CNN tries to push narrative to make Trump look bad and it backfires

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 06:24 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: How does that work? Paint a giant bullseye around an area?

Sounds like a set up for the early years of OIF. Every other day car bombs and suicide bombers in the markets. 

Really nothing like OIF at all; as we would not be conducting offensive mission and the occupants may have to surrender so liberties for security. Locations have already been proposed and numerous Countries in the ME have pledged their support.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-08-2017, 10:39 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Really nothing like OIF at all; as we would not be conducting offensive mission and the occupants may have to surrender so liberties for security. Locations have already been proposed and numerous Countries in the ME have pledged their support.

Somebody has to handle the bad guys. Cant just say safe space and expect the bad guys to listen like we are little kids playing hide and go seek.

Disarm and subject the ones seeking shelter to searches. And its like cattle being hearded to the slaughterhouse.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface. But consolidating people who are enemies of a dictator who is unafraid to gas children and terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up... And like I said to me its like painting a bullseye.

I dont see how you set up a safe space without boots on the ground. How do you get past step one? First you would have to clear the area.

[Benton]

Sides change fairly quickly.

Over the last year or so all we've heard from some is how we shouldn't be involved in Syria, how all refugees are Syrian men (with the allegation being they're all terrorists), and that Assad is only gassing ISIS.

Now, we have a political change and we should be involved in Syria, we should do something to help refugees (although not let them in to the US) and Assad is a bastard.

Weird.

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 11:15 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Somebody has to handle the bad guys. Cant just say safe space and expect the bad guys to listen like we are little kids playing hide and go seek.

Disarm and subject the ones seeking shelter to searches. And its like cattle being hearded to the slaughterhouse.

It sounds like a good idea on the surface. But consolidating people who are enemies of a dictator who is unafraid to gas children and terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up... And like I said to me its like painting a bullseye.

I dont see how you set up a safe space without boots on the ground. How do you get past step one? First you would have to clear the area.

Of course you have boots on the ground. Boots from Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, England, US, France, ect...

Assad doesn't want to kill his people that are not rebelling against him. He's just not worried about collateral damage. Remove the innocents and let the rebels and Assad have at it. 

[*bfine32*]

(04-08-2017, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Sides change fairly quickly.

Over the last year or so all we've heard from some is how we shouldn't be involved in Syria, how all refugees are Syrian men (with the allegation being they're all terrorists), and that Assad is only gassing ISIS.

Now, we have a political change and we should be involved in Syria, we should do something to help refugees (although not let them in to the US) and Assad is a bastard.

Weird.

Yep, and 1 week ago Trump was Putin's puppet. 

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2017, 12:08 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course you have boots on the ground. Boots from Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Germany, England, US, France, ect...

Assad doesn't want to kill his people that are not rebelling against him. He's just not worried about collateral damage. Remove the innocents and let the rebels and Assad have at it. 

I would rather kill Assad and frame ISIS than put an ally coalition on the battleground to oppose the axis force of Russia Syria and Iran.

We have the best technology available and still have friendly fire. Axis forces accidentally kill a group of Americans. Fox News goes on a rant about it showing a video and Trump sees it while taking a break from golfing... Boom WW3

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 04:18 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANirLrquaI8

This man defends Trump's actions and even says on national tv that Syrian refugees don't want to come to the US and that they want to stay in their own country, something I've said before but got laughed at. Obviously he doesn't speak for every refugee, but he obviously isn't the only individual who holds this viewpoint either.

Obviously, that guy is an ISIS terrorist trying to Jedi Mind **** you into believing the Syrian "refugees" sent to infiltrate the US to conduct terrorists attacks don't want to be here so you'll change your mind about banning them.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 11:23 PM)Benton Wrote: Sides change fairly quickly.

Over the last year or so all we've heard from some is how we shouldn't be involved in Syria, how all refugees are Syrian men (with the allegation being they're all terrorists), and that Assad is only gassing ISIS.

Now, we have a political change and we should be involved in Syria, we should do something to help refugees (although not let them in to the US) and Assad is a bastard.

Weird.

Suddenly, the Republican'ts want to hold hands and sing Kumbaya with the little "savages."

Weird, indeed.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-08-2017, 09:53 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Out of curiosity, when do you feel it is America's place to get involved in foriegn conflicts like Syria.

After 800,000 are killed in 100 days or you volunteer for the Infantry.  

Which ever happens last.  

The genocide in Rwanda (800,000 dead in 100 days) happened in 1994.  So I guess I'm waiting on you to volunteer for the Infantry.



Another idea would be if we expect to enforce international law upon other countries as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we should probably follow the UN charter we signed and a get a UN resolution authorizing the use of military force.

[JustWinBaby]

CNN has really gone downhill....worse than MSNBC ever pretended to be.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-09-2017, 02:33 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: CNN has really gone downhill....worse than MSNBC ever pretended to be.

Hillarious. CNN helped Trump get elected just as much as Fox News. There is a Trumpet on every panel they have just spewing loads of shit. A few of their most prominent anchors obviously dont like Trump. But they give the Trump platform loads of airtime.

Out of the three cable news propaganda channels they are the least watchable to me.

