Black Hair Media Forum Homepage
CoCo Black Hair
Forum Home Forum Home > Lets Talk > Talk, Talk, and More Talk
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Syria
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login
Extensions Plus

Topic ClosedSyria

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
It Always Begin With Beautiful Hair

Premier Lace Wigs

Mynx Hair

 Rating: Topic Rating: 3 Votes, Average 3.67  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
carolina cutie View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Joined: Jun 28 2006
Location: StrwberryFields
Status: Offline
Points: 337357
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 06 2013 at 4:34pm
Originally posted by afrokock afrokock wrote:

but y'all already funnelling the weapons and still losing the war
We don't like to acknowledge that. :shrug:
Back to Top
Sponsored Links

Back to Top
Alias_Avi View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Oct 10 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 277438
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 06 2013 at 5:59pm
5:15 this... pretty much

Back to Top
blaquefoxx View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Jul 17 2008
Location: Babylon
Status: Offline
Points: 161745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 06 2013 at 6:46pm

Iran says US will suffer if Syria is attacked

Supreme Leader Khamenei says West is using allegations of chemical weapons as pretext for attacking Syria.

Last Modified: 05 Sep 2013 12:45
Listen to this page using ReadSpeaker
Email Article
Print Article
Share article
Send Feedback
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed the allegations of chemical weapons use, says the US is 'wrong about Syria' [EPA]

Allegations that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons last month are a "pretext" by the West to attack the country, Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said.

Iran is Syria's main regional ally and has warned Western powers against intervening in the country's civil war, as the United States edges towards launching strikes against the Damascus regime.

Washington and its allies "are using the chemical weapon [allegation] as a pretext," and "are saying that they want to intervene for humanitarian reasons," Khamenei said on Thursday.

"The United States is wrong about Syria, and it is certain they will suffer... just like in Iraq and Afghanistan," Khamenei told members of the Assembly of Experts, the body that supervises his work.

Separately, the chief of Iran's elite Quds Force unit, Qassem Soleimani, said Tehran would back Syria "until the end" in the face of possible US-led military strikes.

Some analysts believe a wider goal of US President Barack Obama's determination to launch strikes is to blunt Tehran's growing regional influence and any consequent threat to Washington ally Israel.

"The aim of the United States is not to protect human rights... but to destroy the front of resistance [against Israel]," the Quds Force commander was quoted as saying by the media on Thursday.

"We will support Syria to the end," Soleimani added in his speech to the Assembly of Experts.

He did not elaborate on the nature of the support and Iran has constantly denied allegations by Western powers that it has sent military forces to prop up President Bashar al-Assad's embattled regime.

'Counsel and advice'

A year ago, the chief of Iran's Revolutionary Guards, Mohammad Ali Jafari, said members of the Quds Force foreign operations unit were in Syria to provide Assad's government with "counsel and advice".

Iran's Defence Minister Hossein Dehqan, meanwhile, ruled out sending troops or weapons to Syria.

"The Syrians do not need us to provide them with weapons because they have a defensive anti-aircraft system themselves," he was cited in the local media as saying.

President Hassan Rouhani said Iran will do "everything to prevent" an attack on the Syrian regime, according to extracts from statements published in the media.

"Any action against Syria is against the interests of the region but also against the friends of the United States in this region," he said.

"Such action will help nobody."

The US, France and other countries accuse Assad's forces of launching chemical weapons attacks on the outskirts of Damascus on August 21, which they say killed hundreds.

Obama is seeking congressional backing as well as broader international support for punitive strikes on Assad's regime.

Iran has previously warned that any military action against Syria risks sparking a broader regional conflagration.

Back to Top
OoDles O View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Oct 13 2009
Location: Cambodia
Status: Offline
Points: 50405
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 06 2013 at 7:24pm
Originally posted by CherryBlossom CherryBlossom wrote:

Originally posted by blaquefoxx blaquefoxx wrote:

Originally posted by Alias_Avi Alias_Avi wrote:

what happens if we do nothing and he continues chemical warfare on them?


exactly, we still don't know without a doubt who was/is using them

take it with some salt
Quote The Iranian press has scrubbed the original article on the former president’s speech.

The leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran are sensitive to poison gas use, since the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq deployed mustard gas against Iranian troops during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988. Many Iranian veterans still suffer from burning lungs and other bad health effects of exposure. It is a sore issue with the older leadership of the army and the Revolutionary Guards.

Even a representative of the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, such as the Iranian representative at the UN, Mohammad Khazaei , felt it necessary to condemn the use of poison gas in Syria. Some Iranian spokesmen have taken up the same line as Russia, that the rebels gassed themselves, though this conclusion is absurd on the face of it and contradicted by French, British, US and Israeli intelligence, including telephone intercepts that make it clear that the Syrian military deployed the gas. Khazaei was non-committal in his statement, saying that the UN inspectors should be allowed to do their job. However, the UN inspectors are not charged with identifying the perpetrator, only with determining if poison gas was used and if so, what kind.

