Cease-fire in Syria seen as win for regime: Your Say

Secretary of State John Kerry announced Sunday progress toward a cease-fire in Syria. Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:

A cease-fire during a civil war in which hundreds of thousands of people were killed and millions of people displaced is victory for the regime. President Obama and his foreign policy team have moved the goal posts on the Syrian civil war for years. Now we are supposed to take the cease-fire seriously when it will not change the facts on the ground?

— Steve Yuhas

When do we stop using the euphemism “civil war” in Syria and describe this conflict for what it really is: a proxy war among global powers for regional hegemony?

— Zheng Chen

This is no longer a civil war. You may as well call it for what it is, World War III. Enough countries are involved to consider it that.

— John Chambard

POLICING THE USA: A look at race, justice, media

Paste BN’s front-page article “A mind-boggling stew of nations is fighting in Syria's civil war” stated what should have been obvious from the onset of the nearly 5-year-old war: “Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey said they may send ground troops to fight.” Why was this not job one? They are among the nations most affected.

Almost every military adventure we have decided to enter since World War II has failed quickly or eventually. Think Korea, Vietnam, Iran, Bosnia, Iraq and Afghanistan. And now Syria. Supposedly intelligent people say we need to jump in with both feet. We should have been the very last nation to get involved in Syria — and maybe not even then.

Edward Creamean Sr.; Pewaukee, Wis.