[JustWinBaby]

(04-09-2017, 02:48 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Out of the three cable news propaganda channels they are the least watchable to me.

I would agree they are the least watchable.  Never thought I'd see CNN sink below MSNBC.

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2017, 01:15 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: After 800,000 are killed in 100 days or you volunteer for the Infantry.  

Which ever happens last.  

The genocide in Rwanda (800,000 dead in 100 days) happened in 1994.  So I guess I'm waiting on you to volunteer for the Infantry.



Another idea would be if we expect to enforce international law upon other countries as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, we should probably follow the UN charter we signed and a get a UN resolution authorizing the use of military force.

Get a UN resolution authorizing the use of military force? And how do you expect that to happen? Russia and China have shown they don't want peace in Syria until Assad has complete control. Both Russia and China have repeatedly blocked UN resolutions over Syria for the last 6 years. Russia has said they don't want another Libya to happen, and they fear that is exactly what will happen if the US intervenes militarily, which is why the UN authorizing military intervention is something that will absolutely not happen under the watch of Russia or China.

Also what do you mean by me volunteering for the infantry?

[6andcounting]

(04-08-2017, 07:47 PM)treee Wrote: So what's the over/under on how long until Syria becomes Iraq 2.0?

I thought Libya was Iraq 2.0

And if anything Syria would become Afghanistan/Taliban 4.0

Which was really just part two of the Cold War to begin with.

Which was really just a power struggle between two ideologies that bubbled up during WWII in the first place.

Ahh F it. Let's just play along and say we're being Patriotic. Bomb Merica Bomb!

[6andcounting]

(04-09-2017, 02:48 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Hillarious. CNN helped Trump get elected just as much as Fox News. There is a Trumpet on every panel they have just spewing loads of shit. A few of their most prominent anchors obviously dont like Trump. But they give the Trump platform loads of airtime.

Out of the three cable news propaganda channels they are the least watchable to me.

CNN's ratings weren't doing so well 2 years ago so they decided to become more overtly liberal making them even less unique and giving them more direct competition with the already overtly liberal news outlets. 

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 10:43 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Get a UN resolution authorizing the use of military force? And how do you expect that to happen? Russia and China have shown they don't want peace in Syria until Assad has complete control. Both Russia and China have repeatedly blocked UN resolutions over Syria for the last 6 years. Russia has said they don't want another Libya to happen, and they fear that is exactly what will happen if the US intervenes militarily, which is why the UN authorizing military intervention is something that will absolutely not happen under the watch of Russia or China.

Getting international support for use of military force at the UN level is the same as getting Democratic and Republican support for use of military force at the national level. It's how we got an international coalition and an UN resolution to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

Quote:Also what do you mean by me volunteering for the infantry?

If you have such a hard on to risk other US lives in combat in Syria then you shouldn't have any qualms about risking your own life in combat in Syria. It will give you a chance to meet your maker so you should be chomping at the bit for the opportunity.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 12:15 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Yep, and 1 week ago Trump was Putin's puppet. 

A day after Trump was elected you were all for letting Assad and Russia handle it in Syria.

(11-09-2016, 08:40 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Let Assad and Russia handle it in Syria. We may need to step in in Iraq.

[*bfine32*]

(04-09-2017, 12:41 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: A day after Trump was elected you were all for letting Assad and Russia handle it in Syria.

Of course I was. When he used Chemical weapons in a country that we have Troops in after he was instructed not to employ them, my view changed.

Points of View can evolve unless someone wants to dig up the past to play gotcha

[Matt_Crimson]

(04-09-2017, 12:37 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Getting international support for use of military force at the UN level is the same as getting Democratic and Republican support for use of military force at the national level. It's how we got an international coalition and an UN resolution to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.

Apples to oranges.

Saddam invaded and occupied Kuwait and refused to withdraw from the region. How is that comparable to what is going on with Syria?

Quote:If you have such a hard on to risk other US lives in combat in Syria then you shouldn't have any qualms about risking your own life in combat in Syria. It will give you a chance to meet your maker so you should be chomping at the bit for the opportunity.

Hard on?

I'm not saying we should start sending in US troops all willy nilly to oust Assad. I'm just saying I'm in support of military action, but I'm not sure as to what I would support concerning it. Even if I am completely supportive of sending in troops, I don't see why I'm disqualified of supporting that position just because I'm not in the military. If I was sitting here criticizing American citizens for not joining the military but not in the military myself, your argument would actually make sense. Right now it doesn't.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(04-09-2017, 01:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Of course I was. When he used Chemical weapons in a country that we have Troops in after he was instructed not to employ them, my view changed.

He is also using conventional weapons in a country that we have our troops in.

Quote:Points of View can evolve unless someone wants to dig up the past to play gotcha

Sorry for dredging up your opinion from the day after Election Day. I totally get how killing kids with sarin gas is so much worse than killing kids the conventional way with an industrial bread maker and why that would change everyone's mind regarding military force in Syria.

ISIS kneads kids to death with bread maker; let Syria and Russia handle it.

Syria kills kids with sarin, Trump orders missile strike; cue the music . . .

https://youtu.be/U3tzU8TKBgI