29 thoughts on “When Fox News is asking the right questions

  1. Tish Farrell says:

    Astonishing to hear these questions from Fox. Robert Fisk reports in The Independent today from Douma. He says he found no evidence of a gas attack: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-chemical-attack-gas-douma-robert-fisk-ghouta-damascus-a8307726.html

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Swarn Gill says:

    Tucker Carlson is so ignorant on many other issues, that it’s hard for me to congratulate him too much, but I’ll give credit where credit is due here. He is much more on the side of the white nationalist faction that is against globalization and would rather see more isolationism. His network has been far from anti-war in general. And to Carlson’s credit he also invited Tulsi Gabbard to talk after the 2017 military airfield strike who had the same misgivings about bombing Syria.

    But it is a good question: “Why is the left so for this move?” It is neither constitutional nor do we have all the facts in. Aren’t liberals supposed to supporting war only as a last resort instead of cheering instant strikes without presenting anything to congress?

    Some other questions that I’d like to see FOX News ask, which supported the president’s increase to defense spending – Why do we have so much money for war, but when we want to help refugees we don’t have the budget? Why do we promote Islamophobia on our network, and then wonder why there is massive support for bombing Syria in the country?

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      In any nation, there are always nationalists and internationalists and those who don’t give a damnists. I don’t begrudge anyone for being a nationalist or a tribalist as long as they are not being very bigoted while at it, though it involves some bigotry.
      I have read pieces of how the US liberal media fuel war cries that I am not surprised anymore.
      I agree with the questions you ask at the end. They should be asked.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Swarn Gill says:

        Good point about nationalism, but here nationalism, at least politically is associated with the dominant race and religion in the country.

        As far as tribalism goes, I think it’s even less common to not be bigoted with a tribalist mentality, unless the tribe you are a part of is just the human race. If you are part of an oppressed group that is fighting for equality, then I would agree with you, but to me what such a “tribe” is really fighting for is to be on equal footing as other groups, which has an end goal of a broader humanist philosophy.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          We have a problem of ethno-nationalism. The British when they came here divided the different peoples/ nations into tribes.
          And each ethnic group is trying to get to position of power to be the next oppressor

          Like

          • Swarn Gill says:

            I was just having a discussion a similar with someone else. The best way for people to maintain power, especially when vastly outnumbered by the people they are oppressing is to divide them. Whether this is down by the rich or people of a particular race, this is the tactic. In the case of colonialism even after they leave, the mentality remains. 😦

            Like

  3. renudepride says:

    Sorry, I could never get the closed captioning activated. 😦

    Like

  4. I don’t think he’s asking the right questions. It looks like a fluff piece to blame the left in case the US gets more involved in Syria. War isn’t popular with the right, but both sides get behind missile strikes. Carlson’s just providing the eventual anti-war rhetoric in case the war broadens. Right now, the talk of war is a political commodity in an election year.

    Nobody’s talking about fixing the underlying problems: peaceful regime change when citizens of a country call for it, and policing breaches of international law without resorting to warfare and bloodshed. These aren’t just problems in Syria. And current methods of dealing with them are destabilizing the US, Europe, and many other places.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Why should the question of regime change be an American problem? Tell me anywhere where American led regime change has led to better results?
      From our own experience, your regime will support despots if they can trade and will throw them under the bus the moment they change tune. Anything they say should and must be taken with a spoon of salt.
      One side will claim righteous war, but it is all a game while people die. And we have a name for the dead, either call them collateral damage or martyrs of the struggle

      Like

      • Try reading my comment next time, Mak.

        Where did I suggest that this was limited to just a US problem? I’ll wait for you to quote me.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I read your comment and maybe my question should be seen on a larger framework. You mentioned regime change; that was the call Bush made about Iraq. Obama said the same thing about Libya, Egypt and I think Tunisia. It’s now the song the regime is singing about Syria for the last 7 years at least. That explains my comment on regime change.

          Like

          • What I’m suggesting is that regime change needs to be a question for the entire international community rather than for a few self-imposed elites. Right now the typical way for enforcing international standards is to have one or several powerful countries intervene in other nations. This isn’t tenable, for many reasons you’ve listed here and elsewhere.

            The reason why it’s a necessity is that something needs to keep governments from acting outside their own laws. Most problems the world faces from conflict can be traced to a government acting outside its own legal framework. But since the only recourse to enforce the rules is currently military use, this has led to some really stupid and regrettable human tragedies.

            Personally, I would love to see something that would keep US and other military power in check. But US military power is just part of a broken system. Before the US, Soviets had this kind of power, and the Germans, British, French, and Spanish before them. The Mongols exercised that kind of power in Asia. The list is endless.

            So is the body count.

            Like

  5. Pardon me for linking to my blog, but this post might help illuminate both the U.S. position and how the Syrian Civil War represents larger regional and geopolitical conflicts: https://thesecularjurist.wordpress.com/2018/04/18/in-syria-longstanding-u-s-interests-overshadow-trump/

    Liked by 1 person

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s