Bill O’Reilly Battles Military Experts Over U.S. Intervention in Syria – and Gets Double-Teamed

reply to post by roadgravel


Right, but no one holds him accountable for all his broken campaign promises.

They are going to talk about the Obama administration for decades to come

Getting back on track. I dont condone sending our people into a war zone when there is someone fighting them already.

Why is it, I notice, the people MOST in love with the idea of murdering Syrians and assassinating Assad are the older generation. Not just older, but elderly. Those too old to ever see a shot fired in anger, and likely? Too old to even live to see the end of the war they are cheerleaders for?

McCain and Bill are both fine examples. Both from the 'old school' generation. Both wrong as often as right on any average topic they discuss. Both opinionated to the point of directly and viciously putting other people down without pause or hesitation. Also both SO in love with death, war and murder in wholesale quantity, they cannot WAIT for the killing to start.

Well damnit Bill...the bodies will start falling soon enough. thousands...then 10's of thousands and if we aren't VERY VERY lucky as a planet this time, MILLIONS by the time it's done. If not Syria, then we'll get the new records set in Iran when we go murder them next. 70 Million in Iran today. How many will die before the U.S. leadership feels it's had enough blood sacrifice to satiate their thirst for it?

How much death is enough? How many cultures "corrected" and "progressed" to death is enough? How many assassinations.....are enough?

For men like Bill and John McCain? It's never enough. Ever. I'd pay CASH to be around and see both of them meet their judgement in the time after this. They both, no doubt, are sure they are set for Heaven and eternity with the Lord.

How does insatiable blood-lust and the ability to influence others to follow from their respective public positions square with that 'Thou Shall Not Kill' part? Oh..yes. I would definitely pay to see how THAT one works out by the end of things with them.

*For the record, I'm very personal on this topic. I have family in Uniform now. My son will come into draft call-up age about mid-point in this coming war, to judge by history.......Will Bill be around to explain to him why he will have to go to a land he never cared to see to murder the locals as well as possibly be killed for his trouble? I doubt it..... I doubt he could, even if he wanted to.

reply to post by gladtobehere

What are you talking about? This is easily one of the most bizarre and puzzling statements I've ever seen about the ME.

You are aware of the religious divide in Islam right? And if you are aware of that, then you musstttt be aware that it has been a perpetual power struggle between the groups since the age of antiquity. If you knew that, than would it not be fair to reason that a lot of these civil conflicts are drawn along religious lines?

It is groups trying to take advantage of a tenuous environment. Look at the affiliations behind each group and i think you may find the answer you seek.

Don't get me wrong, foreign involvement has been a catalyst for these shifts, but it is not the root cause.

reply to post by gladtobehere

What are you talking about? This is easily one of the most bizarre and puzzling statements I've ever seen about the ME.

Yeah truth is puzzling to some.

The US has been obsessed with the profits in that region since before Operation Ajax.

Saudi Arabia and Iran have been obsessed with their oil profits for decades, and those other OPEC countries..

Just so I understand, who forced the US to overthrow a democratically elected leader who said he would nationalize oil profits?

Mi5 ? who dragged the US in to that so BP could buy Anglo-Persian OIl Company.

Not to mention the installation of one dictator after another from the Shaw to Saddam to Mubarak; to arming both sides of the "Iran/Iraq war" which was started by the U.S.'s puppet, Saddam, taking his orders from D.

So ?

Assad is a puppet regime of Iran

Love the endless US vilification on these boards.

Personally I think Hezbollah, and AQ are Saudi's and Iran's version of Black Water anytime they want to fatten up their oil profits.

reply to post by MDDoxs


But the US certainly did fuel the fire.


_____________


I think Bill probably thought he could do the same he did in Bushes era... but im glad some people learned something and did not take his words serious.

But, i still wonder how many people bill reached, there must be few that agree with him on the current Syria matter.

reply to post by luciddream

But the US certainly did fuel the fire

I would not disagree with that.

The west can be seen as a major contributor, but so are other ME powers. Everyone has their hands in the honey pot.

No matter what !

NO MATTER WHAT !

Always the US to blame.

And the Middle East is just a 'victim'.

Geez.

reply to post by neo96

How about Saudi Arabia and Iran ? 

We tell Saudi Arabia what to do and when to do it. The CIA tried to do the same in Iran, but Iran was smart enough to reclaim their sovereignty.

How about Saudi's GIIP and Iran's MOIS ? 

What about them, is the CIA the only guys who can play the spy game?

How about Sunni and Shia dragging the rest of the world in ? 

Funny how you didn't hear a whole lot about that beef until the US went into Iraq and stoked the coals.

How about Hezbollah (Iran) 

Again why is it ok for Israel to run roughshod, without there being a counter balance?

How about AQ ( Saudi) 

Don't you mean Al CIAda?

The Us didn't start that crap.

The US has been charged with starting most of the crap since the end of ww2, I thought this was common knowledge by now.

It is Saudi Arabia and Iran screwing up the ME because they both want the top dog position.

That has almost nothing to do with it, saying that serves as another distraction from whats really going on.

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.

Saudi Arabia

Since 2008, the Islamic Republic of Iran has continued to pursue a coordinated soft-power strategy throughout its sphere of influence, using political, economic, and military tools to promote its agenda. Unlike the period of the early 2000s, however, Iran’s payoff for that strategy is in doubt. The Arab Spring has presented Tehran with new opportunities but also new challenges in the Middle East. In general, it has brought a growing Sunni-Shi’a sectarian tinge to regional conflict, and Iran finds itself on the wrong side of that fight in most countries in the region. As that sectarian conflict spreads, Iran will have more difficulty presenting itself as a pan-Islamist regional leader—and Saudi Arabia, and possibly Turkey, likely will emerge as the obvious and natural Sunni Arab resistance to the Persian Shi’a. -

Iranian Influence in the Levant, Egypt, Iraq, and Afghanistan -

Feel free to take a drink from the fountain of knowledge, or feel free to continue to gargle dogma.

reply to post by luciddream


I doubt very many- I talked to my mom and told her about what Bill was saying (she likes Orielly)...

Even she said "Well, Bill is wrong".

I have never been happier to see that she wasnt so easily swayed by the puppet on TV.

I honestly don't know who to believe.

I am not sure whether my hesitation is cowardly or virtuous.

On the one hand Assad has at least killed innocent people in collateral damage. He's a control freak. He doesn't acknowledge the right of Israel to exist. He doesn't allow dissent.

On the other hand we have terrorists potentially working with the rebels and we have the US openly admitting in years past that it funds resistance movements in Iran and now in Syria. We have lots of evidence that intervening in a civil war is counterproductive and nation building is expensive.

And yet the UN passed the Responsibility to Protect initiative in 2005. This initiative is meant to protect people across the world from genocide and gross human rights violations. If we can conclude that Assad has committed something on the scale of genocide, it's justification to intervene

The problem with military interventions are the unintended consequences and of course the possibility of basing such an operation on bad evidence. For example, many people today say Colin Powell presented flawed evidence to justify Operation Iraqi Freedom. Are we truly ready to stamp out any and all gross human rights violations across the world? It's a big responsibility.

One thing I can say is, again, Assad does not have benefit of the doubt. Look at Gaddafi and Saddam, as examples. They were heavily criticized for their heavy handed policies and their crimes against humanity. What reason did we have to give them benefit of the doubt? So here we're and we're wondering whether to pound Assad into the ground and asking if we should give him benefit of the doubt. What has he done to earn it? Where's the history of doing good for his people?

Look here for a rundown:
en.wikipedia.org - Human rights violations during the Syrian civil war...

reply to post by jonnywhite


How you should look at it is...

Assad has been killing people, he has his conventional ways... when would he go all the trouble to involve a chemical weapon that would get a red flag and involve other countries?


If you were Assad, would you kill people the conventional way like you always do(which everyone knows about), or would you suddenly just kill them with a nuke, post video on you tube and write "lol".. that would be asking for trouble.

Something don't fit quite right.

reply to post by jaws1975

We tell Saudi Arabia what to do and when to do it. The CIA tried to do the same in Iran, but Iran was smart enough to reclaim their sovereignty.

Not really they are just a puppet of Russia.

