About this iReport
  • Not verified by CNN

  • Click to view Liberty1955's profile
    Posted November 5, 2015 by
    Watertown, New York
    This iReport is part of an assignment:
    Sound off

    More from Liberty1955

    Obama's "No Boots on the Ground" in Syria Becomes Another Image of Disappointment for Those Who Believed He Wanted Peace

    Obama says Syria deployment doesn't break no 'boots on ground' pledge.
    And the sun now rises in the West.
    Remember the phrase, "War is peace?"
    Many voted for Obama believing he would end the wars.
    Now, more troops means no boots?
    Let's stop with the word games, Mr. President.
    So the only thing the GOP will let you get done is waging more war? And you do?
    Oh, I know, I don't understand. The situation has changed. Right?
    No. I understand perfectly.
    And what about the refugees that 'no bombs from the sky' are forcing to leave their country?
    No. Americans shouldn't believe their lying eyes.
    Obama says the circumstances have changed; and the Republicans are applauding the president for coming to his senses.
    With allies like Senator John McCain now singing the Battle Hymns of the Obama, peace loving people must wonder; Why?

    Refugees, like those from war torn Syria, who were once viewed as facing dire problems in need of World government intervention and social protection are now seen as a problem threatening society in Europe and the United States.

    So who displaced these people and caused them to leave their homeland?
    President Obama has said that there will now be ‘US boots on the ground’ in Syria. “Not many.

    Just a few; maybe 50; they are only advisors.”
    So does 'a few' now mean no boots on the ground?

    Merriam Webster needs an update of the word, 'No".

    Didn’t we start with ‘only advisors’ in Viet Nam?
    And why?
    I thought Obama said he was ending the wars when he ran for office.
    It’s hard to blame Obama for something George W. Bush started and left unfinished when he left office.
    As Colin Powell has said, “If you break it, you’re responsible for fixing it.”
    So why did we break it?
    Congressional Republicans have placed the ‘March to more war’ gauntlet before President Obama as the only alternative solution available in their view.

    Republicans like war. They have some perverted sense that there’s ‘glory in war’. They bomb first and negotiate later.

    Were the United States to arm the Kurdish fighters, ISIS would be defeated in a week..or two. But throwing the Kurds under the bus has become easier after the US has done this several times over the last two decades.

    Why don’t we arm the Kurds? Well, Turkey is a NATO member and their government doesn’t want an armed Kurdish army on their Southern border.
    Many Kurds live in Turkey. The Turkish government fears that they may lose territory in the south after the Kurds finish with ISIS.
    The US Government is responsible for the crisis in the Middle East; so is Saudi Arabia by having funded ISIS to fight against Assad.
    Now, the Russians are there bombing the fighters we trained.
    Maybe the Russians are getting even with the US for our having created a coup in Ukraine.
    American taxpayers are paying for this stupidity because of our own ignorance of what our government is doing in our name abroad.
    “George Orwell's nightmarish vision of a totalitarian society casts a dark shadow over the United States. As American society has moved from a welfare to a warfare state, we see that Hannah Arendt's notion that the protean origins of totalitarianism have survived "the passing of Hitler and Stalin" and are capable of crystallizing into new forms appears difficult to contest as the United States tips closer to a police state.” – [Henry Giroux]
    What we could be achieving as a species, takes a back seat again to our World leaders’ nightmarish stupidity.

    Add your Story Add your Story