If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   Iran: So after thinking it over we've decided to not back Syria   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 92
    More: Interesting, Iran, material support, Hassan Rowhani, United Nations Permanent Representative, Syrians, chemical warfares, military attacks, Assembly of Experts  
•       •       •

4027 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Sep 2013 at 2:29 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



92 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-09-05 12:46:21 PM  
Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.
 
2013-09-05 01:24:52 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.


Part of it, I'm sure, is because Iran and Russia (and Syria) are BFFs, and old-skool cold war mentalities die hard.
 
2013-09-05 01:26:38 PM  
Yup. Totes WWIII right guys? Guys? Hey, where are you going?
 
2013-09-05 01:37:19 PM  
Iran's in a rather difficult global political situation. It's fellow Shia/Alawite countries are disappearing. Iraq still has a Shia minority, but they no longer control that country. So it's pretty much Syria and Iran surrounded by Sunnis.

Domestically, I doubt they have much support for shedding Persian blood to defend Arabs.

Since odds are nothing useful about Syria is likely to come out of Congress, it's a good time to for the US to start diplomatic relationships with Iran, while we still have the Syria bargaining chip.
 
2013-09-05 02:20:07 PM  
And the dude "in charge" in Iran (well, we know who's really in charge) is a moderate, so moderate he was barely allowed to run in the election in the first place. And he was elected by a pretty good margin, iirc. So now would be our best opportunity to start a dialog.
 
2013-09-05 02:24:51 PM  
I agree that we should push towards a negotiated end to the war, but neither the rebels nor Assad seem to agree.

Also, the only countries that really DO have "boots on the ground" in Syria are Iran and Russia, but especially Iran.
 
2013-09-05 02:32:45 PM  
As the Obama administration builds its case for military strikes on Syria, Iran's new president and his foreign policy team are steering clear of a confrontational tone even as they express support for Tehran's longtime allies in Damascus.

I'll rephrase that for accuracy: Nobel Laureate Obama is more of a warmonger than Iran's new President, What's-his-name.
 
2013-09-05 02:35:03 PM  

xanadian: Nadie_AZ: Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

Part of it, I'm sure, is because Iran and Russia (and Syria) are BFFs, and old-skool cold war mentalities die hard.


Uh, Iran was an US client for most of the Cold War (which is why they have leftover F-4's and F-14's), and post-Revolution it regarded the USSR as the "Lesser Satan" (to the US's "Great Satan").  Maybe you're thinking of Iraq?
 
2013-09-05 02:35:10 PM  
Of course they're already hedging their bets.  Now that it's becoming clear that the Congress is going to give Obama the authorization he wants, they have to start pulling back the rhetoric before someone in the American government makes the mistake of thinking that Iran is 'serious' or something.

And those Russian navy men coming into the region will sit back and drink vodka while the air strikes go unabated.
 
2013-09-05 02:35:19 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.


They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.
 
2013-09-05 02:38:30 PM  

Aristocles: As the Obama administration builds its case for military strikes on Syria, Iran's new president and his foreign policy team are steering clear of a confrontational tone even as they express support for Tehran's longtime allies in Damascus.

I'll rephrase that for accuracy: Nobel Laureate Obama is more of a warmonger than Iran's new President, What's-his-name.


I like it. Your calling out the socialist europeans while simultaneously dismissing Iran as relevant. Well constructed troll.
 
2013-09-05 02:38:34 PM  

ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.


They started the revolt against Assad?
 
2013-09-05 02:41:05 PM  

Nadie_AZ: ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.

They started the revolt against Assad?


They were there from day 1 helping Assad's people beat-up the protestors
 
2013-09-05 02:42:54 PM  

vernonFL: I agree that we should push towards a negotiated end to the war, but neither the rebels nor Assad seem to agree.

Also, the only countries that really DO have "boots on the ground" in Syria are Iran and Russia, but especially Iran.


Well, we have boots all around the place, just not there. But let's review recent history: we took down a brutal dictator, Saddam and left a void. The the locals went back to their centuries old hobby, Sunnis killing Shia, Shia vs Sunni, and everyone vs. the Kurds. That only took us about a decade to calm things down for the time being.

