Despite deal, crisis in Syria remains

  • Article by: Star Tribune Editorial Board
  • Updated: September 18, 2013 - 12:24 AM

After pact on chemical weapons, diplomacy needed to end civil war.

  • 10
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 10 of 10
comment229Sep. 18, 13 3:57 AM

12 Angry Men... was a movie that was written to educate people on the problems with circumstantial evidence. Somehow, we got from the mass killing of Syrians, to the blame going to the Assad regime, without any concrete facts or first hand eye witness accounts... and more than one, so we don't get thrown a curveball again. And if that does happen, isn't it up to the U.N. or Arab League to deal with this situation? If it was Americans killed, I have no problem with going into Syria and taking care of business, but it is none of our business as a unilateral participant in attacking Syria. OK, so you say France may sign on too? Big deal. Assad's days may be numbered, and the rebels might win out, but are you sure that the rebels may not be worse than Assad? Be careful what you wish for.

2
2
Willy53Sep. 18, 13 6:32 AM

I don't understand misleading editorials like this. The "diplomatic opening" was not "inadvertant". That statement is simply not true. The administration had been negotiating with the Russians to rid Syria of its chemical stockpiles for two years. The use of them and the consequent strong threat of force (despite resistance to it by congressional republicans) issued by Obama quickly brought the Russians to the bargaining table. Not an accident nor inadvertant. It was a huge foreign policy success. Now the prospect is very real that Syria will turn over all of its chemical weapons, submit to inspections and join the international ban on the use and possession of chemnical weapons. And not one US soldiar killed. If that is achieved there's not much the Strib can criticize there. The ongoing Civil War is extremely complicated and our involvement will have detractors, even if only as the lead negotiator. I'm tired of Strib editorials saturated with ignorance.

5
5
briechersSep. 18, 13 6:45 AM

Doug Feith's commentary "A Very Productive Chemical-Weapons Attack" in yesterday's WSJ (there is a link from Bill Bennett's Morning in America site) is a must read for anyone who is interested in a serious discussion about Syria. Our position has been manipulated from Assad must go, which has been our position for 2 years, to Assad must stay as part of the movement of the chemical weapons deal. It will take years to move the chemical weapons. He will suppress his people over that same period and then start rebuilding is chemical weapons. I didn't want an attack on Syria, but I didn't imagine we would end up endorsing his presidency for the next few years.

2
3
hawkeye56379Sep. 18, 13 1:43 PM

Doug Feith??????????????? The guy who was responsible for much of the misinformation that drove the Bush Administration to attack Iraq? Yes, I can impagine what kind of a "serious discussion" Feith would come up with on Syria. I'm sure that he's bitterly disappointed that we won't attack.

2
0
mwellcomeSep. 18, 13 2:01 PM

Willy53 ... despite resistance to it by congressional republicans .... hhmm .. You might want to add the democrats on this one Sparky because they also were opposed to a limited strike. No matter now you try to spin it, Russia threw out the carrot and we latched on. From the sounds of it, that carrot is now turning into a red herring. The StarTrib got it right this time. Nearly every media outlet in the United States and in fact the World say the same thing. Read the headlines from Australia, UK, France, Israel and Russia to name a few.

2
2
mplsjimSep. 18, 13 2:08 PM

"Somehow, we got from the mass killing of Syrians, to the blame going to the Assad regime, without any concrete facts" ---- except that we do have concrete facts: the trajectories of the missiles intersect to the Republican Guard base at the presidential place. Assad's regime is responsible for the gas attacks.

2
2
grunmpyscatzSep. 18, 13 4:18 PM

Who cares? Let them kill each other off in theor civil war and we will deal with the leftovers.

2
2
comment229Sep. 18, 13 5:26 PM

"except that we do have concrete facts: the trajectories of the missiles intersect to the Republican Guard base at the presidential place" First, who published those "facts" and second, do missiles fired coming from Assad's forces mean they were carrying chemical weapons? Sorry... it's still all circumstantial. Do I think Assad did it? More than likely.... but we went to one war because of misinformation and deception... never again should an American die because of this kind of stupidity. By the way, how is Iraq doing today?

1
1
ontherecordSep. 18, 13 6:00 PM

mwellcome === No matter now you try to spin it, Russia threw out the carrot and we latched on. ==== There's the spin! Fact: Obama presented the idea to Putin at the G-8, and Putin agreed a few days later after discussing it with Assad. Obama checkmated Putin and Assad in a few moves and came up with a solution without firing a shot or losing a soldier. A master stroke of diplomacy that only worked because of his threat of attacks on Syria. Why does the right worship a Russian dictator over the American president? No need to answer.

1
1
endothermSep. 18, 13 7:42 PM

First step, secure the chemical weapons so that they can't be used by either Assad or the rebels. The civil war is terrible, but it will make it difficult to secure the weapons if we interfere directly.

0
0
  • 1 - 10 of 10

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT