I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in S
32 replies, posted
[quote]"As a general rule, I don't rule things out as commander-in-chief because circumstances change," Obama said during a joint news conference with President Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, where the president stopped during a three-day visit to the region.
"...Having said that, I do not foresee a scenario in which boots on the ground in Syria, American boots on the ground in Syria, would be good for America or be good for Syria."[/quote]
[url]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/05/03/world/meast/us-syria-obama/index.html?hpt=hp_t1[/url]
[img]http://www.facepunch.com/fp/ratings/winner.png[/img]
We'll see.
I promote the U.S. not being involved in conflicts we have no place in, but I don't know if his opinion is going to change.
These statements tend to be redacted relatively often.
Well with Israel dropping bombs on Syria unannounced I think I'd prefer not to have our troops out and about
I call a stunning amount of bullshit, give it 2-3 years from now.
Yeah because boots on the ground are the only option etc.
(Literally as I post this the BBC has just broken the news that an (alleged) Israeli rocket has hit Damascus)
Send 'em in with sandals
Good.
Did...
Did my country LEARN A LESSON?
Obama is the same bullshitter as every other president before him - watch how you've got a US "presence" in Syria within this year.
[QUOTE=proch;40530474]Send 'em in with sandals[/QUOTE]
Or tanks!
[QUOTE=Naaz;40530561]Did...
Did my country LEARN A LESSON?[/QUOTE]
dont worry, once a republican becomes president everything will return to normal
He said nothing about drones in syria lol oh obungoo your so silly
[QUOTE=Jsm;40530240]Yeah because boots on the ground are the only option etc.
(Literally as I post this the BBC has just broken the news that an (alleged) Israeli rocket has hit Damascus)[/QUOTE]
Isn't 'boots on the ground' is generally used as an umbrella term for any physical military involvement in a conflict?
[QUOTE=Maloof?;40530899]Isn't 'boots on the ground' is generally used as an umbrella term for any physical military involvement in a conflict?[/QUOTE]
Airstrikes and missile strikes usually are not counted in this term.
"boots on the ground" usually means an invasion of some sort.
Thank God. We don't need to step our feet in any more conflict. The scenario with Korea is already getting too tense as it is, much less a Syrian intervention.
[QUOTE=Alyx Zark;40530961]Thank God. We don't need to step our feet in any more conflict. The scenario with Korea is already getting too tense as it is, much less a Syrian intervention.[/QUOTE]
Not really, NK is back to just sitting quiet in a corner again.
Republicans: "That incompetent is going to let the terrorists win!"
*military intervention*
Republicans: "That Muslim-lover is trying to get our boys killed!"
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40531088]Republicans: "That incompetent is going to let the terrorists win!"
*military intervention*
Republicans: "That Muslim-lover is trying to get our boys killed!"[/QUOTE]
I really don't see that second line happening. Probably more like, "He's not trying hard enough!"
The powder keg is really exploding at this point, the less countries that get involved the better
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40531088]Republicans: "That incompetent is going to let the terrorists win!"
*military intervention*
Republicans: "That Muslim-lover is trying to get our boys killed!"[/QUOTE]
I saw the same types of responses with Democrats and Bush.
thats what drones r for i guess
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40531088]Republicans: "That incompetent is going to let the terrorists win!"
*military intervention*
Republicans: "That Muslim-lover is trying to get our boys killed!"[/QUOTE]
Well actually Republicans praised Obama's intervention in Libya.
[QUOTE=Naaz;40530561]Did...
Did my country LEARN A LESSON?[/QUOTE]
please don't be so ignorant, we have no faction that we know for sure we could get to support to us in Syria and the country itself serves little purpose to us
So, you're saying America [i]can't[/i] successfully fix other country's problems by bombing and invading them?
Fuckin unpatriotic America-hating pussy.
[QUOTE=mac338;40536890]Well actually Republicans praised Obama's intervention in Libya.[/QUOTE]
Maybe we could quit defining people by republicans and democrats, and just put them both in one group, name it "idiots for money" at least if you're speaking of politicians, otherwise, any common person, idiot would suffice. Do people not see that blindly following either side is a recipe for disaster, look at the shit we're already dealing with because noone thinks before acting.
Must be rather depressing for the secular rebels to be reading what the world thinks of them.
[QUOTE=mac338;40536890]Well actually Republicans praised Obama's intervention in Libya.[/QUOTE]
Fox news criticized him for it.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40537792]Fox news criticized him for it.[/QUOTE]
That is a given
Iraq and Afghanistan weren't "good" for either party either, but damn if we didnt do it anyway.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.