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

reply to post by neo96


Well those people are the American Gov't, both Republican and Democrat.

But on to that Fox news clip, I thoroughly enjoyed hearing what those retired Colonels had to say and completely disagreeing with the wind bag O'Reilly.

Originally posted by benrl
The lies are becoming paper thin, and that worries me.

It means they no longer are concern with the populaces thoughts on the matter, and are free to act with out the consent of the Governed.

We are screwed.

Sums it up quite nicely (well not nice, it really blows) but yes the drift seems more and more radical as the days pass and I agree it looks as if "they" care less and less about the publics view - of course "they" are lame ducks, right?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by buster2010

 

LOL

So Iran has to go all the way in to Lebanon, and Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to 'defend' itself eh ?

Even a simpleton can figure out Iranian bullets, and bombs have been killing Americans, Jews,Afghani's,Iraqi's, and Syrians.

But who cares.

Evil America!

edit on 28-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

America is truly a tool of the someone, and it is not a tool for good.

Any simpleton could figure out that America has been behind, inside and out of, more war than every other country combined, but they are such fine upstanding administrations of peace and morality.

When did Iran do all these things ? Not even your government spouts that crap...

Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike a very interesting read, it would suggest that soon you will accomplish there goals, and then they will be done with you.

reply to post by ParasuvO


BS

I suggest trying reading this post instead of pushing demagogic bubbles.

READ THIS POST

reply to post by neo96


Poor Bill.



Stay out of Syria indeed.

But do they have oil and minerals we can exploit?

The only time i like to see Bill O'Reilly's face is when John Stewart is handing his [*Snip*] to him!

The United States has nothing to do in the Middle East. That includes both military action and monetary aid to places like Israel. The only time we should intervene is when we know for a fact, that whatever is going on can potentially harm the U.S. or one of it's allies.

Especially when it comes to places that are lead by terrorists and are fighting other terrorists. Neither party in Syria is innocent and neither one deserves any form of support. The only people I feel bad for are the innocent ones caught in the middle. But again, it's not our fight.

reply to post by benrl


Yes! This is yhe type of conspiracy that would be pure speculation and have people calling theorists nitters a few years ago. This time it seems obvious though, everyone knows it, and the government is still pushing it. It looks like the rebels we supported used chem weapons to draw us into a war they were losing. Our govt kn ows this, as does most of the public, yet they are still sticking to their story and going through. Its crazy! Supposedly 91 percent of the public opposes and if you go to stories on yahoo and look at the comments you will see nothing but opposition and usually people there are asleep and blind and ignorant. It makes the agenda clear and erases all doubt Iran is next.

reply to post by neo96


Fox makes a grab at credibility over a decision thats already been made - the destruction of Syria was decided more than 5yrs ago.

The issue now is that the west CANNOT invade Syria, it is not possible - if they tried it, Iran would cut off the worlds oil supply and the US and Europe would choke to death on their own rhetoric. IT cant be done, and there is no moral, strategic or defensive case that can be made for supporting terrorists against what was a stable sovereign state.

So, being unable to invade the west is left with proxy warfare, and strategic bombardment using missiles and bombers. These means may be enough to provoke a powerful response from both Syria and Iran, and there is some possibility of a more direct reaction from Russia if the attacks continue.


The case against Syria is plainly made only if you assume that the controllers of the conflict are internationalists, with no interest in the welfare of humanity in general, only their own person power.

The effects of destabilization in Syria will be widespread murder of minorities, and civil wars. The west is going to unleash hell on earth, and claim it a moral victory. The spread of these terrorist groups into Iran is the next phase of the plan - and when Iran finds and eliminates the terrorists, the west will claim that it is killing its own citizens for political reasons.

According to leaked information the chemical weapons used were created by the US govt, and deployed under their supervision against civilians by the terrorists with the intention of blaming Assad - ie a false flag attack. A false flag attack that it should be noted that used chemical weapons against civilians in breach of all international law, and is a despicable crime that leaked information indicates was authorized 'at high levels of the US govt'.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama himself authorized the killing of innocents, including children with chemical weapons. If you are looking for evil men, look no further than the leaders of the western govts.

reply to post by neo96


Things for Syria look bleak anyway you look at it. You have Assad gassing his own people and a good portion of the rebels being AQ jihadis who would probably do the same if they had chemical weapons and given the chance. I don't think there is a good option.Whatever chance we had to support those rebels who aren't sociopaths dried up about a year ago.

Cynically, our best strategy might be to let both sides just bleed each other to death, sorry Syrian civilians, you get the really short end of this. I wouldn't be totally against a strike against Assad, but not one that overthrows him. We don't have an opposition in place that we, as Americans, can support. Better to let both sides just kill each other. Like I said, pretty cynical, but a viable option.

The Syrian Govt forces seemed to have stabilized and even gotten the upper hand earlier this year and the rebels lost the momentum.. The smart move might be to weaken Assad's forces with very good salvo of cruise missiles so that both sides are even again and they can grind themselves against each other for another few years. I wouldn't risk losing pilots with this strategy, just stick to Tomahawks and Drones. The longer this war goes on, the longer Iran and Hezbollah and even to some extent A.Q. are tied up strategically fighting a holding action in Syria. Hezbollah has been weakened by this, which is a thing most people don't realize and that is a good thing.

Keeping all of them fighting against each other is probably the best option we have at the moment. We can covertly support those part of the Syrian resistance who aren't AQ and have them lay back sort of and at the same time have AQ jihadis and Assad's forces work on destroying each other and when that is done, the Syrian Rebels that we support could then take over. Any choice we make now is fraught with possible bad outcomes. Whatever we do, it shouldn't involve the deaths of American Troops in Syria.

........ Course this means that the Syrian people themselves are royally screwed, but that die was cast a long time ago.Anybody that can get out of Syria should, there isn't a scenario going forward were there isn't a lot more innocent civilian deaths.

Sometimes in geopolitics you are dealt a very bad hand, you just have to make the best out of it you can. There aren't good options in Syria, just choices between horrible, awful or bad.

Wars have been going on in the mideast since the beginning and they'll keep going on even after Syria.
If they want to fight each other let them.

This is just O'Rilly showing his true "government SHILL" side, he is just doing the "Bush part duex" two step only this time it would seem the American people are not having any of it.

As far as our enemy's killing each other, I doubt Obama see's it that way, he just wants his Muslim Brotherhood in another country and is willing to kill as many innocent's as needed it would seem.

On the way to becoming a great war criminal..................will go well with worst president ever.

reply to post by neo96




I wish Ben Swann had an ATS account!

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Actually, you wont look weak by not going to Syria, you will look smart.

Peace out.

reply to post by Dreine


I think the question of why so many U.S. politicians are willing to fall on their swords over the insane proposition that the U.S. attack or invade Syria is answered readily by the spying done by the NSA and other intelligence agencies.

The NSA & Co. have dirt on almost all of them. And those who pull the strings of the NSA are counting on the NSA to pull the strings of the U.S. federal politicians. So far so good.

But will the politicians persist knowing that such huge numbers of Americans are opposed to military intervention? At the moment I don't think so. I expect they have all been promised their 'golden ticket' to some 'safe haven' for doing the bidding of their ultimate masters.