As a 1980 CIA document put it, "The Soviets see Iran as a greater geopolitical prize than Iraq...while hoping to prevent an Iranian turn to the West and to improve their own relations with Tehran", the Soviets also value their ties with Iraq.[1]

Sovereignty eh?

What about them, is the CIA the only guys who can play the spy game?

Apparently they are the only one who doesn't get too.

Funny how you didn't hear a whole lot about that beef until the US went into Iraq and stoked the coals.

Both Saudi and Iran were right there in stoking those flames.

Again why is it ok for Israel to run roughshod, without there being a counter balance?

Doesn't have jack squat to do with the topic.

Don't you mean Al CIAda?

No I mean Saudi's GIPda..

Some financing for al-Qaeda in the 1990s came from the personal wealth of Osama bin Laden.[63] By 2001 Afghanistan had become politically complex and mired. With many financial sources for al-Qaeda, Bin Laden's financing role may have become comparatively minor. Sources in 2001 could also have included Jamaa Al-Islamiyya and Islamic Jihad, both associated with Afghan-based Egyptians.[64] Other sources of income in 2001 included the heroin trade and donations from supporters in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries.[63] 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's GIPda

The US has been charged with starting most of the crap since the end of ww2, I thought this was common knowledge by now

Absolutely true. The US gets 'charged' with quite a bit. Although mostly a court of public opinion which doesn't mean too much.

That has almost nothing to do with it, saying that serves as another distraction from whats really going on.

Has everything to do with it.

Quick question, why is it ok for the US to kill terrorists, but Assad can't do the same?

reply to post by neo96


They have a prophecy to self-fulfill.

Bill is a big bible thumper and wants the middle east to blow up and for millions of people to die so jesus can come flying back on a white cloud.

reply to post by neo96


The United States *IS* 100% to blame.

For ONE thing here.

OUR part in this. WE could turn off OUR part and OUR very considerable ability to ADD to the body counts...any time we want. No Americans have died here that I know of yet. We have nothing directly invested which we cannot walk away from...yet. That will likely change within 24-96 hours by my clock. Right now though?

Well, right now, we may have NO control over the other nations...but screw them and the war chariot they're all riding. We have 100% control over OUR forces...and they could be told to stand down and stand by to render aid when it's all over. They COULD be told that......or they could be told to add as many of the "proper" bodies to the count as they can stack and pack with the actions to come.

I know which I think is going to happen...and God have mercy on us all for what is about to be done in OUR NAMES. We can't pretend we don't have SOME responsibility ....for what our own people may very well be on the eve of.

reply to post by Wertdagf


Sorry I thought that was Iran and their 12'ers.

So confusing.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


For one thing what has gone down in the middle east is happening, and continues to happen whether or not the US is involved or not.

What part of centuries is someone missing ?

reply to post by jaws1975

I'll bite...

Assad is "protecting" his people from the "rebels". He might, in media reports, refer to them as western-backed "terrorists" and/or militant dissidents. State-run Syrian TV, you know...

The US has funded resistance movements in Iran and now in Syria. We've known this for a while. In fact, I recall Iran referring to these groups as "terrorists," but this does little good when the US comes out and says the Iranian Revolutionary Guard are terrorists. I recall several years ago reading about congress passing something to fund this (millions, maybe hundreds). It's primarily intended for PEACEFUL resistance. However, I do not know the full details of the policy, so I do not know the limitations placed on it. I believe this was in the last couple years of the Bush administration, sometime in 2007 or 2008. So we know the US is involved somehow in kicking up dissent or resistance to the authority in those countries, I just am unsure how far we can go to kick it up.

To make a long story short, the reason we can do what they do and they can't is because we do not kill dissent in our country and, for hte most part, are a freedom-loving people.

It's all about benefit of the doubt. The US has a long track record of giving aid to other countries and not clamping down on freedoms on its own soil and being a significant member of the UN.

When push comes to shove, we don't side with dictators when the SHTF. This doesn't make us perfect. We're flawed too. This is why we have to remain critical of ourselves.

All the money intended for such an operation is better spent on America, its residents and its infrastructure.

What does a citizen have to do to open his own government's eyes to the folly of starting another conflict when we are broke 17 times over?

Is there any better proof of the disconnect between politicians and reality?