Assad in the cross hairs: Making a Syri-ous mistake

The Issue: Whether the United States should attack Syria, after reports of a chemical attack there.


Getting involved in Syria would be a colossal mistake (“Target Assad,” Editorial, Aug. 29).

Both sides of this civil war hate us. Each is fully capable of atrocities.

Even a fool knows that inserting yourself into a fight between two rabid dogs is madness. Well, most fools, anyway.

Michael Zboray


It has not been clearly determined that chemical weapons were used by Bashar al-Assad’s regime. They may have been used by the rebels; we don’t really have definitive intel.

Here’s a familiar tale of how we got involved with a ruthless dictator and stuck our noses in the Middle East due to intel about weapons of mass destruction.

Only this time it’s different. President Obama is doing this to save face in the international community, following through on a “promise” rather than considering American security interests.

Yes, toppling dictators is technically a “good” thing, but regime change is a dangerous and slippery slope. A leaderless people will cling to the first sense of organization that surfaces. If Assad falls with aid from the United States, who will rise to power?

This is where al Qaeda could step in. Technically, we would be allied with al Qaeda. They want to see him fall, and we would help that process.Christina Ritter

Wappingers Falls

Entering a war is extremely expensive in terms of human life, as well as finance.

In the last 100 years, the United States has been involved in numerous military conflicts; some were unnecessary, and in some we were lied to by our leaders.

History shows that many empires are destroyed by their involvement in wars. England was destroyed financially by the two world wars.

Switzerland, on the other hand, has not gone to war since 1812, when it fought Napoleon to a standstill. It is one of the most respected, financially stable countries and has a strong currency.

Currently, Syria — not our friend — is fighting and killing al Qaeda. This is a gift. How often do you get two of your enemies doing your job at no cost to you?

Let them continue to kill each other for the next 10 years. Only an idiot would enter this conflict. Jim Dennean


Your move, Mr. President. Put on your big boy pants and drop the hammer on Syria.

America is behind you. Stop cowering and lead us. You can’t sit this out and blame George W. Bush this time.

Tommy DeJulio

New Rochelle

Obama seems to have a very limited understanding of foreign policy and national defense, and this has become more apparent as time goes by.

He seems to want our air force to attack Syria after he gutted our military. During the past five years, he consistently cut the military budget, which reduced both personnel and equipment.

The use of poisonous gas was outlawed by the Geneva Protocol for a very good reason: It is very painful and lethal.

The president made a serious mistake when he established a “red line,” which he has no serious intention of enforcing. His proposed “punishment” of Syria will do little to get rid of its terrible dictator.

The attack against Syria should kill Assad — he is responsible for the use of poison gas and he should be punished severely. Getting rid of him will remove a very bad ruler and provide a major loss to Iran.

Arthur Horn

East Windsor, NJ

Any American servicemen killed in attacks on Syria are the sole responsibility of Obama.

There is no legal or moral reason for the United States to attack Syria. No one in his right mind would expect America to attack Russia or China if they used chemical weapons on revolutionaries in their own country, so why is Syria our responsibility?

There is no justification for an attack on a country unless it’s for the national defense or national interest. Syria does not meet those criteria.

Jack Treacy


Share Selection