Now in Syria, the Sunnis and Shia/Alawites are already pursuing their centuries old hobby, even with an intact brutal dictator. Boots on the ground will just mean another long, pointless war with US casualties, with probably the same result as Iraq: a temporary pause before both sides start up with their hobby again.
 
2013-09-05 02:43:03 PM  

ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.

They started the revolt against Assad?

They were there from day 1 helping Assad's people beat-up the protestors


So ... help an ally put down a revolt.
 
2013-09-05 02:44:51 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Yup. Totes WWIII right guys? Guys? Hey, where are you going?


They will be in their bunkers
 
2013-09-05 02:45:13 PM  

ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.

They started the revolt against Assad?

They were there from day 1 helping Assad's people beat-up the protestors


Is that you, Tatsuma?
 
2013-09-05 02:47:06 PM  

Nadie_AZ: ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: ShadowKamui: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

They have advisers on the ground and directly fund Hezbollah, whatever words they say are beyond meaningless.  They are anything but adults, they are one of the primary instigators.

They started the revolt against Assad?

They were there from day 1 helping Assad's people beat-up the protestors

So ... help an ally put down a revolt.


The revolt didn't breakout until Assad and his Iranian buddies started shooting protestors
 
2013-09-05 02:49:25 PM  

Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.


End the bloodshed? Why would we want to do that? Our enemies are at each others throats.

We should aid whichever side is losing, but only enough to prolong the conflict. Let them kill each other.

Oh, and the chemical weapons argument is about maintaining international norms. Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2013-09-05 02:50:36 PM  
Hurray! No we can kill Syrians with impunity!


If we drop bombs on three Middle eastern nations, don't we get the fourth one free? We had a coupon for that, didn't we?
 
2013-09-05 02:50:54 PM  

JesusJuice: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

End the bloodshed? Why would we want to do that? Our enemies are at each others throats.

We should aid whichever side is losing, but only enough to prolong the conflict. Let them kill each other.

Oh, and the chemical weapons argument is about maintaining international norms. Nothing more, nothing less.


Actually, it dovetails into your first argument.  By neutralizing the CWs on both sides, it goes back to a long protracted civil conflict with no end in sight.
 
2013-09-05 02:51:56 PM  
Assad really screwed the pooch with his chemical weapons strikes. As much as Iran wants to back him up on this, Iran's distaste for the military use of chemical weapons,particularly against civilians, cannot be understated. Many of the now-senior members of Iran's various military, religious, and political factions witnessed the effects of chemical weapons firsthand during the Iran/Iraq war. These memories are fresh and distinct, and the Iranian regime has never hesitated to remind themselves and their neighbors of the horrific acts that Saddam Hussein committed on a horrifying scale.


<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/s ep/02/iran-chemical-w eapons-wmd-sanctions
 
2013-09-05 02:52:58 PM  
IIRC the revolt started when a teenager was caught spray painting anti- Assad graffiti on a wall, the police tortured and killed the teen and dumped his mutated body off in front of his house.
 
2013-09-05 02:54:14 PM  

RevCarter: Assad really screwed the pooch with his chemical weapons strikes. As much as Iran wants to back him up on this, Iran's distaste for the military use of chemical weapons,particularly against civilians, cannot be understated. Many of the now-senior members of Iran's various military, religious, and political factions witnessed the effects of chemical weapons firsthand during the Iran/Iraq war. These memories are fresh and distinct, and the Iranian regime has never hesitated to remind themselves and their neighbors of the horrific acts that Saddam Hussein committed on a horrifying scale.


<a data-cke-saved-href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/s ep/02/iran-chemical-w eapons-wmd-sanctions


I hadn't considered that aspect.

How ironic that Iranians would have more distaste for CWs and those that use them than the rest of the world.  I guess it comes down to the fact that the Iranians have seen the end results of those weapons first hand.
 
2013-09-05 03:01:41 PM  

vernonFL: IIRC the revolt started when a teenager was caught spray painting anti- Assad graffiti on a wall, the police tortured and killed the teen and dumped his mutated body off in front of his house.


The protest over that incident is when the police and army started shooting protestors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_uprising_phase_of_the_Syrian_civi l_ war
 
2013-09-05 03:03:42 PM  

Infernalist: JesusJuice: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

End the bloodshed? Why would we want to do that? Our enemies are at each others throats.

We should aid whichever side is losing, but only enough to prolong the conflict. Let them kill each other.

