- Joined
- Dec 17, 2011
- Messages
- 1,981
- Reaction score
- 806
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Iran's Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Thursday the United States -- which, in addition to being one of his country's chief adversaries, has led the push to punish Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's government over chemical weapons -- has no right to make "humanitarian claims (given) their track record" in Iraq, Afghanistan and at the military prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
What if it's just in a general direction?
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
Iran: U.S. will 'definitely suffer' if it leads strike on Syria - CNN.com
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
The president of Iran is much much more moderate. I know the religious nuts have more control but the people over there are wanting them pushed out for the most part. So this could possibly fabricate the split between the mullahs and the president that the people would pursue? dunno.
I don't think it's about humanitarian efforts in as much as it is about enforcing an international treaty not to use chemical weapons.
In that case there would be overwhelming international support and UN support for action.
How often does that happen?
International support is dependent upon individual states caring. UN support is dependent upon the Security Council being unwilling to veto an action. Neither of which you can depend on.
I sometimes wonder if we have the same problem in America with the religious nuts! Different discussion though. I think Iran has a point here, we have been sticking our finger in that mess for years and all we have to show for it is body bags and debt! Time to let them handle their own problems. I don't care if they kill each other I really don't care how to that extent. Just as long as they do not attack the US. Now if they do don't send troops turn that desert into glass.
Well I'm not for conducting nor allowing a genocide but I am for an isolationist foreign policy well beyond what we have now. Wayyy beyond.
Obama has been by turns inept, incompetent, indecisive. His constant vacillation on what the US will do, when it will do it, how it will do it, then oops, let's back that up for a while and chat with congress, has not only given Syria a blueprint of our military game plan, it's also allowed Syria plenty of time to shift, move and hide its military assets.
As for Iran, they are watching a dithering president who changes his mind as often as mom changes a baby's diaper. If they don't feel emboldened at this point, I'd be stunned. They see a president that when pressed to the wall, blinks or simply moves the wall. They will take advantage of that, which will not bode well for the region or the world at large. I'd like to say I believed that if then Iranians tried to take a piss in our direction, Obama would turn them into eunuchs before they got it back in their pants...
But I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There will be much bluster and gnashing of teeth, Obama will indignantly tell the world exactly what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, but in the end... I doubt he will do anything of substance, which will continue to embolden our enemies.
Honestly, I am surprised we have not heard more arguments like the one above. The U.S has no standing on humanitarian issues when it comes to using force because we have lost our credibility. I do have to doubt the Iranian rhetoric that the United States will suffer if military actions occurs. We have heard it before from other countries, namely North Korea, and nothing ever comes of it. Either way it is an interesting statement and it is an interesting situation that President Obama has gotten the United States into.
I don't think it's about humanitarian efforts in as much as it is about enforcing an international treaty not to use chemical weapons.
I won't lie, I'm not comfortable with Obama leading the country during this tumultuous time (yeah... I voted for him last year; the alternative was worse.). If charisma alone could lead a country, we're all set. But it's not. I'm not saying he has done everything wrong; I'm just saying that his right versus wrong choice percentage is dismally low.
Obama has been by turns inept, incompetent, indecisive. His constant vacillation on what the US will do, when it will do it, how it will do it, then oops, let's back that up for a while and chat with congress, has not only given Syria a blueprint of our military game plan, it's also allowed Syria plenty of time to shift, move and hide its military assets.
As for Iran, they are watching a dithering president who changes his mind as often as mom changes a baby's diaper. If they don't feel emboldened at this point, I'd be stunned. They see a president that when pressed to the wall, blinks or simply moves the wall. They will take advantage of that, which will not bode well for the region or the world at large. I'd like to say I believed that if then Iranians tried to take a piss in our direction, Obama would turn them into eunuchs before they got it back in their pants...
But I honestly don't believe that to be the case. There will be much bluster and gnashing of teeth, Obama will indignantly tell the world exactly what we are going to do and when we are going to do it, but in the end... I doubt he will do anything of substance, which will continue to embolden our enemies.
I don't dislike the guy, but that's the trouble with "on the job training" in the most important job in the world. He wasn't ready for prime time, but a dazzling smile and a way with words gave people what they wanted, not what they needed. :shrug:
The US was motivated to intervene in the genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia through NATO. Clinton regretted not intervening in Rwanda genocide.There are also International rules against genocide and that hasn't ever motivated USA military action.
If the Iranian regime so much as farts in the wrong direction, it can instantly forget about becoming a nuclear power.
Clinton regretted not intervening in Rwanda genocide.
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?