Islamist groups that are also fighting Assad.

People keep going back to Afghanistan and Iraq, as if they're the same. They're not. Different countries, totally different situations. And nobody is talking about an actual invasion of Syria anyway. So because you think Iraq didnt work out, we should do nothing while another dictator gasses his own people?

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 8:09 AM

So Omar, have you volunteered yet?

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 12:05 PM

the gov't goofed when they released info on what we purposed to do, and how much. Israel is mum and just goes ahead and strikes. I was in the same war that john McCain was and the gov't screwed that up beyond all belief! at this point I agree with john . we must do something . if we do as petey recommends, we will wait till they are in our back yard. you can be sure petey will beat it back to Canada quickly. everyone who has ever been in war is against it, but freedom isn't free!!!!!!!!!!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 2:58 PM

For whatever pros and cons there may be regarding bombing Syria it is quite clear that they represent no physical threat to us and will not "be in our backyard".

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-03-13 10:48 PM

These are acts against humanity that attacked and killed their OWN Fricken' people folks! and INTENTIONALLY ordered!!! We have the ability and the responsibility to forcibly destroy their ability to carry out this same scenario in the near future. We NEED to protect humanity people and rid the potential of future attacks.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-04-13 10:17 PM

ok, vote no. It's acceptable to cross united nation lines with catastrophic consequences against your own. Where the H.e.L.L. do we live now? What do WE Stand for???

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-05-13 9:45 AM

We live in USA Inc. where we stand for only the bottom line.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-05-13 6:03 PM

Lol, the 'bottom line'. Then why are we still in Iraq and Afghanistan spending millions if the bottom line is what we live for? The moral compass is not functioning!

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-05-13 7:31 PM

The purpose of USA Inc. is to serve the corporate bottom line not the citizen taxpayer's bottomline. The bottom line of halliburton, Boeing, GE and others is being served very well by our presence in Irag & Afghanistan.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 12:08 PM

Bitter... Very bitter..... wow, wondering....

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Sep-06-13 9:02 PM

That's why they call it the "bitter truth", it often doesn't fit what you want to believe in.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 11 of 11 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