Iran warns west against military intervention in Syria
Source: Guardian
Iran has warned that foreign military intervention in Syria will result in a conflict that would engulf the region.
The threatening rhetoric from Tehran came in response to a statement by the secretary of state, John Kerry, on Monday that the US would respond to the "undeniable" use of chemical weapons in Syria.
>
Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Abbas Araqchi, indicated it was equally resolved to defend Assad.
"We want to strongly warn against any military attack in Syria. There will definitely be perilous consequences for the region," Araqchi told a news conference. "These complications and consequences will not be restricted to Syria. It will engulf the whole region."
Shi'ite Iran is Syria's closest ally and has accused an alliance of militant Sunni Islamists, Israel and western powers of trying to use the conflict to take over the region.
Read more: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/26/syria-us-un-inspection-kerry
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Do these heads of state not realize the very people who have
sufferred the chemical attacks will be hurt even more by military
intervention? The world is nuts!
branford
(4,462 posts)I personally may oppose American intervention, but I have neither seen nor heard any news concerning the opinions of the victims or their families. If anything, I would assume that they may be some of the strongest proponents for active Western involvement.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)deaths of innocents. It's a gamble.
branford
(4,462 posts)As I stated, I do not believe we should act at this time, primarily because I believe it unlikely that we could capture or eliminate all chemical weapons in country, and we have no business wasting American lives to trade the Assad regime for the Al Qaeda-linked rebels.
However, I deeply hope that our lack of intervention does not embolden Assad (and his allies in Iran or Hezbollah). If chemical weapons are used again, against larger and larger numbers of civilians, and we could have prevented such horrible loss of life, it would be more than simply regrettable.
jessie04
(1,528 posts).
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Your arguments here suggest otherwise:--seems like a sneaky and conniving way of advancing an otherwise clear agenda.
branford
(4,462 posts)It would have been far more polite and civil to simply ask me to clarify my comment before accusing me of advancing a hidden agenda.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)And I did not imply that any hidden agenda was afoot:--occasional coy protestations notwithstanding, there's nothing effectively veiled about the present schemes. The disinformation you have slung about in the course of recent days may not be as much an egregious offense as certain others (a more atrocious example can be found praising you to the hilt here), but I will have to further consider what you have said here before regarding the fairly consistent programme as anything other than exactly what it seems to be.
You seem to have a more nuanced attitude than I initially gave credit for, but the same cannot be said for certain others taking a similar tack. With that in mind, I have bigger guppies to bake at this time.
branford
(4,462 posts)I explained and expounded upon my opinion in great detail in this thread and many others. I even acknowledged, again in this thread and others, that I could be convinced under the right circumstances to support limited military action solely to remove the chemical weapons, if such an operation is even possible.
You are obviously free to disagree with me. However, it appears you basically agree with my analysis, but believe that I'm actually lying, have ulterior or more sinister motives, or are part of some scheme to spread purported disinformation. I do not even know how to respond to such ludicrous, unsubstantiated and patently offensive allegations, other than to suggest you loosen the tinfoil hat, as it must be cutting-off your circulation.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)A civil phrase, indeed; I should take notes, but that kind of faux-superior tripe is commonly enough tossed around that I should manage.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)Kerry was right...its a moral obscenity.
The civilized world has stated that these kind of weapons cannot be tolerated.
The world has invested in the fact it cannot allow chemical weapons like these to be the new acceptable way to wage war.
And if chemical weapons are not enough to get a response , are biological weapons something we don't care about? Because they will be next.
And nuclear weapons ?....They are ok too?... Its none of our business ?
---
No one is saying entering a civil war.
But a response is clearly mandatory.
And it is progressive to act against these vile weapons.
branford
(4,462 posts)However, despite the righteousness of your position, nothing is that simple.
What is our objective?
Is it to topple Assad? While I have no love for the brutal dictator and his friends from Iran and Hezbollah, should we be the one turning over the country to the radical and often Al Qaeda aligned rebels? Will they behave any better than Assad, and will that protect the population from chemical weapons and other reprisals? Are the American people committed, both politically and financially, to Syria to ensure Assad cronies do not return to power? As it has been said, if we break it, we buy it. Could this be another Iraq?
Are we going in to simply end the threat of chemical weapons? These weapons are notoriously unsafe and cannot simply be bombed with immunity. A simple mistake, and these noxious chemical can be dispersed far and wide, killing and maiming the people we seek to protect. Many are hidden, in bunkers, or even in the possession of the rebels. Based upon the experts of all political persuasions that I've heard discussing the issue, capturing or eliminating these weapons will require a great deal of time, expertise, and most importantly, many boots on the ground. These experts also do not believe that we have anything resembling an effective plan to deal with all the chemical weapons in country, no less a plan to ensure that they do not fall into the hands of radical rebels, Hezbollah or other parties. In light of Afghanistan and Iraq, I do not believe our electorate will tolerate another war to eliminate WMD's without such a precise and viable plant (and I would agree).
