President Obama wrong on aggression toward Syria

September 5, 2013 

I have been a supporter of President Obama since mid-2008 and had considered myself an Obamacrat for quite a while. I was so proud of him when he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples."

However, it now appears that was simply an illusion based on expectations. Sure, he ended the war in Iraq. But the war in Afghanistan continues. Now he is considering military action against Syria, something that goes against the spirit and intent of the Nobel Peace Prize.

When I think of the prize, I think of people like Martin Luther King Jr., Jimmy Carter and Mother Teresa. I find it difficult to think of Barack Obama as one of their peers. There are valuable, unconsidered or rejected, peaceable means involving diplomacy to resolve Syria's self-destruction.

I ask the question: Should Barack Obama relinquish the Nobel Peace Prize, as he has shown himself as not being worthy of such an honor?

I also ask the question: When are we, as a nation, going to realize we are not the world's cops?

Our values, as a people, are much different than those in other parts of the world. We needed not to be in Grenada, Bosnia, Iraq, Afghanistan, nor, now, Syria.

Let's cool the rhetoric and military build-ups and explore more peaceful means to resolve the crisis in Syria. Why give Middle Easterners more reason to despise America?

Dave Hilsheimer


Bradenton Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service