Thread: Military intervention in Syria

Why does Foxnews continue to speak of 1,400+ fatalities in this gas incident, while every other news station of the world reported a little over 300?

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Why does Foxnews continue to speak of 1,400+ fatalities in this gas incident, while every other news station of the world reported a little over 300?

Because that is the figure that the American government has come out with but presented no evidence whatsoever for.

I can't accept this explanation. Foxnews is privately owned media and not a government channel, it is even extremely critical of the current government, isn't it?

Ask hazz.

He will no doubt say that sometimes you just have to lie your face off in order to "help" people.

Because that's what the American military does best.

Originally Posted by Rainfall

I can't accept this explanation. Foxnews is privately owned media and not a government channel, it is even extremely critical of the current government, isn't it?

OK, well how about this then. Foxnews is the channel of war hawks and saying that over 1400 Syrians have been murdered in a chemical attack sounds better than saying 300 were killed,it promotes the war more as fox news like to do.

Originally Posted by Primo

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Why does Foxnews continue to speak of 1,400+ fatalities in this gas incident, while every other news station of the world reported a little over 300?

Because that is the figure that the American government has come out with but presented no evidence whatsoever for.

You mean Nobel peace prize winning Obama.

So now Fox News is a shill for Obama.... ?

Originally Posted by Primo

Originally Posted by Rainfall

I can't accept this explanation. Foxnews is privately owned media and not a government channel, it is even extremely critical of the current government, isn't it?

OK, well how about this then. Foxnews is the channel of war hawks and saying that over 1400 Syrians have been murdered in a chemical attack sounds better than saying 300 were killed,it promotes the war more as fox news like to do.

Sounds like you are a war fan considering all you clowns do is watch Fox News all day...

Originally Posted by hazz

Mao, everyone lies some more than others. sometimes intentionally and other times unintentionally through self deception.... even you mao and doubless me from time to time, though I do try not to

I rember a time when a whole town of Kurd's were killed by nerve gas. The kurds along with their little helpers from iran were fighting the 'legitimate' 'secular' government of the day run by some chap called Saddam husain. he said I didn't do it; it was the Iranians gassing their own side to make me look bad. and his frends in Washington said their intelligence. with time it became very clear that the iraqi government had done the deed.

Now we have syria, people fighting the 'legitimate' secular' government get gassed with nerve gas. the government says the rebbles did it to make them look bad and their friends in Moscow agree. Personally I would say that we are looking at history repeating itself, after all should we really be trusting what the Syrians and Russians say any more than the Americans?

from my perspect all I see is a lot people on this thread screaming their ideologies with little care for whats going on. The conformation bias you chaps are demonstrating with the sources you are using is breath taking. In the same posts we can see you correctly rejecting an unreliable source of information you don't like and then blindly accepting an equally unreliable source of information you do like...

Rather like the tea baggers, you have chosen your echo chambers that that's all you want to listen too it is very disheartening.


whilst the hypocrisy that pragmatism and self interest brings diplomacy and international politics is very unpleasant and dirty.... it is nothing conspired that generated by the blind ideolog.

Syria is a mess, there are no simple answers. if any of the sides fighting for power is able to or allowed to win they will implment a blood bath. that assad regeme have track record and their opponents have demonstrated that they are probably not much better. The option to leave them alone to kill each other is no more legitimate that it was for Bosnia, but what to do. military action today with or without security council authorization will fail, as it would simply create a winning side with no plan as to how to protect civilians in the post war 'peace'. But what are the alternatives to military action? As I said its a mess any anyone promoting simple solutions is most likly to be lying or stupid or may be both.

I don't see everyone totally disagreeing with eachother on this one. The biggest right wing mouth piece at Fox news is opposed to any military action in Syria. Sean Hannity wants to help Assad.

What pisses me off is when posters compare this to the Iraq war and they also talk about the Iraq/Iran war without realizing that the cold war was going full bore at the time.

oh and the picture...oooohhhh ahhhh, Chamberlain was a Nazi now ?

Hazz is actually making sense....

Originally Posted by socal

What pisses me off is when posters compare this to the Iraq war and they also talk about the Iraq/Iran war without realizing that the cold war was going full bore at the time.

That wasn't a Cold-War thing since both Russians and Americans were not comfortable with Iran. Russia because Iran had a religious regime, America because it quit the alliance with her and Israel. That was Saddam on his own trying to exploit a perceived weakness of Iran. The comparison Iraq/Syria is not right nonetheless, Saddam was an animal who didn't give a shit about international opinions, while Assad is thoughtful man.