Generally, I fear that we could end-up going in, with the resulting loss of many American and allied lives and costing billions of dollars, and ultimately not eliminate the chemical weapon threat or even solve or ameliorate the civil war in Syria. I fear the "quagmire." I will also admit that I fear what a failed or incomplete mission in Syria will do politically to the Democrats before an election. I don't want Syria to be the encore to Libya.
My mind can be changed, but it will take a lot of work from the President, his administration, and our allies.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)nt
branford
(4,462 posts)I should also add that if we do go in, in should be at a time and manner of our choosing. Many of our purported and nominal allies do not seem to be on the same page as the President.
Most of the Arab regimes in the region support the rebels, with little care about chemical weapons. They just want the political cover of US or NATO military action to further support the rebels. If things go sideways in Syria, I do not want President Obama and the Democrats to be a patsy for countries like Saudi Arabia.
Turkey is also of great concern. Not only do they strongly support the rebels, they are facing a legitimate problem with Syrian refugees. They have also been saber-rattling far in excess of the US, Britain and France. I fear they may attack Syria, suffer retaliation, and then demand that NATO immediately back Erdogan with military support before our own military and electorate are properly prepared.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If Israel ends up occupying a significant chunk of Southern Syria (and thereby completely controlling water resources for the Jordan valley) that would be OK too, right?
branford
(4,462 posts)Why in heaven's name would Israel want the headache of a Syrian occupation, and where the hell did I ever suggest such a ridiculous outcome?
I, personally, believe that the only action Israel should take with regards to Syria is to retaliate against any attacks in order to contain the conflict. A ground war and occupation would serve no realistic purpose. Israel already controls most water resources through the Golan. Moreover, Israel has enough problems with the West Bank and Gaza. Another occupation would be not be politically viable in Israel, and would never be supported by the United States.
Despite your fearing Israelis behind every bush and under every rock, as I told you previously, the Arab states in the region are more than capable of screwing-up their countries and killing their own people without Israeli involvement. Let me be perfectly clear, the mess in Syria is basically a Muslim sectarian conflict that was not initiated nor supported by Israel, the Israelis forced neither Assad nor the rebels to employ chemical weapons in the conflict, and there has been nothing but blatantly antisemitic innuendo that suggests Israel will have any active part in any American military intervention in Syria, no less an actual invasion.
Where do you even come up with this garbage?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)If the missiles start flying against Syria, you can bet many of them will be launched by Israel. Proof of provocation is easy to come up with once hostilities have begun.
As to occupying the remainder of the Syrian Golan: The Israeli government may be forced to do so simply out of the need for secure borders and, of course, their well-known love of World Peace.
branford
(4,462 posts)Can you imagine anything occurring the the Middle East or elsewhere without an Israeli angle. When you stub your toe, do you blame the Israelis?
You just decide that Israel must be to blame, and then imagine some scenario in your head that fits that outcome.
Can you cite any major elected political figure in the United States or Israel, liberal or conservative, that has even suggested that Israel should, no less will, invade Syria?
Your unsubstantiated, paranoid rantings belong on Stormfront, not Democratic Underground.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I'm sure it will be perfectly nice, clean and "surgically accurate" in all respects.
branford
(4,462 posts)and my opposition to American military action in Syria at this time is very well-documented in this threat and others.
I just completely failed to see the relevance of your Israel allegations in connection with the OP or anything I wrote in this thread, or anywhere else. I cannot even fathom where you came up with the idea that Israel will invade Syria.
I invited you to cite some respectable evidence concerning you allegations about Israel, and I renew the invitation. I'm more than willing to discuss the impact of verifiable comments by those in power or influence, not battle plans based on your dislike of Israel.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Be as subtle as you want, the agenda is still clear.
As for what you term my allegations:
I have made no allegations whatsoever, rather I drew conclusions based on past history and current facts. You are free to look it up.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Is that not an "obscenity"?
What about the massive stock piles of nuclear weapons the US and other countries have. Are you progressive enough to be out protesting that?
Or, are you a recent converter to "Cruise Missile Liberals" who just want to stroke their conscience while really having to put their neck on the line.
