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 ...
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.
“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.
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.
FUBO
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 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.
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.