Oh, and the chemical weapons argument is about maintaining international norms. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it dovetails into your first argument.  By neutralizing the CWs on both sides, it goes back to a long protracted civil conflict with no end in sight.


You may be right, but I kind of doubt CWs were ever going to be that much of a factor. International proscriptions against their use are too strong. Even Russia and China would have to back action in the event of open and large-scale CW use, or lose a lot of face.

Assad used CWs on a very small scale because he thought he could get away with it either without anyone notincing or while maintaining plausible deniability. He was wrong.
 
2013-09-05 03:04:40 PM  

vernonFL: IIRC the revolt started when a teenager was caught spray painting anti- Assad graffiti on a wall, the police tortured and killed the teen and dumped his mutated body off in front of his house.


Did he have cool powers, or just weird growths?
 
2013-09-05 03:08:56 PM  
What ever will Israel and her agents do now? Gotta keep that Iran bone connected to the Syria bone.
 
2013-09-05 03:11:36 PM  

simplicimus: Iran's in a rather difficult global political situation. It's fellow Shia/Alawite countries are disappearing. Iraq still has a Shia minority, but they no longer control that country. So it's pretty much Syria and Iran surrounded by Sunnis.


That's because Sunni Islam is Best Islam!
 
2013-09-05 03:12:44 PM  

JesusJuice: Infernalist: JesusJuice: Nadie_AZ: Iran's offers to help secure a political solution to the conflict in Syria have long been dismissed by Western powers because of what they have described as Tehran's unquestioning support for the Assad regime.

We continually give the finger to this country that obviously has a lot of influence in the region. Without them, we wouldn't have had success in Afghanistan early on. Imagine working with Iran to help stabilize Syria and end the conflict.

This isn't about - or shouldn't be about - Assad staying or going. It should be about ending the bloodshed, right? Isn't that what the whole 'oh no they are using chemical weapons' argument is about?

Iran appears to be the adult in the room, here. Too bad the US' ego and it's little friend Israel won't let it stop being a poopy head and ignoring the one country that could do some regional good.

End the bloodshed? Why would we want to do that? Our enemies are at each others throats.

We should aid whichever side is losing, but only enough to prolong the conflict. Let them kill each other.

Oh, and the chemical weapons argument is about maintaining international norms. Nothing more, nothing less.

Actually, it dovetails into your first argument.  By neutralizing the CWs on both sides, it goes back to a long protracted civil conflict with no end in sight.

You may be right, but I kind of doubt CWs were ever going to be that much of a factor. International proscriptions against their use are too strong. Even Russia and China would have to back action in the event of open and large-scale CW use, or lose a lot of face.

Assad used CWs on a very small scale because he thought he could get away with it either without anyone notincing or while maintaining plausible deniability. He was wrong.


Maybe.  We don't know that.  We have many nations willing to shrug their shoulders and look the other way, already.  And if global politics had managed to prevent the US from acting, then no action would occur.  Russia and China will certainly never move against Assad, after all.

Rather, seeing that his use of CWs went off without retaliation, he'd do it again.  Bigger this time.   And then silently dare the world to stop him.  And if you're saying that the world would retaliate 'that' time, but not 'this' time, you'd need to explain why they'd do a 180 and decide to punish him for a second attack when the first attack drew an enormous shrug from the global community.
 
2013-09-05 03:13:41 PM  

JesusJuice: vernonFL: IIRC the revolt started when a teenager was caught spray painting anti- Assad graffiti on a wall, the police tortured and killed the teen and dumped his mutated body off in front of his house.

Did he have cool powers, or just weird growths?


Teenager.  Weird growths are expected.
 
2013-09-05 03:13:52 PM  
The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.
 
2013-09-05 03:15:38 PM  

Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.


I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.
 
2013-09-05 03:19:25 PM  

Infernalist: Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.

I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.


Because they don't listen to Russian media
 
2013-09-05 03:19:32 PM  

Infernalist: Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.

I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.


Perhaps the higher ups in Iran have reason to believe/know it *wasn't*?
 
2013-09-05 03:20:04 PM  
When you're trying to convince the world that your nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, and definitely not for making WMDs, it's probably a good idea not to cozy up so close to the guy who used WMDs on his own people.
 
