Iran will support Syria 'to the end': military chief

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by dadx4, Sep 5, 2013.

  1. dadx4

    dadx4 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    29,121
    Likes Received:
    442
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    Ratings Received:
    +1,039
    Hello regional war....So what's Hussein going to do now? Mr. Redline.

    http://news.yahoo.com/iran-support-syria-end-military-chief-101944728.html


    Iran will support Syria "until the end" in the face of possible US-led military strikes, the chief of Iran's elite Quds Force unit was quoted Thursday by the media as saying.

    Iran is Syria's main regional ally and some analysts believe a wider goal of US President Barack Obama's determination to launch a strike against the Damascus regime is to blunt Tehran's growing regional influence and any consequent threat to Washington ally Israel.
  2. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    This is of course what is said. But any more evidence of chemical weapons use and that goodwill will whither in a hurry. That's one thing still very fresh in the minds of the Iranians, and they've privately condemned it with Syrian leaders.
  3. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    :huh:

    You think Iran cares about the Syrians' use of chemical weapons?
  4. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Yes. Please review not-so-distant history, thanks.
  5. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Condemnation of the use chemical weapons has been going on for some time in Iran now. They officially say there's no way to know yet whether it was Assad or rebels that executed the attacks, though.

    Indisputable proof that Assad did it would weigh heavily on both the people and leadership of Iran, who have already softened their stance a bit:

  6. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    And you take them at their word? Iran?
  7. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Yeah, I do. When the people suffered some of the most egregious chemical weapon attacks in the history of chemical weapons, I do believe they would be opposed to their use.

    This isn't just the government, it's the people. People who saw the effects up close.
  8. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    So Saddam Hussein did have WMD's?
  9. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,660
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,574
    In the 1980s and into the early 1990s? Without question.

    I'm relatively confident that wasn't the justification for invading in 2003 though (or if it was, the complaint that Obama is going to make his "lesson" to Syria meaningless by waiting a month is beyond absurd).
  10. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Is this a serious question?
  11. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    Absolutely.
  12. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    That Saddam had chemical weapons during the Iraq-Iran war has never really been a matter for debate.
  13. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
  14. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    Yes, because he got rid of them before we invaded. On Fox one of their guests said that a high ranking Iraqi general said the Saddam transported all of his country's WMD's to... you guessed it... Syria. But did Assad use them, or did someone else try and frame him for it?
  15. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    I'm not sure where you're going with this. We were talking about Iraq using chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which obviously preceded the first Gulf War and the Iraq War in 2003.
  16. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    They're all connected by WMD's... Syria, Iraq, and Iran.
  17. orangeblueorangeblue

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    57,079
    Likes Received:
    596
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,879
    Ok, but ...

    what does that have to do with what we were talking about?
  18. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    That's what we're all trying to figure out. Why would Iran support Syria to the end, and are they just a side show to green-light their (Iran's) nuclear bomb making aspirations.

    Are they saying this to get us involved? Or are they interjecting themselves into Syria because they have fighters there ready to kill foreigners, like us? Or, do they want war so that they can make their bomb without U.S. interference.

    They're up to something, and it's obvious to me that they want us fighting in Syria so we can't interfere with them and their nuke program.
  19. GatorBen

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,660
    Likes Received:
    371
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,574
    They, generally, want us not fighting in Syria because Iran uses Syria as a proxy state to funnel support to Palestinian causes...

    Confirmed chemical weapons use by the Syrian regime could change that analysis, at least for the Iranian people however, as one of the few populaces to have experienced fairly large scale gas attacks.

    The Iranian dynamic is certainly interesting though, because the Syrian Civil War has already changed some of Iran's regional proxy relationships, perhaps most notably weakening their ties to Hamas.
  20. Gatorrick22

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,762
    Likes Received:
    2,468
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,345
    And the Hezbollah connection is also well known. Do you think Iran has fighters on Assad's side or are they part of the rebels?

Share This Page