President Hassan Rouhani has been unusually quiet about the Syrian issue, despite US threats to bomb Syria over the gas use.

The Iranian elite seems starkly divided. The Supreme Leader is backing the Syrian regime to the hilt. But the reform faction, as exemplified by Rafsanjani, despises the Baathist dictatorship and is disgusted by the regime’s use of toxic gas on its own people. It may have been only an accident that Rafsanjani’s remarks were recorded on a cell phone and became known. He has embarrassed Khamenei and had to retract his statement.

It is also not impossible that Rafsanjani was deliberately embarrassing Khamenei, in a minor sort of way (he was speaking at a small town in the northern province of Mazandaran). Rafsanjani supported the Green Movement of 2009, which demanded more personal liberties from Khamenei and disputed the official story that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had easily won a second term. He was slapped down by Khamenei and his fanatical devotees, and the Green Movement was repressed. Rafsanjani could just be taking revenge on Khamenei by condemning Iran’s policy of supporting al-Assad no matter what.(Hmmmmmm) The implication of what Rafsanjani said, after all, is that Khamenei is supporting a dictator guilty of crimes against humanity. Although Westerners demonize the Islamic Republic, its supporters tend to see it as a repository of humane values, so that support for the Baath government of Syria sits uneasily on them.

Whatever the case, it seems to me that Rajsanjani’s admission points to severe polarization within the Iranian elite over continued support for al-Assad.

Syria is a land bridge whereby Iran resupplies the Lebanese Shiite party-militia, Hizbullah. If Iran lost Syria, its ability to intervene in Palestine would be severely set back. (AHAH!)

Back to Top
bindy View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Feb 26 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 117254
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 5:36am
They will probably try and impeach President Obama over this....
Back to Top
kfoxx1998 View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Jul 06 2008
Status: Offline
Points: 116788
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 11:00am
America has been trying to shape the world since it became a superpower and look how well it has turned out.   Find another way to have influence. 

Funny because for the longest time I was angry that we never intervened in Rwanda.   Ultimately I feel like we need to stop altogether because we look type shady when we pick and choose.
Back to Top
tatee View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Jun 09 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 406890
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 1:16pm
i was going to make a thread but nobody's going to read past the title anyway and theres no video so:

Americans are no longer interested in policing the world, Mr. Obama

By Michael Cohen, The Guardian
Sunday, September 8, 2013 3:36 EDT
Cartoon instructor and bomb via Shutterstock
  • 2062

  • Print Friendly and PDF
  • Email this page

However Congress votes on Syrian intervention, the White House will have problems escaping the fallout

After 12 years of endless war; after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya, after the drones in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia, the American people have had enough. There is perhaps no better explanation for the rather remarkable situation unfolding right now in Washington. President Obama has gone to the US Congress to ask for a military authorisation for the use of force against Syria after its international-norm-breaking use of chemical weapons against its own people.

Such requests are something of a pro forma exercise for US presidents. When the commander-in-chief wants to go to war, Congress is usually happy to comply (if it is even asked for permission, which is rare). This time, Congress is refusing to bite. Whip counts in the US House of Representatives indicate overwhelming opposition and not just among the president’s political opponents in the Republican party but also among Democrats. Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans are strongly against US involvement in Syria.

What is perhaps most surprising about this is that the Obama administration is seeking authorisation for a rather limited use of force. It is loudly proclaiming that there will be no US boots on the ground, no effort at regime change, no direct engagement in the Syrian civil war – just a few cruise missiles to uphold a global norm and teach Bashar al-Assad a lesson. Yet, while Obama will speak to the American people and make his case for military intervention on Tuesday, few political observers believe he will win the day (though one cannot fully discount the possibility).

It is an extraordinary turn of events and one that goes so strongly against the currents of recent history that it may come to represent a sea change, not just in how the US employs military force in the future but in the very construct of American foreign policy. No longer, it appears are Americans and Congress willing to give the commander-in-chief a virtual blank cheque.

So why is this happening?

Part of the reason is undoubtedly politics. Republicans, who in recent years have rarely met a military engagement they didn’t enthusiastically support, would sooner cut off their right arms then give Obama anything that he actually wants. Yet their opposition to involvement in Syria also reflects a growing division within Republicans, between the party’s neoconservative national security elite and its long-dormant isolationist wing. Indeed, the congressional vote on Syria may preview a titanic struggle over the foreign policy direction of the Republican party.

As for Democrats, particularly liberals who opposed the Iraq war and were ambivalent about the Afghanistan surge, even party loyalty may not be enough to get them to go along with the White House’s plans. Unlike Obama, members of Congress will be on the ballot in 2014 and few of them are going to want to stick their neck out for a military strike that has little public support.

Beyond the political gamesmanship, opposition is due in large measure to the fuzziness of the White House’s strategic plan. While norm enforcement and deterring future chemical attacks can be a justifiable rationale, the idea that the US would engage Syria over one category of weapons while doing nothing to stop the civil war that has taken 100,000 lives seems to many to be illogical. Moreover, the lack of clear strategic objectives, or a vital US national interest or even a fallback plan if Assad is not deterred from continuing to gas his people, is raising real doubts about the efficacy of intervention. And truth be told: the White House has done a dreadful job of making the case for war.

