'Ball of fire in Middle East': Tehran, Damascus warn US against Syria strike - Polidicks

[FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333][quote=RT][/COLOR][/FONT] Iran has warned the US not to cross “the red line” on Syria threatening it would have “severe consequences” for the White House. This follows a statement from Syrian officials who said a strike would create “very serious fallout” for the whole region. "America knows the limitation of the red line of the Syrian front and any crossing of Syria's red line will have severe consequences for the White House," the Iranian Fars news agency quoted deputy chief of staff of Iran's armed forces, Massoud Jazayeri, as saying. Syrian authorities also warned the United States against any military intervention, saying this would "inflame the Middle East".[/quote] [FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333][quote][/COLOR][/FONT] [URL]http://rt.com/news/iran-warns-us-red-line-961/[/URL][/quote] [quote_CNN]Washington (CNN) – Two key members of congressional foreign affairs panels say they expect the United States to strike Syria following reports of chemical weapons attacks in that country last week, though other lawmakers interviewed Sunday cautioned that unilateral action would be misguided. "I think we will respond in a surgical way and I hope the president, as soon as we get back to Washington, will ask for authorization from Congress to do something in a very surgical and proportional way. Something that gets their attention, that causes them to understand that we are not going to put up with that kind of activity," Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday."[/quote] [FONT=Tahoma, Helvetica, Arial, Verdana][COLOR=#333333][quote=CNN][/COLOR][/FONT] [URL="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/08/25/key-u-s-lawmakers-expect-strike-in-syria/?hpt=hp_t1"]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ria/?hpt=hp_t1[/URL][/quote] [quote=RT]The US sees “very little doubt” Syria used chemical weapons against civilians - something President Obama had described as a “red line.” However, Moscow has reminded Washington of similar mistakes over Iraq, and warned it not to breach international law. A senior Obama administration official said on Sunday that the US intelligence community based its assessment on "the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, and witness accounts," AP reports. This comes as the US military has presented President Barack Obama with potential options for action in Syria and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has indicated the Pentagon is ready to exercise these options, should Obama give the order. Russia warned that the alleged chemical attack could have been a staged “provocation” by the Syrian opposition forces and said US rhetoric recalled the allegations preceding the invasion of Iraq. “All of this makes one recall the events that happened 10 years ago, when, using false information about Iraqis having weapons of mass destructions, the US bypassed the United Nations and started a scheme whose consequences are well known to everyone,” the Russian Foreign ministry said in a statement. “Once again we call not to repeat past mistakes, not to allow actions that contradict international law,” the ministry said.[/quote] [quote=RT][URL]http://rt.com/news/syria-russia-us-iraq-976/[/URL][/quote]

The US should seriously stop trying to be the world police

[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;41965076]The US should seriously stop trying to be the world police[/QUOTE] if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner

Syria asking not to get hit with cruise missiles no matter how fucked up their tactics are, while Iran immediately sides with whoever isn't the US- is anyone really surprised here?

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] But what if it is not Assad who used it, but the rebel forces? What is to be done then?

I think we waited way too long to intervene, now the rebels have lots of extremists within their ranks. We should have intervened when the Free Syrian Army was just former Syrian soldiers fed up with being ordered to shoot civillians.

[QUOTE=Beafman;41965127]But what if it is not Assad who used it, but the rebel forces? What is to be done then?[/QUOTE]You still intervene. Someone is using them, and people are dying. At this point, what matters most is making sure that doesn't happen any longer.

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;41965227]You still intervene. Someone is using them, and people are dying. At this point, what matters most is making sure that doesn't happen any longer.[/QUOTE] But the US is clearly blaming the Assad regime in this without conclusive evidence. They will probably bomb military installations to beat down the military, until the rebels get a upper hold on the situation. And then we end up with islamic fundamentalists in Syria.

[QUOTE=Beafman;41965264]But the US is clearly blaming the Assad regime in this without conclusive evidence. They will probably bomb military installations to beat down the military, until the rebels get a upper hold on the situation. And then we end up with islamic fundamentalists in Syria.[/QUOTE]Frankly, you have no idea what evidence they have or what they will do or how things will play out in the aftermath. So don't even begin to pretend you do.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L2Gve7oh_4[/media]

[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;41965304]Frankly, you have no idea what evidence they have or what they will do or how things will play out in the aftermath. So don't even begin to pretend you do.[/QUOTE] Correct, I don't. But I don't want to be nonchalant when they say they have the evidence and it's stamped with "national security" if the UN inspectors find nothing. And if I can't pretend future situations, should I then just listen to government outlets?

I actually agree with Tehran in this case. This entire situation is a massive lose-lose, and the implications of aiding either force would be catastrophic. We can't risk supporting Al-Qaeda aligned factions because they may be "morally just" with slaughtering Kurds, and attacking random populations for the fuck of it. We can't risk supporting Assad because doing so will cause strains with our present allies. This entire situation is FUBAR, and we should only intervene in a medical role, not an aggressor role.

[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;41965076]The US should seriously stop trying to be the world police[/QUOTE] The way the world works now they kind of have to. And so does any other major world power. [editline]25th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=BrownTown;41965166]I think we waited way too long to intervene, now the rebels have lots of extremists within their ranks. We should have intervened when the Free Syrian Army was just former Syrian soldiers fed up with being ordered to shoot civillians.[/QUOTE] It was messy from day one, I dont think intervening any earlier would of changed the amount of radicals involved.

