HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » 16 times Obama said there...

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:15 PM

 

16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria



"Many of you have asked, won't this put us on a slippery slope to another war? One man wrote to me that we are 'still recovering from our involvement in Iraq.' A veteran put it more bluntly: 'This nation is sick and tired of war.' My answer is simple: I will not put American boots on the ground in Syria. I will not pursue an open-ended action like Iraq or Afghanistan. I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo. This would be a targeted strike to achieve a clear objective: deterring the use of chemical weapons and degrading Assad's capabilities."

More of his misleading statements here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2015/10/30/16-times-obama-said-there-would-no-boots-ground-syria/74869884/



Those who would involve the US in a perpetual war for profit must be jumping for joy.


67 replies, 4393 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 67 replies Author Time Post
Reply 16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria (Original post)
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 OP
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #1
arcane1 Oct 2015 #2
jeff47 Oct 2015 #21
HassleCat Oct 2015 #3
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #5
razorman Oct 2015 #47
CaliforniaPeggy Oct 2015 #4
Doctor_J Oct 2015 #6
phleshdef Oct 2015 #7
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #9
phleshdef Oct 2015 #10
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #13
phleshdef Oct 2015 #25
former9thward Oct 2015 #58
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #14
phleshdef Oct 2015 #26
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #40
phleshdef Oct 2015 #43
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #53
TBF Oct 2015 #16
phleshdef Oct 2015 #23
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #41
morningfog Oct 2015 #27
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #11
phleshdef Oct 2015 #31
TwilightGardener Oct 2015 #38
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #42
dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #15
TBF Oct 2015 #18
dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #20
TBF Oct 2015 #30
phleshdef Oct 2015 #29
dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #59
morningfog Oct 2015 #24
phleshdef Oct 2015 #28
morningfog Oct 2015 #36
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #50
phleshdef Oct 2015 #52
dixiegrrrrl Oct 2015 #61
gratuitous Oct 2015 #32
LeftyMom Nov 2015 #67
Wellstone ruled Oct 2015 #8
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #12
FlatBaroque Oct 2015 #19
Wellstone ruled Oct 2015 #46
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #51
liberal_at_heart Oct 2015 #17
Aerows Oct 2015 #35
1000words Oct 2015 #22
Blue_Tires Oct 2015 #33
TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #60
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #62
Blue_Tires Nov 2015 #65
TheKentuckian Nov 2015 #66
newblewtoo Oct 2015 #34
Dale Scott Oct 2015 #37
AngryAmish Oct 2015 #39
colsohlibgal Oct 2015 #44
KamaAina Oct 2015 #45
Fumesucker Oct 2015 #48
Skittles Oct 2015 #49
MisterP Oct 2015 #54
valerief Oct 2015 #55
moondust Oct 2015 #56
grahamhgreen Oct 2015 #57
moondust Oct 2015 #63
bobthedrummer Oct 2015 #64

Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:17 PM

1. Obama plays to the Washington Post editorial board's tune. If they don't suddenly lavish him with

praise and pat him on the back for finally doing what they want, I'll be stunned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:18 PM

2. "Those boots won't be on the ground, per se, but on sidewalks and asphalt and stuff"

 

I'm hoping they come up with a better excuse than that. I won't be holding my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arcane1 (Reply #2)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:13 PM

21. They're going to equip the soldiers with sneakers. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:29 PM

3. Good vs Evil

 

Americans are conditioned to think there is a good guy and a bad guy. The handsome, clean cut young man with the white hat does not want to fight. Violence is against his Christian beliefs. But the ugly, mean man in the black hate backs him onto a corner by kidnapping his girlfriend, Sweet Sue. So the man in the white hat agrees to meet the man in the black hat at Noon in the street. The man in the black hat draws first, wounding the man in the white hat, but the man in the white hat has a true aim, because he has Jesus on his side, and he kills the man in the black hat. And Sweet Sue embraces him. And they ride off into the sunset.

Oh, you thought I was describing a movie. Sorry. US foreign policy in Vietnam, Iraq and Syria.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:36 PM

5. And the man in the white hat couldn't afford a gun, so he asked all the townspeople to get

 

together and buy him a six shooter, 600,000 rounds of ammo, and Apache attack chopper, a dozen aircraft carriers, and a couple hundred F-35's.

The townspeople, terrified of the black hat guy, complied and put themselves 8 trillion dollars in debt.

The white hat heads out to the street, aims at the black hat, but only wounds him, so the white hat ask for more money to pursue the black hat, into eternity, so help me God.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HassleCat (Reply #3)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:18 PM

47. That attitude is not unique to Americans. It is human nature.

Politics is all about money and power. Always has been. Always will be. All governments lie to their people. The bigger the government, the bigger the lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:36 PM

4. Yep, the MIC is jumping for joy, all right. The war machine must be fed.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:37 PM

6. He evolved

 

Just like Mrs Clinton

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:39 PM

7. I'm not pleased with this move at all, but lets keep perspective, its 50 commandos.

 

I'm not saying that as some apologist, I'm just stating an objective fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:41 PM

9. You think they're telling the truth on numbers and mission?

Because we only found out last week that we've had troops leading raids in combat in Iraq. When one of them died.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #9)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:43 PM

10. Not entirely. But people are acting like we are sending 100k+ troops into Syria or something.

 

The reaction isn't exactly proportional to the thing that is being reacted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:50 PM

13. My reaction is, what necessitates a ground operation in Syria? We supposedly

have at least some partners on the ground with Kurds, we worked with them at Kobane. We probably had special forces with them, too, but kept it quiet. But our mission in Syria was simply to keep ISIS from running back and forth over the border from Iraq, deny them a hiding place--that's what was said at the time, last year. What's our mission NOW, and how does Russia and Iran's presence in Syria affect it? The mission should be the focus, not the numbers, really. Do we have vital enough national security interests in Syria that we should begin or increase our ground presence there?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #13)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:33 PM

25. Well its suppose to be an operation to assist in coordination.

 

I honestly believe President Obama is trying to make some impact with minimal resource investment (ie, as few as possible put in harm's way)... if that were not the case, he would send a whole lot more in than that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #25)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:35 AM

58. The operation in Iraq started like that.

Now it is up to 3,500 troops. And it is Obama's war, not Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:52 PM

14. We been at war for 15 friggin years! Escalation has yeilded terrible results. They

 

don't know what they are doing.

Or, if they do, their goals are antithetical to American prosperity, and world stability.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #14)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:34 PM

26. I agree. But this isn't some massive escalation. If/when it becomes one, I will join the choir.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #26)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:11 PM

40. Great! How many is too many for you?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #40)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:40 PM

43. 1 is too many for me. I've already implied as much.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #43)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:45 PM

53. Me too. I don't see any evidence that our past or future involvement will

 

result in anything positive for anybody.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:53 PM

16. If we don't say anything now the retort will be

"but no one said anything when we started sending troops in"

It starts with 50.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #16)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:31 PM

23. And, if that DOES turn out to be the case, I'll temper my own reaction proportionally.

 

I still believe President Obama is trying to mitigate operations and troop involvement as much as he thinks he can get away with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #23)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:15 PM

41. As commander in chief, he has little control

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #10)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:34 PM

27. You have no concept of history or of Syria, obviously.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:47 PM

11. What? You think he's dumb enough to start with 100,000 troops? No, they know how to sell war.

 

I'm surprised they didn't start with one.

"It's just ONE guy!", they would say, "Only TWO boots!". I looked at him in disbelief, but still he went on, "And their OLD boots, it's like retirement, sending them back to the sandbox."

I said, "Really?"

"Really!" He looked up, "Of course, just the one guy might get lonely over there so far from home..... Well, you wouldn't want him to get lonely, would you?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #11)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:37 PM

31. Obama is not trying to sell war.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:53 PM

38. Well, no--what he's trying to do is conduct something on the sly and

on the cheap, out of the media discussion, out of Congress's hands, and away from our attention. I'm not 100% convinced this is all about ISIS, either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #31)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:17 PM

42. Your buying it;)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:52 PM

15. Yeah, it was just a couple dozen advisors in Viet Nam, too......in the beginning.

The thing is, there are a LOT of us who remember the history of creeping wars.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:54 PM

18. Also they lied -

they said they were just sending advisors. Meanwhile the ships were headed over with chemicals right behind them.

My dad was on one of them (Navy - early 60s).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TBF (Reply #18)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:13 PM

20. My husband was one of the "advisors"

He trained for a year at Ft. Rucker down here, in helicopters, and everyone talked bout their known deployment to 'Nam in 1964 while the WH was still downplaying the number of troops being sent over, and denying active troop involvement.
From all the letters I got from him for 13 months, there were a hell of a lot of patrols and shooting all over the place.

My poor brother got to go over just in time for Tet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #20)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:37 PM

30. It was probably easier in those days to deny

without the kind of technology we have now (instant communications). My dad enlisted in '63 right after finishing high school. Boot camp in Great Lakes and then off to San Diego. He wanted to travel and even at that time folks thought there might be a draft - he figured if he enlisted he could pick the Navy and be on the water. He actually liked serving even though he didn't stay in long term. But he also was on the edge of the action being on a ship rather than "boots on the ground".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #15)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:36 PM

29. I get that point but lets not assume it will go that far just because that was the Vietnam case.

 

Again, I don't approve of this move. I just think there the reaction is over the top.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 08:20 AM

59. Broken promises about use of military in the ME are continuing to this day.

Including promises of troop withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq.
By our current President.

Big difference between "assumption" and a safe bet based on educated experience and history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:33 PM

24. What FUCKING bullshit. Remember when reentry to Iraq was "just 250?"

 

This is more of the same. It only escalates. No end date, no clear objective.

Don't even hand me that "just 50" bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #24)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:35 PM

28. Yet, Iraq still has not escalated to anything significant in terms of troop numbers.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:50 PM

36. 3,500 with regular increases and no end in sight. It is significant.

 

You act as if little baby wars are fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #28)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:41 PM

50. What's the mission?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #50)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:44 PM

52. Fuck if I know. I'm not okay with it, I will reiterate again.

 

I'm just not as upset about it as I would be if we were talking about this in 2007.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #24)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 10:49 AM

61. Pertinent question:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:40 PM

32. Okay, objective fact: 50 commandos

Is this all that stood between the horrible chaos of Syria, the refugee flight, the live immolation of that pilot, and all the other atrocities in the area? 50 commandos? That will solve this whole quagmire, right? What if it doesn't?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to phleshdef (Reply #7)

Mon Nov 2, 2015, 02:02 AM

67. Who are going in to figure out who we're arming and plan what to do when more arrive.

If that's not the most ass backward plan ever I'd sure like to hear what is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:41 PM

8. Is Mr. Obama just trying to

 

clean up a agency FUBAR? CIA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #8)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:49 PM

12. Reminds me of the guy caught beating his wife. Police come to his house, yet he insists he must

 

stay cuz he's the only one who can make it right.

Everything we do there just makes it worse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:56 PM

19. you speak as though the US has noble intentioms and we just screw up

That may not be what you meant but it came across as such. Cui Bono - The bankers, the bankers and the bankers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #12)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:49 PM

46. Do remember a statement made by a

 

Intelligence Official(retired the day before)in week of the run up to Iraq by Bush and Cheney,we are going to Iraq cause the CIA screwed things up by giving Saddam via Rumsfeld's Serile Corporation's,Poison Gas to be used against the Iranians. As well as stopping 6 million barrels of crude from going on the world market to keep the price artificially high for the major oil companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Wellstone ruled (Reply #46)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:43 PM

51. No, but I remember Alan Greenspan admitting it was all for oil.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 03:54 PM

17. For God's sake when are we going to get to spend some money on domestic programs instead of war?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal_at_heart (Reply #17)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:47 PM

35. Never.

 

That doesn't serve the purpose they are going for. Gas prices have dipped too low. Saudi Arabia may be in financial distress (not right this second, but down the road).

We can't let that happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:45 PM

33. All of those were said before Russia got involved

so they're irrelevant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #33)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 08:31 AM

60. That only makes it even more stupid and a hell of a lot more dangerous.

Your argument is light on sanity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #60)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:36 PM

62. Exactly. The thought that we'd go to war with Russia over Bushs blunder in Iraq is nuts.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #60)

Sun Nov 1, 2015, 01:49 PM

65. So we're just supposed to pack up and leave? Concede the entire region to Putin?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue_Tires (Reply #65)

Mon Nov 2, 2015, 01:47 AM

66. It is not ours to concede and Syria is not the entire region.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:47 PM

34. Lets just replay the '60's

greatest hits....



It always starts with a few advisors. Time to reinstate the draft!! A professional all volunteer army is always spoiling for a fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 04:50 PM

37. He's prohibited by law from running for re-election

 

So he's evolved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:00 PM

39. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:43 PM

44. Really

I too think of all the lives lost or impacted by Vietnam and for what?

Enough perpetual war.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 05:45 PM

45. "What I tell you 17 times is true."

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:28 PM

48. I'm so old I can remember when this was popular

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:31 PM

49. I don't think it is that egregious for him to change his mind as circumstances change

what is egregious, however, is Bush Inc was never held accountable for poking a stick into the hornet's nest; when Obama insisted we all needed to LOOK FORWARD, *THAT* sucked

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 06:48 PM

54. *shrug* what are we gonna do? not vote Dems because they happen to be warmongers

the current system will continue until it can't, and then it won't

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 07:27 PM

55. Yeah, but the 17th is a charm. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Fri Oct 30, 2015, 09:57 PM

56. Weird timing.

It's possible that this is meant to send a "message" to the parties at the current Syria talks in Vienna.

ETA: France24 reports Kerry has said the timing is coincidental.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to moondust (Reply #56)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 01:07 AM

57. What would that message be?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #57)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 02:22 PM

63. Before negotiating an agreement

sometimes the players do some chest pounding to try to show that they're tough, they're not in retreat, they're not backing down, they're playing for keeps, do not underestimate them, they are not negotiating from a position of weakness, etc., with the aim of getting a deal more favorable to their position.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to grahamhgreen (Original post)

Sat Oct 31, 2015, 03:39 PM

64. K&R +

 

US/NATO Embrace Psy-ops and Info-War (Dan North 9-2-15 Consortium News) We, the people are STILL being "perception managed"
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/02/usnato-embrace-psy-ops-and-info-war

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread