It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Kerry refuses to rule out U.S. ground troops in Syria, then backtracks

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:19 PM

Secretary of State John F. Kerry refused Tuesday to rule out putting U.S. troops on the ground in Syria, saying the president needs to retain the ability to send in forces in very select circumstances as the Obama administration officially began to make its case for retaliatory military strikes on the Assad regime.

Still a Flip Flopper eh, Kerry?

Obama says, 'limited' engagement', lob a few cruise missiles etc.

Kerry says,'No boots on the ground' er well maybe 'Boots on the ground'., and for the record there are already US servicemen boots on the ground in neighboring countries.

Marines are on standby.

Egypt: Marines on Standby

Kerry calls Syria critics 'arm chair isolationists'!

Biggest reason I oppose Syria is WE WOULD BE AIDING AL QAEDA !

Trying to shame people in to support that epic stupidity ?

Really Kerry?

The last decade of WAR, and the expansion of the Patriot Act,NDAA, TSA,NSA has been because of AQ.

Now you say we need to go help them ?

Oh hell no!.

There is not a single drop of American blood that needs to be spilled in Syria.


Especially AQ on one side Hezbollah on the other side.

The case for Syrian interventionism EPICALLY FAILS.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:29 PM
Kerry flipping and flopping like a fish on sand !!

As bad as Obama !!

[ Never would'a guessed it ]

The entire Executive branch is sloppy and incompetent.

They've already screwed up this latest 'crisis'.

They're already lining up the scapegoats and 'who to blame' for failure too.

They screwed up Libya and Egypt and are having trouble squirming out of those boondoggles.

So the question now is:

Who will they support when AQ takes the blue ribbon in Syria ?

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:30 PM

Biggest reason I oppose Syria is WE WOULD BE AIDING AL QAEDA !

Was this a typo? It seems like it should of said "Biggest reason I oppose Syria is WE WOULD BE AIDING THE CIA!

edit on 3-9-2013 by DocHolidaze because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:30 PM
There are two things that just get to me...

1..WHY are they considering this?? The american people have spoken..NO WARS..yet they are just ignoring all of us! Im am sick of all them..i hate all of the war mongers and wish nothing but the worse for them!

2...i feel like this is just ridiculous..if they were going to get into war..why wait..why give a play by play...i just dont get the time they make up their little brains..this will be all but forgotten by most

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:30 PM
reply to post by neo96


Sorry, couldn't resist after reading the latest thread in the Rant forum.


Back on topic - The defense rests in why no Syrian attack. Let's see how they try to sell their war in face of this.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
Kerry's testimony has, as you've pointed out, ended the discussion on accepting the president's request. It must not be approved as written.

As you probably noticed in the article, Kerry attempted to "clarify" his remarks:

“There will not be American troops on the ground with respect to the civil war,” Mr. Kerry said. (Emphasis added)

That phrase tells us that troops will go in and Obama will announce they aren't there "With respect to the Civil War," but will invent some other excuse to have them there.

There might be a way to attack al-Assad, but the president's plan is all of the bad names I can think of, but can't write here.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:37 PM
reply to post by DocHolidaze

No it was not a 'typo' I know some people like to live in the holy church of dogma others do their own independent research.

The civil war in Syria, whose Alawite regime Saudi Arabia's Sunny monarchy has long plotted against, and the prospect of a war with Shiite Iran over its reported drive to acquire nuclear weapons, preoccupy Riyadh while, Abdallah, Canute-like, strives to keep the democratic wave from breaking on its shores. Read more:

His elevation to chief of Saudi Arabia's vast intelligence network, and the unlimited funds it controls Read more:

A WikiLeaks released memo from the United States Secretary of State sent in 2009 asserted that the primary source of funding of Sunni terrorist groups worldwide was Saudi Arabia.[65]


Saudi Arabia owns AQ.
edit on 3-9-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:38 PM
reply to post by charles1952

How else would they assure control over chemical weapons without Marines on the ground after taking out the power that is holding them? I wonder how many they would need, and would the rebels even calm down enough to not need to be engaged by us forces?

Or maybe they already have deals with major factions in the conflict that would restore order enough for the marines to go in grab the weapons and be out in a month or two?

I don't know. It almost looks like we are being sold another Iraq.
edit on 9/3/2013 by dustytoad because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:39 PM
There are a few videos in THIS thread and links to the live senate debate about action in Syria going on at the moment

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:45 PM
reply to post by neo96

OUCH!!!!! Rand Paul just "Bitch Slapped" Kerry!!!! Schooled him good on the Constitution!

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 04:58 PM

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post by neo96

OUCH!!!!! Rand Paul just "Bitch Slapped" Kerry!!!! Schooled him good on the Constitution!

Did you see the way Kerry was rubbing his forehead? lol

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:07 PM
Kerry has really flip flopped since 1971 !!

After returning to the United States, Kerry joined the Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW). Then numbering about 20,000,[60] VVAW was considered by some (including the administration of President Richard Nixon) to be an effective, if controversial, component of the antiwar movement.[61] According to Nixon Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird, "I didn't approve of what he did, but I understood the protesters quite well", and he declined two requests from the Navy to court martial Reserve Lieutenant Kerry over his antiwar activity.[62]

On April 22, 1971, Kerry became the first Vietnam veteran to testify before Congress about the war, when he appeared before a Senate committee hearing on proposals relating to ending the war. He was still a member of the United States Navy Reserve, holding the rank of Lieutenant Junior Grade. Wearing green fatigues and service ribbons, he spoke for nearly two hours with the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in what has been named the Fulbright Hearings, after the Chairman of the proceedings, Senator J. W. Fulbright. Kerry began with a prepared speech, in which he presented the conclusions of the Winter Soldier Investigation, and then went on to address larger policy issues.

more about Kerry

"Vietnam War Hearing: John Kerry Testimony - Vietnam Veterans Against the War (1971) "

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:11 PM
ok here we go with the bs. The UN's mandate is only to determine IF chem weapons were used and NOT who used them. However, the classified debate will apparently show more evidence in favor of Assad.

When general Dempsy said quickly without hesitation that Russia's four ships in the Mediterranean are not a threat but can't discuss until the "classified" debate, I knew immediately they ARE a threat which can't be discussed during the live broadcast. It's painfully obvious to me.

I have a sneaking suspicion that once the classified discussion ends, congress is going to do a 180.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:12 PM
reply to post by dustytoad

How else would they assure control over chemical weapons without Marines on the ground after taking out the power that is holding them?

I have been asking the same. Wasn't the whole idea of this mess to remove the CW threat? Do they think they will just disappear? Of course they will, into the hands of some other 'enemy', current or future.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:18 PM
reply to post by roadgravel

Think Assad is moving his chemical weapons to Iran. Hell they were moved from Iraq to Syria.

It's like a game of 3 card monte.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 05:31 PM
reply to post by neo96

Yes, one would think this window of time would allow for that. Now they can track them and go confront Iran. Bet those in charge are having fun playing their Conquest of the MidEast game.

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:42 PM

“In the event Syria imploded for instance, or in the event there was a threat of a chemical weapons cache falling into the hands of al-Nusra or someone else, and it was clearly in the interest of our allies — all of us, the British, the French, and others… I don’t want to take off the table an option that might or might not be available to the president of the United States to secure our country,”

...Troops on the ground if there's a risk of bad guys getting ahold of Assad's WMDs, you say? Hmmm... aren't you trying to make the argument that Assad, who you claim currently is holding these WMDs, is the penultimate bad guy?


Seriously, I keep expecting Allen Funt to waltz out and tell the American people "Surprise, you're on candid camera. Yuk, yuk, yuk!"

posted on Sep, 3 2013 @ 06:50 PM
reply to post by neo96

I generally don't agree with you or your posts, Neo, but on this I do.

If this crap takes place, I only hope people are ready to take the streets.

See the Double Standard, Mr US Gov't?

You support—and encourage—this crap from the opposition from those countries you deem unworthy, but when it happens to you it has to be suppressed.

Makes me sick.

If we allow this to happen, we're no better than children in front of the TV during Saturday morning cartoons.

Sadly, most ppl ARE asleep, and don't GAS.

new topics

top topics


log in