And, innocents be damned if you just happen to be in the blast radius of one of our missiles.
branford
(4,462 posts)
mallard
(569 posts)... who used the toxin gas is key to the ... can't wait to bomb strategy. It's all about blaming Assad way too fast.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Nothing says freedom like having your family blown to bits right in front of your face, and watching as your daughter's school, your barber, your grocery store, and your place of work get hit by bombs and collapse into rubble.
But we know what's best for you and we're the good guys! 'Merica!
Dash87
(3,220 posts)America isn't happy unless Dick Cheney is rich. It's not like that $100 million used to blow up some 16 year old kid could have been reallocated for education or to feed the homeless. What do you want to do, bankrupt us!? Why do you hate freedom so much, and why do you not want to support the troops!? 
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)
Turbineguy
(37,319 posts)their military intervention in Syria.
jessie04
(1,528 posts)sheeeeeeeeesh
treestar
(82,383 posts)They should be up in arms like the rest of the world about chemical weapons.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)It is about enhancing U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.
treestar
(82,383 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Syria is not our country. If we attack Syria, it would be quite worthy of condemnation by Iran or anyone else. Our intervention there will be an outrage by itself.
treestar
(82,383 posts)And shouldn't Iran condemn the use of chemical weapons, as would any civilized country?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)No one, however, has yet proven conclusively that it was the Syrian government who used them. Several rebel groups are known to have seized such weapons from Syrian stockpiles. At least one rebel group has also announced they are prepared to begin using such weapons against government forces. Who is to say one of those groups was not who carried out the attack on the Damascus suburb?
Once again, we are about to go to war based on assumptions and partial intelligence.
branford
(4,462 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Oh, wait, that's different.
Using high explosives (which is a chemical compound) to kill people is perfectly OK.
warrant46
(2,205 posts)
This beauty is going to make the Raytheon stock holders a lot of money shortly. It is their dog in the fight and it is about to kill a lot of muslims
It has been improved several times and, by way of corporate divestitures and acquisitions, is now made by Raytheon.
branford
(4,462 posts)there is no historical, internationally recognized revulsion to drones, no less any enforceable treaty banning their use. In fact, they are used daily by a variety of nations, and such use is increasing with each passing year.
Objections concerning nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are viewed quite differently by the vast majority of the international community, including those countries who oppose drone use.
As drones are certainly not WMD's, and perform the same type of missions and carry the same arms as piloted vehicles, it is also very unlikely that drones will ever be considered in the same vein as NBC's.
At some point in the future, drones may be be viewed consistent with your opinion, but that day is definitely not today.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)And drones are just as destructive as any other weapon.
Obama's drone use has caused for more death and destruction then what happened in Syria.
branford
(4,462 posts)is simply not the same, or equivalent, as the deployment of chemical weapons.
Comparing Obama's drone use to Assad's (or the rebel's) use of chemical weapons is really comparing apples to oranges as for as international law is concerned. The calculus is more than the number of dead bodies.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)because there is not really a person doing it, it is terrorism. That is illegal and the damage is still there.
Dead bodies is strange calculus considering a clusterbomb barrage can be even more deadly then gas and have much further lasting aftereffects.
The US uses and sells those.
branford
(4,462 posts)As I stated earlier, one day the community of nations may adopt your viewpoint, but that is not the current reality, nor are there any indications that this will change any time in the near future.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Drone use is illegal and the US is guilty of crimes.
branford
(4,462 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)just as if you fired a missile, artillery or gas.
Here is a great discussion about it.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/jul/01/do-drone-attacks-comply-international-law/
Now then, would the US be OK with another country using a drone to take out a suspected target that they feel is a threat to them or would that be a breach of international law?
branford
(4,462 posts)and it is one opinion out of very many. Issues like who is a civilian, effects of collateral damage, what constitutes a battlefield, etc., render convincing, no less definitive, opinions on the use of drones, under certain conditions, virtually impossible.
Nevertheless, drones certainly may, and most definitely are, routinely used in combat by many nations. You may object to what constitutes combat or the battlefield, who is a legitimate target or who is able to control the drones, but those issues only nibble at the outer edges of how to properly employ an otherwise legal battlefield weapon.
As more countries begin to deploy drones, this legal nibbling will either wither away or we will enter into a new treaty specifically governing the use of drones and related devices. Since the USA has not even ratified the treaties concerning cluster munitions and the International Criminal Court, I would not expect a new, enforceable treaty, any time soon.
As to what would happen if drones were deployed against American forces, I do not believe that we would respond with lawyers or a sternly worded letter. We would retaliate with extreme prejudice. To the extent that we are able to ultimately protect our troops and assets from drones, we will likely rely on deterrence, consistent with the rest of our military policy.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)If we are talking who signed on to what agreements we can give anyone not signing a pass. AQ I am sure has not signed, do they get a pass?
