Iran: US will "suffer" if it leads strike on Syria

Montecresto said:

Well I certainly wish no harm to the presidents daughter or himself for that matter. But really, its not likely something Iran could actually do for one and for two who could blame them if they did utter such rhetoric? All that said, there's disinformation, threats and propaganda flying from all sides presently and it's difficult to cut through. But let us see an actual quote of the ayatollah or anyone else in the Iranian government saying such things. In the end, if they are as "crazy" as many on this board like to suggest, supposing their alleged nuclear program is advanced beyond our knowledge, suppose they shoved a nuke up our ass. The whole point is, why let things escalate to this level of rhetoric over "suggestive evidence"?

Click to expand...

Moot said:

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.

Click to expand...

Moot said:

The US was motivated to intervene in the genocide in Kosovo and Bosnia through NATO. Clinton regretted not intervening in Rwanda genocide.

I wonder why NATO isn't more involved in Syria?

Click to expand...

mac said:

they have enough oil to supply themselves and their exports are allready strictly sanctioned, with impending increase in sanctions bringing their oil exports down to zero. So, they have nothing to lose by shutting down the SoH for any length of time. Why would they do this? Excercise of power and hurting their enemies. Shutting down the straights for no more than a few days would drastically impact the world economy and cause greivous harm to every single enemy of Iran.

Click to expand...

humbolt said:

They have oil, but no refineries. When they shut down the Straits, they shut down their own supply of gasoline and every other product broken from crude.

Click to expand...