No go on Syria
No go on Syria
It is interesting that President Barack Obama and Democrat leaders, who clearly opposed President G.W. Bush's decision to start a war with Iraq, are now all for intervening in the bloody civil war in Syria — a conflict in which we have no business getting involved. The use of military force, in a country where we're not needed, is suddenly appealing to them.
I believe this to be a grave mistake on the part of President Obama and other leaders, including several Republican leaders.
If we use military force in a country that's in the middle of a region that is almost like a powder keg and make one wrong move, the whole region could devolve into chaos.
It's also worth noting that there is no international support for an intervention, which would leave the United States and possibly France as the only countries getting involved.
And “lone wolfing” will not produce a good outcome, especially in a country where the rebels are supported by al-Qaida and Syrian President Assad is supported by Iran.
It will also be interesting to see what kind of effect this has on the 2014 and 2016 elections, as President Bush's war with Iraq wasn't good for Republicans in the races that followed.
Shawn Fitzgerald Jr.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Majority defied
- Missile defense, not talks
- ... Or free-riding fad?
- Atheists & religious expression
- Ferguson & contradictions
- Sticker shock
- Thanks for the coverage
- Russia, not Rice
- Hiring in Westmoreland I