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.
I say stay the hell out...let them kill each other...
There is no good reason to get between two Islamic armies trying to kll each other.
We should help arm both sides.
All this is smoke and mirrors
The Arab league meaning the GCC, is in the lead. If there is larger action it will be Saudi air and Qatari troops. There will also be some Turkish but non Nato involvement
The real enemy is Iran and containing the Syrian surrogate is the objective.
The headline is too long - should have stopped with the word “Troops”.
Since the thread is about Syria, guess
We are already there, and yes the president is an idiot.
“Im rather relieved that he seems to rule it out”
Problem is, you have to know he’s supplying US enemies with US arms.
There is no National interest in our being in Syria either.
Fact is, the two warring sides are not friendly to the United States of America, period. Why in the world would we intervene when our enemies are killing each other off?
Far as I'm concerned, let 'em all kill each other. Best outcome there could be.
I do not foresee a scenario in which American troops would not only be good for America but also would be good for Syria.
I know one has to read it slowly like 10 times but he is saying in a surreptitious way that American troops on the ground are good anyway you look at it.
Since there are no US troops in Syria (other than the embassy, possibly, but I think that’s closed), what you said is BS.
Not even one.
Thanks Cheerio for that reminder of Zero’s “leadership”.
Antiwar.com is one of those delightful KKK/skinhead/projihadist/leftist agitprop sites, and I’d be surprised if it’s not on the FR banned list.
Yup. Valerie Jarrett, born in Iran, wants that more than anything.
No, we’re not already there, what you are saying is false.
Ok, save this post and get back to me when it is revealed they are ok?
I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria, would not only be good for America, but also would be good for Syria.It's awkward, but there's no double negative in that sentence, he merely muddled what he was trying to say, must be the TOTUS was off. Zero stated that no scenario in which there are US boots on the ground in Syria would be good for the US and Syria simultaneously. IOW, he *might be* willing to send US troops if he thinks that would be good for the US, and he *might be* willing to send US troops if that would be good for Syria.
Assad will probably totter on for a year or two, but the idea that Syria even still exists as a nation is probably on thin ice. Syria’s turning into the next Lebanon. And the many factions are and have been supplied by the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, and of course Russia and Iran. The Russians and Iranians backed Assad to the hilt when he could have simmered everything down with a propagand campaign and some parade-ground army tactics. Instead, he went right to the Pinata Page of his father’s manual on dictatorship.
Iranian thugs have been training Syrian and foreign thugs to establish an Iran-style mullahcracy while pretending they’re there to help prop up Assad. They may have gone there for that reason, but Assad’s grip broke quickly, because all of his army is made up of conscripts (everyone has to begin service in the armed forces starting age 18) and most of it was Sunni.
So, there’s little reason to believe that US troops will be deployed in Syria. Besides the existing stream of tents, food, and medical supplies, US training of the withered secular core of the FSA in Jordan is the extent of US involvement and likely to remain so.
Already have advisers in Jordan.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
I'm not sure why he feels the need to announce these things.
Concur. My reaction was, “So what?”
Yes, as noted above — and not combat troops, and Jordan is not Syria, and the US has not flown sorties and bombed Syria.