You do nothing, muslim countries are not yet ready to keep a stable democracy.

[QUOTE=ScoutKing;41965394]The way the world works now they kind of have to. And so does any other major world power. [editline]25th August 2013[/editline] It was messy from day one, I dont think intervening any earlier would of changed the amount of radicals involved.[/QUOTE] Look at every revolution in history. It's always the radicals that hijacks the situation for their goals.

[QUOTE=Beafman;41965357]Correct, I don't. But I don't want to be nonchalant when they say they have the evidence and it's stamped with "national security" if the UN inspectors find nothing. And if I can't pretend future situations, should I then just listen to government outlets?[/QUOTE] UN inspectors never find anything. Assad wouldn't of let them in if he didn't clean things up first. I dont know why people think the UN will find something/be accurate. Its like if I was a suspect in a murder case, and the police could only search my house when I said they could. Im not going to leave my evil-day planner, and stock-pile of chemical weapons laying out next to dead children for them to find.

Maybe they will find all the WMD's they didn't find in Iraq and Afganistan.

[QUOTE=CasualJoe;41965414]You do nothing, muslim countries are not yet ready to keep a stable democracy.[/QUOTE] "Muslim" is hardly the relevant factor in that you bigot. Oh, Uganda is not a functioning and stable state, I guess christian countries can't handle functioning democracy

[QUOTE=CasualJoe;41965444]Maybe they will find all the WMD's they didn't find in Iraq and Afganistan.[/QUOTE] This is the UN we're talking about. If they solve the mystery of who left the turd in the school urinal ill be surprised.

[QUOTE=Jetpack Bear;41965076]The US should seriously stop trying to be the world police[/QUOTE] what a unique post

[QUOTE=Beafman;41965417]Look at every revolution in history. It's always the radicals that hijacks the situation for their goals.[/QUOTE] I don't think that's true. Sometimes there are revolutions behind one leader with one agenda. The danger of supporting a revolution where multiple factions are allied as the rebels is you don't know who will wind up in charge afterwards. Even if the result is a democracy, you still don't know who the people will vote into power. So in Syria we get rid of Assad and then what? No one knows. Maybe the devil we know is better than the devil we don't. On the other hand, if the rebels eventually win and we didn't help them, say goodbye to any chance to be on friendly terms with the new Syria.

[QUOTE=cecilbdemodded;41965542]I don't think that's true. Sometimes there are revolutions behind one leader with one agenda. The danger of supporting a revolution where multiple factions are allied as the rebels is you don't know who will wind up in charge afterwards. Even if the result is a democracy, you still don't know who the people will vote into power. So in Syria we get rid of Assad and then what? No one knows. Maybe the devil we know is better than the devil we don't. On the other hand, if the rebels eventually win and we didn't help them, say goodbye to any chance to be on friendly terms with the new Syria.[/QUOTE] English revolution (civil war) - Overtaken by puritan army units that killed the king and continued killings in Ireland. American revolution - Overtaken by seperatist rebels that wanted to break away from Britain, successed in breaking away, but afterward George Washington needed to crush a rebellion that wanted more rights for the individual states. French revolution - Overtaken by republican radicals that killed the king and instituted a rule by terror. It goes on and on.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] So let the other nations do it. We can't afford to help, we've already pissed off everyone else in that region, and we're generally not welcome over there anymore. Besides that, when was the last time a liberation attempt we made actually worked properly? Last one I can think of was...ooooh....France in 1944. They need help, but not from us.

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] These are the same countries that gave chemical weapons to Saddam to use against Iran. Now, they want to 'intervene to help the innocent syrians'.

[QUOTE=aydin690;41966172]These are the same countries that gave chemical weapons to Saddam to use against Iran. Now, they want to 'intervene to help the innocent syrians'.[/QUOTE] The people who did that shitty action 30 years ago are not still in office, you know that right?

I love how people complain about Afghanistan, despite the US dethroning a horrible regime that oppressed it's people, yet also complain about the US not getting involved in Syria.

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;41966237]The people who did that shitty action 30 years ago are not still in office, you know that right?[/QUOTE] Knowing how congress works, they probably still are in office, there's no limit to how many times you can get reelected in a congress position, so people could remain in office for their entire lives if they get reelected enough.

right... and when should we listen to iran? they don't seem to care about our red-lines, lets see if they don't mind some mutual line-crossing. they just want another weak islamified country to push around. they don't want an internationally backed state with a propped up goverment and semi-democracy next door.

[QUOTE=zombini;41966367]Knowing how congress works, they probably still are in office, there's no limit to how many times you can get reelected in a congress position, so people could remain in office for their entire lives if they get reelected enough.[/QUOTE] Very few, Im not even sure if the U.S congress was involved in chemical sales. Regardless my point is that the U.S government is hardly the same entity it was in the 80s

[QUOTE=lum1naire;41965104]if chemical weapons have been used on civilians, this is a situation where intervention is justifiable as it doesn't serve their own agenda, but rather helping the innocent Syrians dying from this conflict, in a terrible manner[/QUOTE] implying the current US government would do it for the "greater good".