The international community has for the most part outlawed clusterbombs. only a few rouge nations use them. The US is one of those nations and they want to sell them to a nation with a history of human rights abuses and supporting terrorism around the globe.
What we are on is a whole series of slippery slopes.
branford
(4,462 posts)I would note, however, that Al Qaeda is a non-state actor, and is subject to a whole host of restrictions that do not apply to countries.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)the fact that no one is on trial is the sad joke of it all.
Somehow we want to believe what we are doing isn't illegal because we are special.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)That's sure is news to me!
branford
(4,462 posts)Are those citizens combatants? Are they on the battlefield? Do they present a threat? Are they providing material support to combatants? Etcetera, etcetera, . . .
The discussion, however, was on the legality of drones under international law, not the legality of war itself.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The rules of war have no application, we are not at war with any other nation. When we use our armed forces (drones or otherwise) to kill another country's citizens it is not only common murder, it is also a crime under international law.
branford
(4,462 posts)in the White House, Pentagon and Dept. of Justice would most strenuously object to your contention that we are not at war. The leaders and citizens of a number of countries would most certainly agree. Additionally, nothing in the Constitution prevents us from engaging in armed hostilities with non-state actors.
Furthermore, the United States need no be in a declared war to utilize our armed forces to protect the interests of our country. You may certainly dispute that our military is in fact protecting our interests, but that is question to be decided by the elected branches of government constrained only by the judiciary. For instance, if Obama decides to attack Syria, and Congress does not challenge his actions in court (for example, as a breach of the War Powers Act), absent very unusual circumstances, your only effective remedy would be punish the responsible parties in the next appropriate election (see, Libya). Democracy in action.
I suppose, technically, some other country can claim that our actions are illegal and attempt to capture or arrest the President or other representatives for trial. I assume that you would not disagree with me when I state that the probable reaction in Washington would be laughter and scorn. If an actual attempt was made against the President by a foreign power, I estimate that polls for drastic and unyielding military action would be bipartisan and nearly unanimous.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Are you also going to suggest our invasion of Iraq was justified on the grounds that many White House insiders thought it was alright to go ahead?
International law only recognizes self defense as a justification for making war. That does not include something as ambiguous as preemptively protecting your country's "interests." On that point you are completely wrong.
Drale
(7,932 posts)its really doesn't matter if they are being bombed by a drone in 2013 or a B-17 in 1942, getting blow up is getting blow up. There is always going to be collateral damage when it comes to using bombs but with today's smart bombs we don't have to carpet bomb an entire city to kill one guy. That's not to say I'm in favor of blowing up other countries that have nothing to do with attacks on us, I'm just saying a getting blown up is getting blown up.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)That is by far a worse WMD then the use of gas.
treestar
(82,383 posts)differences here. Drone strikes are relatively surgical, and an improvement on carpet bombing. No one outside DU recognizes that as beyond what happens in a war, such as other bombings or shooting. They are no weapons of mass destruction. Chemicals like this are classified with nukes.
ronnie624
(5,764 posts)Your reality is predicated on a propaganda generated fantasy narrative about US motives and goals in the world. Most of the world's population, consider the US to be the biggest threat to global peace and security, because of its greed based policies of aggression and dominance.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)And the Chimp unilaterally declared them to be "Evil."
Then the U.S. armed their neighbor with chemical weapons and encouraged it to attack them.
Another recent thread talks about how CIA scuttled any hope they had for democracy for generations.
I guess their still a little sore about all these things.
Supersedeas
(20,630 posts)when real war is like playing video games
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)Especially when any enemy war plane would be miniscule by comparison and twice as fast.
But none of this will bring those people back, will it?
And no one wants to talk about all that, do they?
I bet the Iranians remember it, even though few here do, thanks to the memory hole media.
The Iranians probably remember it like it was yesterday.
Snake Plissken
(4,103 posts)okay we were just kidding back then, but if you invade Iraq this time we'll mean it.
okay we were just kidding back then too, but if you invade Syria this time we'll really, really, mean it.
roamer65
(36,745 posts)This one does.
If any are hurt or killed I expect a response.
obama2terms
(563 posts)For one thing we've been in Afghanistan for over a decade, and we've had enough people killed there. Second, plenty of innocent people are being killed over there, if we sent soldiers that would just add to the numbers. Third, if we did intervene and got rid of Assad, he would just be replaced by another wackadoo. There's no winning when it comes to finding a leader for many of these countries that are having issues right now. It's just one nut job replacing another.