Skip to comments.Obama against U.S. troops in Syria
Posted on 05/03/2013 11:06:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
In his third attempt in four days to explain his position on chemical weapon attacks in Syria, President Obama Friday night all but ruled out sending U.S. troops to fight in the civil war...
The president said when he talks with other leaders in the Middle East who want to see Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad toppled, they agree with that assessment about keeping U.S. troops out of the conflict.
Mr. Obama put himself in the awkward position of having to specify his military view after leaving the impression earlier in the news conference that he might consider sending American troops to Damascus.
In answering a reporters question about how long he was willing to wait to react to reports of chemical weapons being used in Syria, Mr. Obama at first said his decision as commander-in-chief would be based on facts on the ground and U.S. national security interests.
Moments later, he came back to the issue, saying I didnt want anybody to extrapolate from his answer that he considers sending U.S. troops to Syria a viable option.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
BS we are already there
Obama against U.S. troops in SyriaHe can't be against them, he hasn't even sent them there yet.
Good. Me, too.
Russia, China and the UN did not give Obama permission to attack Syria so there will not be any attack on Syria. Obama will not do anything the UN didn’t tell him to do.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. I’m rather relieved that he seems to rule it out. You need leadership up and down the chain of command and we fail at the highest levels.
There is no good outcome possible in Syria.
>> but ruled out sending U.S. troops
It’s enough to quell his idiotic adherents.
There’s always the preferred outcome. The ambiguity shouldn’t be at the expense of US souls however.
I’m sure you’re right but I can’t identify it.
That’s why we will be there full on by 2014. Almost guaranteed.
But he would support U.S. Troops in Israel.
So what, this is what happens when you elect an amatuer.
Right...they’re in Jordan...catch me if you can...
I do not (stating a negative) foresee a scenario (prepositional phrase) in which boots (prepositional phrase) on the ground (prepositional phrase) in Syria, (prepositional phrase) American boots on the ground (prepositional phrase) in Syria, (redundant prepositional phrase) would (passive) not (second negative cancels first negative) only (adverb, no meaning) be good (bizarre verb and preposition) for America, (prepositional phrase) but (conjunction) also (conjunction) would be (passive verb) good for (compound prepositional phrase) Syria,
It has been a long time since I tried to diagram a sentence and I welcome input on my interpretation. The Presidents statement is pure gibberish. He uses two negatives (not). A second negative cancels the first negative the same way as in multiplying two negative numbers gives you a positive. So, is he really saying he wont use troops or that he will use troops? Obama overuses prepositions, a part of speech that links a noun or a pronoun to another word in the sentence. More than two prepositional phrases cause confusion as to what the object of the sentence is. I think hes used nine of them is a sentence of 35 words. Incidentally, a clearly spoken sentence usually runs only 15 words. Is he striving for clarity or obfuscation? The reader is free to reflect his own meaning into this sentence. It tells us nothing about what Obama is going to do except that he is either an idiot who cant talk or he is intentionally letting the reader draw his own conclusions.
I do not (stating a negative) foresee a scenario (prepositional phrase) in which boots (prepositional phrase) on the ground (prepositional phrase) in Syria, (prepositional phrase)... “
Imagine the confusion created when his speech is then translated into Arabic.