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

Bill O’Reilly made it crystal clear on Tuesday that he supports U.S. intervention in war torn Syria following reports of the regime using chemical weapons. In fact, he actually called opponents of intervention “loons” earlier in the day.

Double Teamed

Who says Fox News lies ?

Peters argued the U.S. is considering “helping Al Qaeda” to stop Syrian President Bashar Assad, a “murderer.”

True why the hell would we help AQ ?

“On one side you have Assad, Hezbollah, Iran — horrible people. On the other side, it’s increasingly dominated by Al Qaeda…the team that brought you 9/11. Right now, in Syria, our enemies are killing each other,” he said. “Where in our Constitution does it say we should stop our enemies from killing each other?

'Right now our enemies in Syria are killing each other'

So what the hell is Obama thinking ?

WHAT ?

Dunno why O'Reilley was carrying the administrations water.

And the icing on the cake:

Hunt pushed back, reminding O’Reilly that it has not been conclusively confirmed that chemical weapons were used or that it was the Assad regime and not the Syrian rebels that used them

I report you decide

Stay the hell out of Syria ! !

reply to post by neo96


Maybe he is doing it as to not seem weak? Could be to get AQ in the crossfire?

My thought is its a face saving exercise though a futile one. Either that or the new White House tradition, leaving a bigger mess than the guy before?

reply to post by neo96

Stay the hell out of Syria ! !

Exactttllyyyyyy.....

Typical "False dilemma" fallacy. Why polarize the issue and make the less contentious decision and stay the heck out this entire affair. With so many uncertainties, as even supported by US military personnel, why face a "lesser of two evils" scenario and take the third alternative, not to intervene.

Let the enemies destroy themselves and stand by with aid for the innocent causalities.

Why get involved with rivalries that predate most western nations formations.

Wow, Neo actually isn't supporting O'Reilly!

Sorry, I had to go there before I start...

In some sense, yes our "enemies" are killing each other -- but we've been providing covert aid to them for a while now through Turkey. Maybe that was part of the plan? Help arm them so they keep fighting? Not sure...

However, it's not as black and white as the guest on O'Reilly's show makes it out to be. Hell, it's practically like a Islam-based-Annon thing over there right now. All the so-called "rebels" look the same. There isn't some sort of brightly colored uniform to distinguish the.

We're damned if we do, and we look weak if we go back on our "red line" ultimatum.

It's a mess we're in for sure!

O'Reilly actually has a decent sense of humor. When he and John Stewart did that "debate" for charity last year, I laughed my butt off for both men. It was worth the price of the on-demand.

reply to post by shaneslaughta

the new White House tradition, leaving a bigger mess than the guy before?

This is what I think.

Aftter 9-11,Benghazi,Iraq, and Afghanistan who American servicemen have been fighting for the last decade, and a decade before.

That is an insult to everyone one of us. If an enemy is taken out, doesn't really matter who takens them out in my opinion.

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.

If you have an enemy on one side and an some enemy on the other side and the a bunch of people who are going to follow who ever helps them then no matter who wins you lose. While radicals are against Assad they have clashed with the rebels as well. However everyday the West does nothing and the radicals are fighting and dying for the Syrian people then they slowly gain support. In other words by doing nothing you are handing Syria to radicals on either side. Same problem we had in Bosnia and Libya.

The more and more I read and see about all of this, the more I think this is actually extremely important. Think about it... both sides of the aisle agreeing on something, something that is not politically advantageous to them at all.

Why?

This has to be what the true 'string pullers' want to happen. Otherwise, you'd never see this kind of consensus.

More than a bit disconcerting.

Originally posted by neo96
'Right now our enemies in Syria are killing each other'

True. And we should let them. There is no reason to interfere. The more they kill each other, the higher the collective IQ of the planet goes.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by shaneslaughta

 

the new White House tradition, leaving a bigger mess than the guy before?

This is what I think.

Aftter 9-11,Benghazi,Iraq, and Afghanistan who American servicemen have been fighting for the last decade, and a decade before.

That is an insult to everyone one of us. If an enemy is taken out, doesn't really matter who takens them out in my opinion.

I agree. Why does the US keep putting our soldiers in harms way. These conflicts are all foreign nations internal problems for the most part.

I dont see why American servicemen and women have to be the ones that are in harms way, time and time again. Its been decades of fighting their fights. GIVE THEM A BREAK!

Billy boy got schooled and rightly so. Bill gets many things right, but when he is wrong, he is utterly wrong.

His pomposity wasn't enough to save him, not against those two old soldiers.

I just so happened to watch this last night while I was eating a late dinner.

I watched his "talking points" memo and almost threw up my hamburger.

This isnt the first time either- for some reason(maybe ratings) he likes to tow the Obama line.

The other two guests I believe it was a lt col and a general both retired did in fact put him in his place- and I enjoyed every minute of it.

We are in fact helping our enemies kill our enemies...like I stated in another thread... I believe this is a personal war between Obama and Putin, which in my opinion would be very devastatin to our image across the globe.

Why risk a better relationship with Russia among other nations over a humanitarian stance in a country that is already our enemy?

Why would Obama make his already tainted image among his own countrymen worse by getting involved?
Nobody that I have talked to actually wants to get involved, yet our govt acts as if our people are all on their boat.

Not a good way to garner support when people already distrust you.

Some here are falling for the lies! The US created the “civil war“ in Syria the same way they created it in Libya. There wouldn't be the civilian deaths had we not imported the rebels using proxy governments. Let's at least have an honest discussion based on what has really been going on there.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

Wow, Neo actually isn't supporting O'Reilly!

Bill O'reilly needs to shut up,

Bill Oreilly versus Jason Chaffetz

In some sense, yes our "enemies" are killing each other -- but we've been providing covert aid to them for a while now through Turkey. Maybe that was part of the plan? Help arm them so they keep fighting? Not sure...

AQ gets aid by a multitude of countries.

reply to post by neo96

O'Reilly played the Holocaust card... and he got shot down!

O'Reilly: "You dont trust your won government".

OF-COURSE WE DONT!!!

Originally posted by jaws1975
Some here are falling for the lies! The US created the “civil war“ in Syria the same way they created it in Libya. There wouldn't be the civilian deaths had we not imported the rebels using proxy governments. Let's at least have an honest discussion based on what has really been going on there.

How about Saudi Arabia and Iran ?

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

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

How about Hezbollah (Iran)

How about AQ ( Saudi)

The Us didn't start that crap.

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

Originally posted by jaws1975
Some here are falling for the lies! The US created the “civil war“ in Syria the same way they created it in Libya. There wouldn't be the civilian deaths had we not imported the rebels using proxy governments. Let's at least have an honest discussion based on what has really been going on there.

You cant lay the blame at the feet of the US, or western nations for a conflict that has raged since the first inception of religious ideology.

This predates the US FYI

reply to post by shaneslaughta

My thought is its a face saving exercise though a futile one.

For the pres? Maybe so. He talked about a red line and someone crossed it. Now he has to do something, it seems or look like it was only talk. No use letting the chance to evict another leader, whether right or wrong, did it or did not do it, go to waste.

reply to post by neo96


Yeah, I watched that last night (the two Colonel's) vs. Bill. I agree with the Colonel's. It's a total cluster screw up over there. Leave it be. We have the assets to "keep an eye on" any movement of weapons (gas/etc..) we can hit those movements at anytime. That's all we should be doing.

reply to post by neo96

Originally posted by neo96
How about Sunni and Shia dragging the rest of the world in ?

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

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

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

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.C.

SMH...