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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)16 times Obama said there would be no boots on the ground in Syria [View all]
"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
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
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