Putting an end to the Syrian threat is in our national-security interests

We now have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting Bashar Assad’s threat. We must now seize that opportunity and enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends in the Middle East.

That strategy should punish the Syrian regime over the alleged use of chemical weapons. Assad’s reported use of chemical weapons compromises the safety of American interests in the region, of our friends and allies.

I believe the security of the Middle East and the world will be determined largely by how the U.S. handles this threat. Iran and North Korea, both close allies of Assad’s regime, are watching.

We should act decisively. If we act now to end the threat of the Syrian regime’s alleged chemical weapons, we will be acting in the most fundamental national-security interests of this country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.

— Samer Safadi,

— DJ Duffy,

Use money to help refugees

Instead of contributing to the death and destruction in Syria by sending missiles, why don’t we adopt a more humane approach?

Use the money that would be spent on a military exercise and give it to Turkey and international relief agencies for the benefit of refugees fleeing the bloodshed in Syria. The goodwill would be incalculable in the eyes of the world and might encourage other countries to do the same.

Bashas’ punishment was fair

Regarding “Feds were too lenient with Bashas’ ” (Opinions, Sunday):

I take exception to state Rep. John Kavanagh’s letter to the editor.

First of all, $1.5 million is a lot of money to anyone. So the fine was not insignificant.

Secondly, what a great decision by the judge to make it payable to local food banks. Rep. Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, To comment on letters, columns and editorials, go to opinions.azcentral.com. would have preferred that Bashas’ lower the price on the cuts of meat in question, ostensibly compensating those who originally bought the mislabeled meat. It seems to me that this is just as likely to compensate someone who would take advantage of the lower cost even if they had never bought the expensive meat to begin with. Helping feed the thousands of Arizonans who go hungry every night seems like a brilliant idea to me.

Finally, I know the Basha family and I cannot think of a more honorable group. They set up an incentive program that unfortunately had an unintended consequence. I think all of us in business have made that error. But I know in my heart that the family did not and would not sanction this.

— Jim Manos,

Wages tied to supply, demand