2013-09-05 03:20:53 PM  
Short interview with a child soldier in Syria, he's 8.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=HzcR682WdsQ
 
2013-09-05 03:22:33 PM  

Almost Everybody Poops: When you're trying to convince the world that your nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, and definitely not for making WMDs


I hear in 6 months they'll have one!
 
2013-09-05 03:23:18 PM  

Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.


What, like bitter almonds?
 
2013-09-05 03:25:48 PM  

Headso: Almost Everybody Poops: When you're trying to convince the world that your nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, and definitely not for making WMDs

I hear in 6 months they'll have one!


They've been saying that for the last 10 years.

And they'd get there if they'd stop swapping production to pointless Needlejets at the last second and then starting over again.  No, I don't care if there's some Missile Rovers darting in and out of your territory, stop changing your production at the last second!
 
2013-09-05 03:30:13 PM  
Good.
 
2013-09-05 03:34:50 PM  

Infernalist: Headso: Almost Everybody Poops: When you're trying to convince the world that your nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, and definitely not for making WMDs

I hear in 6 months they'll have one!

They've been saying that for the last 10 years.

And they'd get there if they'd stop swapping production to pointless Needlejets at the last second and then starting over again.  No, I don't care if there's some Missile Rovers darting in and out of your territory, stop changing your production at the last second!


Netanyahu has been saying that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 3 - 5 years since 1992! So it has actually been 20 years.
 
2013-09-05 03:34:52 PM  

Felgraf: Infernalist: Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.

I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.

Perhaps the higher ups in Iran have reason to believe/know it *wasn't*?


Pretty much. Former Iranian president Rafsanjani even admitted it.
 
2013-09-05 03:37:09 PM  

dsmith42: Infernalist: Headso: Almost Everybody Poops: When you're trying to convince the world that your nuclear program is intended for peaceful purposes, and definitely not for making WMDs

I hear in 6 months they'll have one!

They've been saying that for the last 10 years.

And they'd get there if they'd stop swapping production to pointless Needlejets at the last second and then starting over again.  No, I don't care if there's some Missile Rovers darting in and out of your territory, stop changing your production at the last second!

Netanyahu has been saying that Iran will have a nuclear weapon within 3 - 5 years since 1992! So it has actually been 20 years.


LOL wow, I just pulled a number out of my ass.  Twenty years?

Tony Stark could have built it in A CAVE.  OUT OF A BUNCH OF SCRAPS.
 
2013-09-05 03:40:18 PM  
But what about WWIII! I was enjoying panicking about WWIII.  How come no WWIII?
 
2013-09-05 03:41:07 PM  

Rapmaster2000: But what about WWIII! I was enjoying panicking about WWIII.  How come no WWIII?


There will be no earth-shattering kaboom.  Sorry.
 
2013-09-05 03:41:27 PM  

ShadowKamui: Infernalist: Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.

I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.

Because they don't listen to Russian media


You prefer American media?
 
2013-09-05 03:42:39 PM  

Apik0r0s: What ever will Israel and her agents do now? Gotta keep that Iran bone connected to the Syria bone.


Yes and all of it is the zionists fault. They are also responsible for the hundreds of elite Iranian Hizballah soldiersfighting on the ground in Syria for Assad.
 
2013-09-05 03:43:15 PM  

phenn: ShadowKamui: Infernalist: Headso: The people of Iran probably have a bit of a bad taste in their mouth regarding chemical weapons in the first place.

I'm really curious why the Iranians aren't blaming the CW attack on the rebels.

Because they don't listen to Russian media

You prefer American media?


There is no American media, we subbed it out to Israel.
 
2013-09-05 03:44:32 PM  
Also known as the "yeah, we'll talk big, but we don't actually want to get into it with the country that spends more money on its military than the rest of the world combined" strategy.

The Iranian government is not stupid.  So long as the US isn't doing anything, they can help Assad & co posture and warn us to stay out of their face.  Once it really looks like we're going to get involved, it's best to quietly ease off.  They know there isn't a real win for them in that scenario, in that they end up better than they started.  Pretty much any nation that isn't Russia, China, or India has got to know if the Americans decide to get violent, we're only going home after we get tired of pounding on people (which may or may not take a while, the public is fickle but currently tired of war).
 
Displayed 50 of 92 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report