Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Newspaper contacts | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

‘American’ interests

September 8, 2013

Since the 1950’s, the United States has been consistently dabbling in foreign wars. The reasons for these wars, we are told, are to protect American interest....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(23)

MrShaman

Sep-08-13 5:55 AM

"Since the 1950's, the United States has been consistently dabbling in foreign wars." - Christopher Erdman

*

Actually...we got started a "little"-earlier that the '50s.

*

See:

U.S. Interventions In Latin America

2 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-08-13 6:13 AM

Excellent letter and I would just like to add that all this is done on the backs of our young men and women who serve. They are the ones being placed in harms way for the "greater good". It needs to stop.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

eriklatranyi

Sep-08-13 6:26 AM

While I do not support involvement in Syria, the author of this LTE id another foolish, "blame America" useful idiot.

It is funny how some wish to ignore Islamic atrocities, violence, threats and terrorism while they focus on something else.

I bet the author opposes domestic oil & gas extraction as well.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

CMReeder

Sep-08-13 7:35 AM

Let's see there is a Democrat in the White House so we are now against war. Vote a republican into the White House and then it we will be patritotic once more to go to war anywhere.

2 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Garben78

Sep-08-13 7:45 AM

I believe if you research you'll see the democrats voted in favor and when's the last time mpreeder that Syria has bombed our people here on our own soil?? What building did they blow on that terrible day you sir need to grip your ears firmly and pull your a@@ out of your head reeder must be something in the loyalsock on Lyons bar clouding your simple mind

5 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Garben78

Sep-08-13 7:46 AM

And yes it was written correct you are so backwards you need to pull your a@@ out of your head

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-08-13 7:51 AM

Chuck, the American people are finally coming together and letting our representatives know that we are tired of these senseless wars. Please stop making it a left/right issue and see it for what it is. Ignore any representatives or media that insist on trying to once again divide this country along party lines. This issue is too important for such childish games and we have the opportunity here to set a precedence.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rick424

Sep-08-13 9:56 AM

I am very much against going into other wars. But that being said I think of all that has happened in the world and how it would be different if someone would have stopped incidents like this sooner. Think how different history would have been if the world would have stopped the Germans of the third reich. Before you go to church today Google List of ethnic cleansings and try to live with yourself.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Capricorn1

Sep-08-13 12:04 PM

Rick, once again you're missing the point. The planned strike is not being conducted to remove power or completely destroy their capability to deliver chemical weapons. In fact, the longer this drags on, it is making it hard for intelligence to track troop and weapons movements. They have already come out and said that they've had to change their strategies and targets dozens of times because of constantly changing intelligence. This also adds to the risk of possible civilian casualties that the Syrian government will no doubt exploit. What can possibly be gained from this strategy besides the U.S being able to say, at least we did something even though it accomplished nothing?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

JerryfromRI

Sep-08-13 1:48 PM

"I bet the author opposes domestic oil & gas extraction as well."

--

LOL.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-08-13 3:35 PM

I believe if you research you'll see the democrats voted in favor and when's the last time mpreeder that Syria has bombed our people here on our own soil?? What building did they blow on that terrible day-Garben78

What building did Iraq blow up?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

underwood

Sep-08-13 6:04 PM

American interests often means in the interest of the politically powerful, not the country as a whole.

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-08-13 9:59 PM

Atta' girl bobbie, ALWAYS someone else's fault. Even if you gotta go back 25-30 yrs. to get it. Did he leave a note to "W"? Pitiful, just plain pitiful.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:03 PM

Why I'm Voting Against Attacking Syria Rep. Tom Marino Listening to the testimony of administration officials on Wednesday during the House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing only further solidified my position to vote against a resolution authorizing the president to use military force in Syria. I asked simple questions of the witnesses and expected straightforward answers. Secretary Hagel and Secretary Kerry could not offer an explanation that made U.S. military intervention an acceptable option, nor could they define a clear and present danger to the U.S.

cont'd

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:03 PM

Secretary Hagel could not tell lawmakers who the U.S. could trust among the Syrian opposition, stating "that’s not my business to trust." Like many Americans, I believe it is our duty as decision makers to be informed and confident when making choices – especially in those choices that could result in sending U.S. troops or money abroad. It is no wonder Secretary Hagel isn’t in the business to trust when more players are added daily to the growing list of ‘Syrian opposition’—many of them jihadist, terrorists, known Al Qaeda affiliates, members of the Muslim Brotherhood and enemies of the U.S. and our allies. To simplify, the Secretary of Defense was unable to tell us, after nearly three years of the Syrian Civil War, who the good guys are or if there are any at all.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:04 PM

To make matters worse, Secretary Kerry explicitly stated that the current proposal for unilateral U.S. military action is to "assert a principle." It is not to halt the killing of innocent Syrians, it is not to end the evil and tyrannical rule of Assad, and it is not to protect the US or our allies from an imminent attack.

