- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The Independent on Sunday has learned that a military decision has been taken in Iran – even before last week’s presidential election – to send a first contingent of 4,000 Iranian Revolutionary Guards to Syria to support President Bashar al-Assad’s forces against the largely Sunni rebellion that has cost almost 100,000 lives in just over two years. Iran is now fully committed to preserving Assad’s regime, according to pro-Iranian sources which have been deeply involved in the Islamic Republic’s security, even to the extent of proposing to open up a new ‘Syrian’ front on the Golan Heights against Israel.
Russia, Syria, Hezbollah, Iran.
vs.
Al Qaeda, Syrian rebels, Turkey, and the USA.
Yeah, this should be interesting. Got your iodine pills ready? I do.
I'd add Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and maybe Israel on the Sunni side. al-Qaeda wouldn't work with the US but I wouldn't be surprised if an all-out war would mean an alliance between Sunnis and al-Qaeda.
Yeah, I'm not seeing a good outcome in Syria no matter who "wins". The Syrian people are still going to be the losers.
Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent
I'm not sure what to think of this. On one hand, Iranian support at this point will mean nothing except that the rebel victory, which I believe is inevitable, will only be more painful for Iran. On the other hand, opening up a front against Israel is likely to spiral into a war between the United States and Iran. This, however, is likely just rhetoric.
Yeah, I'm not seeing a good outcome in Syria no matter who "wins". The Syrian people are still going to be the losers.
The only good outcome is the moderates gaining power. The only way for that to happen is to be involved. The Syrian people will be BIG winners if they get human rights and a UN backed government committed to development.
Just like how that happened in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.
We tried it three times. It failed three times.
Want to try for a fourth? I don't.
Just like how that happened in Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan.
We tried it three times. It failed three times.
Want to try for a fourth? I don't.
I find your assessment to be short-sighted. Judging such things mere moments after is the work of agendas.
In that list of countries you listed the country that defeats your argument: Libya. Our support for the Libyans was minimal, yet Libya has managed to be a stable, liberal democracy for over a year now, despite the Islamist presence in the country.
In that list of countries you listed the country that defeats your argument: Libya. Our support for the Libyans was minimal, yet Libya has managed to be a stable, liberal democracy for over a year now, despite the Islamist presence in the country.
We invaded Afghanistan in 2001.
Its now 2013. 12 years later and that place is a mess.
Iraq? Let us know when a week goes by without terrorists blowing up 50 people in some market place.
Libya? Yeah, that will become the France of the South.
The West was supposed to make Afghanistan a nice place in 12 years? hahaha
What this means is that the uprising is about to end. Not sure how you see a ragtag army fighting off the weaponry that Iran, Hezbelloh and Syria will be able to impose.
This will clearly show the world that there are no world powers which will mean more regional, horrific wars. While Europe and the U.S. hope by putting their heads in the sand will miss whatever is coming. Did not work well in the 20th century, probably will not work well now.
Firstly, Israel claims that Iran already has 50,000 troops in Syria supporting Assad - not sure how 4,000 more will make an appreciable difference.
Secondly, other than the humanitarian aspect, I see no significant global or strategic interest for the US, NATO, or other non-Middle Eastern entities in Syria at this time. Similar to when Obama ignored and abandoned the youth uprising in Iran after the 2009 election, this move by Obama is woefully too late and poorly thought out. It is a stab at relevance in his sea of scandals. Syria should be no different from Darfur or any other country that is going through a civil war. I'm glad the Canadian government has said we're not interested in this mess and we'll continue to provide humanitarian aide as needed.
Don't you see?
We have to spread "liberty" across the globe!!
Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Syria! Let freedom ring!
Iran to send 4,000 troops to aid President Assad forces in Syria - Middle East - World - The Independent
I'm not sure what to think of this. On one hand, Iranian support at this point will mean nothing except that the rebel victory, which I believe is inevitable, will only be more painful for Iran. On the other hand, opening up a front against Israel is likely to spiral into a war between the United States and Iran. This, however, is likely just rhetoric.
After how many years can we finally declare the invasion of Afghanistan a failure?
Iraq will not be a failure until there is a genocidal dictator, who has invaded neighbors twice, is in violation of 17 unscrs, has a fake WMD program, institutionalizes rape and sells foreign aid to the tune of 400k starved children. Again, any progress until then is gravy.
I don't think you quite understand the goals involved.
Excellent article for content and for those looking for unfiltered news. Do the rest of you believe in the opiniated statements of this article slamming the USA and the UK along with describing the Iraqi war as a "loss" for the USA and the withdrawal from Afghanistan as "humiliating"?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?