Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV


September 11, 2013

Readers sound off on Syria

— — On a poll question asking if you support an American military strike on Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons on rebels:

• Yes — Robert S.

• Nope — Wayne J.

• No — Greg G.

• No, I am not in favor of this. To poke our nose where we have no business when America cannot even take care of our own citizens’ problems is wrong. My heart goes out for the people who are innocent in Syria, but launching an attack that is none of our business is only going to add insult to injury to those who are already suffering there. What good can come of this? Nothing! ... — Cindy C.

• Do other countries take military action against us when we use tear gas to control our rebellious citizens?  — Cj O.

• Heck no. We need to stay out of the Middle East altogether — Sonja H.

• No — Melissa B.

• No! — Susan O.

• No I don’t! — Rebecca P.

• Absolutely not. By the way, tear gas is nothing like chem warfare, also it’s easy to say yes when you don’t have kids over in that area — Steve H.

• No I don’t. What will they do to the U.S.A. if we poke our nose in their business? — Louise W.

• We are not the world police. If the world wants us to function as such then the world can pay our soldiers $250,000 plus a year for their service and sacrifice ... — Joe H.

• Went to Vietnam, no success. Went to Iraq, no success. In Afghanistan, no success, and now Syria? No, I don’t think that’s good. Why bother people that don’t want you in their country? We have enough going on in our U.S.A. ... — Myrl M.

• I agree with Joe. I’m tired of being the world police. No support from me — Michael W.

• Killing people to allow a egotistic president to save face after making empty threats and having his bluff called? No thanks. I am still not convinced that Assad actually perpetrated the attacks, according to NPR they had the upper hand prior to the attack, why would they take actions that would assure the United States would become involved? Always ask who benefits from this, and you will most likely find the real story, there is more here than they are allowing us to know — Joseph L.

• No! Very dangerous! This could easily bring about a World War III. It’s a shame that innocent lives were lost but what good will it do to have more bloodshed? ... — Carrie R.

• No, let the UN get involved, tired of seeing our troops suffer for nothing ... — Derek K.

• Hell nooooooo, we need to fix our own country — Sadie K.

• Yes, but only if we air drop Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid in on the first wave. Whatever they touch over there is sure to turn to crap — Todd S.

• No. the U.S. military are not a world police force — Mike Z.

• I think it’s important we bomb them, so they know that bombing people is wrong! — Tony L.

• Nope — Kim J.

• No. We’re being lied to — again — Susan G.

• No way — Cynthia D.

• No — Sherry B.

• No — Pam B.

• No. What good will it do if what John Kerry says is true? He said it would be no more that a little tiny strike. Are you kidding me. Why would you telegraph what you are going to do in advance. The president ran his mouth off about these red lines and now after several red lines he is being forced to save face. Let the Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Turkey handle it. Let’s just sit back and watch — Jimmy G.

• No, no, no, no. I think it’s a very bad idea. I think they should let God deal with these things  — Cindy G.

• Wow. A bunch of conservatives who don’t want to bomb another nation — when the president is a Democrat (and thus vastly more intelligent than that last putz who occupied the Oval Office). I thought you Shiites never found a war you didn’t like ... or is it just that the president is — for the first time since World War II — following the Constitution and requesting congressional authority for his actions that you don’t like? ... — Jonathan S.

Text Only

What’s your favorite Easter candy? After voting, go to to comment.

Jelly beans
Chocolate/peanut butter eggs
Chocolate bunny
     View Results