It is easier to be principled at others’ expense.

While both Secretary Kerry and Secretary Hagel repeatedly stressed that the Senate-passed resolution excluded U.S. troops from going into Syria, the resolution is littered with loopholes and exceptions. Prohibiting the use of combat troops does not preclude U.S. military personnel from being sent to Syria for training or covert purposes.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:05 PM

Targeted strikes will lead to Americans in Syria, and that action will likely result in loss of life. No one – not the president, not his administration officials, not Members of Congress, not our allies in the region – knows the full reach of implications if we authorize the president’s request.

Secretary Hagel could not articulate the cost of this mission any more than stating it would be in the tens of millions. We do not know if targeted strikes will do anything to spare innocent lives and we do not know who we can trust amongst the Syrian opposition. An unknown number of factions are amongst the opposition forces - factions who want to kill Assad and assume power, factions who want to kill Americans and factions who want to kill each other. At this point, Syria is worse than the wild west and we have no idea who will be left standing when the dust settles.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:07 PM

The Obama Administration would like the American public to think this military strike will serve as a deterrent. Nevertheless, it chose to ignore the fact that we went into Iraq to prevent the future use of weapons of mass destruction, including chemical weapons. If dictatorships in countries like Syria and Iran were not deterred ten years ago, why would this military strike be any different?

At this juncture in Syria's Civil War, it is clear that Assad's fortune and power will eventually come to an end, and when it does, he will retaliate like a wounded animal – the death throes of a once vicious animal that knows the end is near.

We are not at odds with rationally-minded people; we are at odds with extremists who do not care about the ramifications of their actions.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

USABorn

Sep-09-13 1:09 PM

This is Syria’s Civil War. Violence has not escaped Syria’s borders and it is not our role to serve as the world’s policeman. At this time and given all the facts, the administration has failed to make a case with a reasonable degree of certainty to responsibly call for military action.

This is Syria’s Civil War. Violence has not escaped Syria’s borders and it is not our role to serve as the world’s policeman. At this time and given all the facts, the administration has failed to make a case with a reasonable degree of certainty to responsibly call for military action.

businessinsider****

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-09-13 4:20 PM

Trick question for 36IQ, when did Iran's most powerful authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei take power? I guess we can add history as another of your ever growing list of shortcomings.Bobbie2

Don't tell me, I'll get it....Lets see, it was before Iran-contra, heck even before rush started doing drugs, not sure if beck was around, oh why bother, you'll just tell me I'm wrong anyway. But, you still are slightly amusing in a twisted sort of way.

BTW, Yes I do have shortcomings, and yourself?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-09-13 6:41 PM

Yea, but say it out loud, Obama is our president, elected by the majority of Americans

rush is nothing more than a political hack LOL

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-10-13 11:48 PM

Actually wasn't elected by the majority of Americans, as elected by the majority of counted ballots. Doesn't say a whole about voters does it.-cricket

....And the "ballots" are what???--they are cast by brook trout? I can't wait to hear the twisting on this one.LOL

.......BUT He is STILL YOUR & MY, & every Americans duly elected President of The United States of America!!! Get over it, at least it was by election by the people, not selection of the court. LOL Ha! Ha!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Scott36

Sep-11-13 12:12 AM

But not before obumbler did drugs though. Probably the reason you and he have difficulties remembering those days.-cricket

Are you accusing me of using drugs?? Desperation is so very unbecoming, pathetic, childish, pitiful, not to mention distressingly inadequate--AND I am beginning to see your true colors.--sad, so very disturbingly sad.

P.S.-The "godfather" of your political religion "conservatism", I believe was court ordered to rehab, AND, I believe some serious rumors of co-cai-ne use by "dubya" were alleged.(he at last admitted heavy boozing, who can forget the pretzel choking incident) Your current President at least was forthright with the American people. The "selected" one???

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 23 of 23 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web