In August 2012, Obama laid down his infamous red line about the use of chemical weapons on Syria. Everyone assumed this meant that the US would engage militarily. But in the year since, he has made virtually no effort to prepare the public for that possibility. There was, from all appearances, little private consultation with Congress lining up support for a possible response and the administration position on Syria has long oozed with indifference about US involvement.

But when videos appeared showing hundreds of Syrians lying dead from an apparent chemical attack, the administration grabbed the biggest hammer in the toolbox and immediately started talking about launching cruise missiles and dropping bombs on Damascus. They completely misread the public’s appetite for yet another war and were further blindsided by David Cameron’s stunning failure to properly manage a parliamentary vote authorising British involvement in a military strike.

Obama’s decision to go to Congress for authorisation reflected belated recognition of the emerging political reality and, at the time, looked like an inspired political move. But confidence that Congress would obediently go along with the president’s plan (if one wants to be generous and call it that) was misplaced. Faced with growing congressional opposition, the administration is now taking the low road of fearmongering that a failure to punish Assad will embolden Iran, put Israel in danger or perhaps allow chemical weapons to fall into the hands of terrorists.

The White House finds itself in a political no-man’s-land. Winning a vote in Congress will mean squandering political capital and twisting Democratic arms – all in pursuit of a military strategy that will, by the White House’s own admission, do little to stop the bloodletting in Syria. Lose the vote and risk becoming a weakened lame duck three years before Obama’s second term is up. Of course, Obama could ignore Congress, but then he risks entering into impeachment territory.

Yet, for all the short-term political fallout, the apparent train wreck on Syria might be the best thing to happen in American politics in a long time.

Since 11 September 2001, armchair generals (inside and outside government) have planned one military engagement after another and confidently predicted success – and then dodged accountability after repeated failures. The result has been quagmire after quagmire, trillions of dollars in costs and tens of thousands of dead and maimed Americans.

Those chickens have come home to roost. No matter how defensible the plan for military action in Syria might be; no matter how strong the impulse to punish the use of long-banned weapons; no matter how many assertions of limited engagement are made, Americans and their representatives in Congress appear finally resistant to buying the war-makers’ tonic (some might say 10 years too late).

The desire of America’s foreign policy elite to continue to demand that the US remain the indispensable nation and the world’s policeman has come face to face with a public tired of war and tired of foreign policy failure. And the American people look poised to win this round.

Back to Top
SoutherNtellect View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Joined: Jan 02 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 198984
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 2:57pm
Epitome of this won't end well
Back to Top
Wildfire View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: May 27 2006
Location: Kingston, JA.
Status: Offline
Points: 90835
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 09 2013 at 4:03pm
Originally posted by CherryBlossom CherryBlossom wrote:

Back to Top
blaquefoxx View Drop Down
Elite Member
Elite Member

Joined: Jul 17 2008
Location: Babylon
Status: Offline
Points: 161745
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Sep 10 2013 at 9:13am
I think Obama is supposed to address the nation tonight. Also:

Syria says it embraced the Russian initiative to 'derail the U.S. aggression'


The Syrian government has accepted a Russian proposal to turn over its chemical weapons to international control to avoid a military confrontation with the United States, Syria's foreign minister said Tuesday.

"Yesterday [Monday] we held a round of very fruitful negotiations with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and he put forward an initiative regarding chemical weapons. Already in the evening we accepted Russia's initiative," Foreign Minister Walid Muallem said after meeting with the speaker of the Russian parliament.

Muallem said Damascus accepted the Russian initiative to "derail the U.S. aggression."

The report was initially carried by the Russian news agency Interfax.

Meanwhile, Lavrov said that Russia is now working with Syria to prepare a detailed plan of action, which will be presented shortly.

He said Moscow will then be ready to finalize the plan together with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.

President Obama has threatened to use U.S. military action against Syria in response to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed more than 1,400 people in a Damascus suburb. Syria has denied the charge.

The latest developments came as France said it would put before the United Nations Security Council a resolution appealing to the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad to make public the details of its chemical weapons program. The announcement was made in Paris by French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius.

It was not immediately clear whether the terms of an agreement accepted by Syria would track with the French proposal, but it was a sign of further diplomatic progress on the issue.

Fabius said the terms of the resolution will call for an "extremely serious" response were Syria to violate the conditions set by the resolution. He said the process — under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter — will start later Tuesday.

France is a permanent member of the Security Council. The other permanent members are the United States, United Kingdom, China and Russia. Permanent members have the power to veto resolutions.

The Arab League also announced that it would back the Russian proposal, AFP reports.

I don't think this will pacify the U.S. or ease tension.
Back to Top
China Lace Wigs
Get Healthier Stronger Longer Hair
Netwurks Xcel21
Human Hair Wigs
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 89101112>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down