Originally Posted by raycarey

that said, various news organizations are reporting that the UN team left syria a few hours ago...ahead of schedule. while that could mean any number of things, i have to admit it doesn't bode well.

Bad food and no perks being offered I suspect is the reason for early departure?

Originally Posted by Rainfall

Originally Posted by socal

What pisses me off is when posters compare this to the Iraq war and they also talk about the Iraq/Iran war without realizing that the cold war was going full bore at the time.

That wasn't a Cold-War thing since both Russians and Americans were not comfortable with Iran. Russia because Iran had a religious regime, America because it quit the alliance with her and Israel. That was Saddam on his own trying to exploit a perceived weakness of Iran. The comparison Iraq/Syria is not right nonetheless, Saddam was an animal who didn't give a shit about international opinions, while Assad is thoughtful man.

Iran/Iraq was still a proxy conflict with huge influence from the Cold War. That is why Russia is aligned to Syria to this day. Because that is where the soviets had bases

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

I don't think Obama wants to strike .... I think he really believes congress will say "no" even though the media is reporting otherwise. Kind of a chicken shit maneuver but oh well ...

Don't do it Barry ...

right, he is looking for an exit strategy, and this could be it. Kerry has been shutup and is not lecturing about the war on the news anymore.

If Congress says yes, which I think it will not, then the blame will be shared, since the war is not really popular with the public. Basically, they are going to play it down, maybe do a token strike in the desert to make everyone save face.

Originally Posted by Storekeeper

Kind of a chicken shit maneuver but oh well ...

Why is it a chicken shit maneuver? Only Congress has the authority to start a war except in cases of emergency threats to the USA and it's hard to see how a Syrian civil war presents that.

It is also a rather clever political move by Obama, he has positioned the GOP so that they will vote against something they love or vote for something he wants, which they hate. It also puts pressure on Weepy McBoner to try to rally his caucus to actually do something.

They will probably attach a rider to any Syria intervention bill to defund Obamacare safe in the knowledge that he will veto it and then go back to naming post offices.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

It is also a rather clever political move by Obama, he has positioned the GOP so that they will vote against something they love or vote for something he wants, which they hate. It also puts pressure on Weepy McBoner to try to rally his caucus to actually do something.

Exactly! I love it.

Originally Posted by ltnt

90% of Americans say "Stay the fook out of it!"

really?

i haven't seen any polling data which states that. not even close.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

Only Congress has the authority to start a war except in cases of emergency threats to the USA and it's hard to see how a Syrian civil war presents that.

It is also a rather clever political move by Obama, he has positioned the GOP so that they will vote against something they love or vote for something he wants, which they hate. It also puts pressure on Weepy McBoner to try to rally his caucus to actually do something.

he's doing the right thing.....and it's also a crafty political move.

obama wins again.

cameron came too soon in his pants and has left his buddy obama high and dry
and now obama needs foreplay with congress to liven tings up a bit.
< or buying time for the brits to sort themselves>
cameron says he accepts the will of parliament but at the same time
is looking to reshuffle his cabinet after the no vote.
looks embarrassing for the americans and yet we are still waiting to find out who actually used the chemical weapons on women and kids.
propaganda machine is in full swing here in the uk.
what will be thrown up next.
i heard 68% of americans don't want this war.
as soon as one shell is fired at syria all hell will break lose again.
5 warships plus submarines are not there to fire warning shots across bows.
just business as usual.

For some strange reason, when a Democrat is in the White House, wars are OK. Their mantra is:

Bush Bombs Are Bad, But Obama Bombs Are Filled With Lovin' Care"

Originally Posted by ltnt

Its an escapist move 100%, 90% of Americans say "Stay the fook out of it!" Its a no brainer, he let his big mouth overload his alligator ass.

If that is the case then taking the issue to Congress will allow the alleged representatives of the people to vote 'no' if they wish. Going to Congress is not an escapist move, it is the Constitutionally required move if the USA wants to declare war.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Bath House Barry

You can't help yourself any more can you?

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

He's a waffler and a dithering idiot who got himself boxed in with that Red Line thing.

Yeah, damn that pesky Constitution.

Originally Posted by quimbian corholla

If that is the case then taking the issue to Congress will allow the alleged representatives of the people to vote 'no' if they wish. Going to Congress is not an escapist move, it is the Constitutionally required move if the USA wants to declare war.

If you mean "declare war", then you're probably right, but he can take action without their permission.

"The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation. In instances of self-defense, the president would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent."
- Barack Obama, 2007