Congress not authorised to allow Syria strikes: Iran
21 replies, posted
[QUOTE]The US Congress is not authorised to green-light American military strikes against Syria as any such action would be in violation of international law, Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Sunday.
Iran's reaction came a day after US President Barack Obama said he was seeking congressional approval for punitive military action against the Syrian regime over its suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians, which Washington says killed more than 1,400 people.
"Mr Obama cannot interpret and construe international law for his own (benefit)," Zarif told reporters after a late afternoon cabinet meeting, the ISNA news agency reported.
"Congress cannot authorise strikes (against Syria) and that attack would be in violation of international law," he said, explaining that "only the UN Security Council -- under special conditions -- can issue authorization" for the use of force to restore international peace.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://news.yahoo.com/congress-not-authorised-allow-syria-strikes-iran-184722330.html[/url]
US does what US pleases, laws or not.
"for the use of force to restore international peace" - that's where America has the loophole. They're not doing it to restore any peace, let alone international peace :v:
And using chemical weapons against civilians isn't a violation of international law? Double standards much Iran?
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;42046917]And using chemical weapons against civilians isn't a violation of international law? Double standards much Iran?[/QUOTE]
Two wrongs still, in this case, certainly do not make a right. It's a dubious business having nation-states call each other out for breaking international laws when they all do it to suit their own needs sure, but it's still a blatant abuse of our position as TEAM AMERICA WORLD POLICE.
[QUOTE=GoldenDargon;42046917]And using chemical weapons against civilians isn't a violation of international law? Double standards much Iran?[/QUOTE]
International laws, treaties, etc. are only there to be followed when it's in one's own best interest. If not, then it's the standard to skip around it as much as wished.
The U.N.S.C. is a farce and was designed never to accomplish anything other than the aggregation of power by the Great Powers. The U.S. doesn't give two shits whether or not Russia and China say it's O.K. There will never be any conflict between the Great Powers due to nuclear weapons. Thus, they can do as they please with other nations without fear of any meaningful reprisal.
Iran is correct in saying this, but then that merely means that the UN vote to agree with the US.
To be honest, I agree with military strikes to enforce international law when it comes to illegal warfare weaponry such as Sarin.
To let a nation use a chemical weapon on its civilian populace without consequence would set a precedent for other military forces - with sovereignty or not - that would implant the idea of the use of banned weaponry as a viable means of warfare against the unarmed masses.
I thought Iran wanted intervention in Syria?
[QUOTE=An Axolotl;42046992]I thought Iran wanted intervention in Syria?[/QUOTE]
They don't want the U.S. to do anything. They might have been quieter if Obama had said "I fully support the Islamic cause in Syria and we will work to install an Islamist dictatorship in Syria." Anything less would automatically be met with criticism because the U.S. is just a "Zionist puppet" in Iran's eyes.
Ha, who's gonna stop us?
[QUOTE=An Axolotl;42046992]I thought Iran wanted intervention in Syria?[/QUOTE]
Only if it gets rid of the rebels and is pro-Assad.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42047034]Only if it gets rid of the rebels and is pro-Assad.[/QUOTE]
No you have it backwards. The Iranians hate Assad's regime because it's a Ba'athist Socialist one. They support the rebellion and have funded many of the rebel groups.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;42047034]Only if it gets rid of the rebels and is pro-Assad.[/QUOTE]
Why would Iran, an Islamic state, want to get rid of rebels which some of whom are radical Islamists?
[QUOTE=Explosions;42047057]No you have it backwards. The Iranians hate Assad's regime because they're Ba'athist Socialists. They support the rebellion and have funded many of the rebel groups.[/QUOTE]
...what.
Iran is 100% behind Assad against the rebels. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah have helped the Syrian army.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42047057]No you have it backwards. The Iranians hate Assad's regime because it's a Ba'athist Socialist one. They support the rebellion and have funded many of the rebel groups.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Syria_relations]Syria and Iran are strategic allies. Syria is often called Iran's "closest ally", ideological conflict between the Arab nationalism ideology of Syria's secular ruling Baath party and the Islamic Republic of Iran's pan-Islamist policies notwithstanding. [/url]
[QUOTE=BaguetteThug;42047063]...what.
Iran is 100% behind Assad against the rebels. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Hezbollah have helped the Syrian army.[/QUOTE]
Iran is an Islamic Republic. Syria is Ba'athist. They don't like each other.
[QUOTE=Explosions;42047079]Iran is an Islamic Republic. Syria is Ba'athist. They don't like each other.[/QUOTE]
You really ought to actually look up stuff that you're talking about.
Well, now I'm confused.
EDIT: Now less so, as Syria helped Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, so Iran now owes Syria a favor, helping rebel Islamists be damned?
[QUOTE=An Axolotl;42047122]Well, now I'm confused.[/QUOTE]
How the fuck is the general public in the US so fuckin misinformed? Syria's conflict is sectarian. Syria and iran are strong allies because they're both shias (same with hezbollah). The rebels are all sunnis that are supported by saudis and other arab nations.
[QUOTE=An Axolotl;42047122]Well, now I'm confused.
EDIT: Now less so, as Syria helped Iran in the Iran-Iraq War, so Iran now owes Syria a favor, helping rebel Islamists be damned?[/QUOTE]
Look, governments recognize that there are more important things than religion. Especially the religious ones.
Global politics aren't that simple.
[QUOTE=aydin690;42047162]How the fuck is the general public in the US so fuckin misinformed? Syria's conflict is sectarian. Syria and iran are strong allies because they're both shias (same with hezbollah). The rebels are all sunnis that are supported by saudis and other arab nations.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for basically calling me an idiot, I appreciate it. Misinformation is much less of a problem in the United States than apathy is. Stop someone on the street in a small-medium sized town and ask them what Sunni Islam or Shia Islam is, they won't know, because they don't care. You could at least throw me a bone for giving a shit.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.