Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama against U.S. troops in Syria
Washington Times ^ | Friday, May 3, 2013 | Dave Boyer

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 reporter’s 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 didn’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Israel; Russia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: israel; russia; syria; waronterror

1 posted on 05/03/2013 11:06:08 PM PDT by SunkenCiv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

BS we are already there


2 posted on 05/03/2013 11:06:53 PM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
Obama against U.S. troops in Syria
He can't be against them, he hasn't even sent them there yet.


3 posted on 05/03/2013 11:07:22 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: svcw

BS. Where?


4 posted on 05/03/2013 11:08:05 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Good. Me, too.


5 posted on 05/03/2013 11:08:30 PM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

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.


6 posted on 05/03/2013 11:13:38 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

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.


7 posted on 05/03/2013 11:35:58 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

>> but ruled out sending U.S. troops

It’s enough to quell his idiotic adherents.


8 posted on 05/03/2013 11:39:54 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

There’s always the preferred outcome. The ambiguity shouldn’t be at the expense of US souls however.


9 posted on 05/03/2013 11:41:12 PM PDT by Gene Eric (The Palin Doctrine.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

I’m sure you’re right but I can’t identify it.


10 posted on 05/03/2013 11:50:01 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

11 posted on 05/03/2013 11:52:07 PM PDT by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

That’s why we will be there full on by 2014. Almost guaranteed.


12 posted on 05/04/2013 12:03:42 AM PDT by Sheapdog (Chew the meat, spit out the bones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

But he would support U.S. Troops in Israel.


13 posted on 05/04/2013 12:16:57 AM PDT by Kickass Conservative (If Cancer was contagious, they would call it Liberalism...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

So what, this is what happens when you elect an amatuer.


14 posted on 05/04/2013 12:19:50 AM PDT by slouper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Right...they’re in Jordan...catch me if you can...


15 posted on 05/04/2013 3:03:14 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/04/17/us-sends-more-troops-to-jordan-for-syrian-war-planning/


16 posted on 05/04/2013 3:04:25 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

http://news.antiwar.com/2013/04/17/us-sends-more-troops-to-jordan-for-syrian-war-planning/


17 posted on 05/04/2013 3:04:51 AM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: svcw

“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 President’s 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 won’t 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 he’s 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 can’t talk or he is intentionally letting the reader draw his own conclusions.


18 posted on 05/04/2013 4:16:42 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv
When Lyin' Barry said he wouldn't send Americans troops to Libya he already had the US Air Force flying strike missions within Libya.


19 posted on 05/04/2013 4:41:37 AM PDT by Iron Munro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“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.


20 posted on 05/04/2013 4:53:38 AM PDT by moovova
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: moovova

I say stay the hell out...let them kill each other...


21 posted on 05/04/2013 6:06:04 AM PDT by Hojczyk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hojczyk

There is no good reason to get between two Islamic armies trying to kll each other.

We should help arm both sides.


22 posted on 05/04/2013 6:09:46 AM PDT by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Sheapdog

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.


23 posted on 05/04/2013 6:16:46 AM PDT by bert ((K.E. N.P. N.C. +12 .....History is a process, not an event)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

The headline is too long - should have stopped with the word “Troops”.


24 posted on 05/04/2013 6:44:48 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Since the thread is about Syria, guess


25 posted on 05/04/2013 7:50:33 AM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

We are already there, and yes the president is an idiot.


26 posted on 05/04/2013 7:53:05 AM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA

“I’m rather relieved that he seems to rule it out”

Problem is, you have to know he’s supplying US enemies with US arms.


27 posted on 05/04/2013 8:32:16 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA
There is no good outcome possible in Syria.

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.

28 posted on 05/04/2013 8:37:46 AM PDT by usconservative (When The Ballot Box No Longer Counts, The Ammunition Box Does. (What's In Your Ammo Box?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

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.

FUBO


29 posted on 05/04/2013 9:51:02 AM PDT by Sheapdog (Chew the meat, spit out the bones)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: svcw

Since there are no US troops in Syria (other than the embassy, possibly, but I think that’s closed), what you said is BS.


30 posted on 05/04/2013 5:38:55 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Iron Munro

Not even one.


31 posted on 05/04/2013 5:45:32 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Cheerio; JimSEA

Thanks Cheerio for that reminder of Zero’s “leadership”.


32 posted on 05/04/2013 5:46:53 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau

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.


33 posted on 05/04/2013 5:48:56 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Kickass Conservative

Yup. Valerie Jarrett, born in Iran, wants that more than anything.


34 posted on 05/04/2013 5:49:20 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: svcw

No, we’re not already there, what you are saying is false.


35 posted on 05/04/2013 5:51:40 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Ok, save this post and get back to me when it is revealed they are ok?


36 posted on 05/04/2013 5:54:08 PM PDT by svcw (If you are dead when your heart stops, why aren't you alive when it starts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather; moovova; Sheapdog
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.


37 posted on 05/04/2013 5:58:48 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: JimSEA; Tailgunner Joe; petitfour; Gene Eric; slouper; Hojczyk; GeronL; bert; trebb; freeangel; ...

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.


38 posted on 05/04/2013 6:19:00 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SunkenCiv

Already have advisers in Jordan.


39 posted on 05/04/2013 10:21:08 PM PDT by Nachum (The Obama "List" at www.nachumlist.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you’d like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

I'm not sure why he feels the need to announce these things.

40 posted on 05/05/2013 5:30:32 AM PDT by SJackson (The Pilgrims—Doing the jobs Native Americans wouldn’t do !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: SJackson

Concur. My reaction was, “So what?”


41 posted on 05/05/2013 5:41:26 AM PDT by Silentgypsy (Only you can choose to give up your rights.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Nachum

Yes, as noted above — and not combat troops, and Jordan is not Syria, and the US has not flown sorties and bombed Syria.


42 posted on 05/05/2013 7:00:59 AM PDT by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson