Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: 16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria [View all]moondust
(19,972 posts)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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
67 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria [View all]
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
OP
Obama plays to the Washington Post editorial board's tune. If they don't suddenly lavish him with
TwilightGardener
Oct 2015
#1
"Those boots won't be on the ground, per se, but on sidewalks and asphalt and stuff"
arcane1
Oct 2015
#2
And the man in the white hat couldn't afford a gun, so he asked all the townspeople to get
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
#5
Yep, the MIC is jumping for joy, all right. The war machine must be fed.
CaliforniaPeggy
Oct 2015
#4
I'm not pleased with this move at all, but lets keep perspective, its 50 commandos.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#7
Not entirely. But people are acting like we are sending 100k+ troops into Syria or something.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#10
My reaction is, what necessitates a ground operation in Syria? We supposedly
TwilightGardener
Oct 2015
#13
We been at war for 15 friggin years! Escalation has yeilded terrible results. They
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
#14
I agree. But this isn't some massive escalation. If/when it becomes one, I will join the choir.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#26
And, if that DOES turn out to be the case, I'll temper my own reaction proportionally.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#23
What? You think he's dumb enough to start with 100,000 troops? No, they know how to sell war.
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
#11
Yeah, it was just a couple dozen advisors in Viet Nam, too......in the beginning.
dixiegrrrrl
Oct 2015
#15
I get that point but lets not assume it will go that far just because that was the Vietnam case.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#29
Broken promises about use of military in the ME are continuing to this day.
dixiegrrrrl
Oct 2015
#59
Yet, Iraq still has not escalated to anything significant in terms of troop numbers.
phleshdef
Oct 2015
#28
Who are going in to figure out who we're arming and plan what to do when more arrive.
LeftyMom
Nov 2015
#67
Reminds me of the guy caught beating his wife. Police come to his house, yet he insists he must
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
#12
For God's sake when are we going to get to spend some money on domestic programs instead of war?
liberal_at_heart
Oct 2015
#17
Exactly. The thought that we'd go to war with Russia over Bushs blunder in Iraq is nuts.
grahamhgreen
Oct 2015
#62
So we're just supposed to pack up and leave? Concede the entire region to Putin?
Blue_Tires
Nov 2015
#65
I don't think it is that egregious for him to change his mind as circumstances change
Skittles
Oct 2015
#49
*shrug* what are we gonna do? not vote Dems because they happen to be warmongers
MisterP
Oct 2015
#54