US says Syria strike would deter Iran

[azurnoir]

Source: Ma'an

The United States needs to strike Syria in part to send a message to its ally Iran over its nuclear program, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Monday.

Susan Rice, joining a major public effort by Obama to persuade a skeptical Congress, said the United States was morally bound to respond to Syrian President Bashar Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons.

Rice said that US action on Syria was also critical for the broader influence of the United States, which has joined Israel and European nations in warning Iran against developing nuclear weapons.

"We will not allow Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon," Rice said at the New America Foundation, a think tank.

"As the president has said, all options remain on the table. For our efforts to succeed, however, the leaders in Tehran must know that the United States means what we say," she said.

Read more: http://www.maannews.net/eng/ViewDetails.aspx?ID=628444

[Uncle Joe]

1. I'm just kicking and recommending for your Morgan Freeman Icon.

Thanks for the thread, azurnoir.

[Wolf Frankula]

2. Striking Syria is Going to Make Iran Want Nuclear Weapons More

Nations with nukes don't get struck.

Wolf

[PrestonLocke]

3. Any fuckin reason now, huh?

[phantom power]

4. just throwing shit at the wall to see if anything sticks, I guess

[warrant46]

20. I wonder if Susan uses gloves to do this?

[another_liberal]

8. We have to attack Syria because we have to attack Syria.

Syria is there, so we have to attack it. Whats' so hard to understand about that?

[uberblonde]

5. Two wars in one!

Reminds me of this scene between John Belushi and Carrie Fisher from "The Blues Brothers", where he keeps changing his story:

[Scootaloo]

6. Sigh.

I've got nothing for that. Out.

[azurnoir]

15. Sweetie Belle is not amused. n/t

[another_liberal]

7. So now it's not about Syria's innocent children, because we'd kill more if we attacked as planned.

It is also no longer about Assad's chemical weapons, because he has agreed to give them up to international supervision. What this is all about, we are now told, is we have to attack Syria because, "The leaders in Tehran must know that the United States means what we say."

How the hell are we going to convince anyone we "mean what we say" when we change what we're saying on a daily basis?

[Nihil]

31. Now *that* is something that needs to be taken on board by a number of people ...

> How the hell are we going to convince anyone we "mean what we say" when we change what we're saying on a daily basis?

[another_liberal]

32. A little more consistency . . .

It would be good to have a little more consistency in how we treat other nations.

[burnsei sensei]

9. They're grasping at straws, and

I'm not buying any of it.

The United States needs to strike Syria in part to send a message to its ally Iran over its nuclear program, President Barack Obama's national security adviser said Monday.

An attack on Syria will not send any message to Iran at all because Syria is just not Iran. Period.

[andym]

10. This is probably what really has been driving the desire to strike all along. nt.

[blackspade]

11. Headline: US Full of Shit

How many other excuses are they going to fling at the wall like poop?

[pffshht]

12. So, was this before or after Syria said they'd hand over the chems?

I don't think the dinosaurs running things in DC were prepared for public opinion dispersing at the speed of Twitter- everyone
who cares about the Syria situation, which is basically everyone who cares about anything, has been following the news hour-to-hour. The Internet is even more ubiquitous than it was 10 years ago, and they can't write speeches fast enough to keep their story straight anymore. So I think they've had to condense at least two months of scripted spin progression into a few days and the result looks kind of ridiculous.
( And that's giving them the most benefit of the doubt as possible. )

[rug]

13. It will also forestall the zombie uprising.

[arewenotdemo]

26. LOL.

[KamaAina]

14. Well, that's a very good reason to start World War III.

[School Teacher]

16. Another New Reason, Paid for by AIPAC

Looks like Kerry is flip flopping to the Iran excuse now. It must have been that AIPAC put a bee in his bonnet. They are grabbing at new excuses. It is painful to see our "leaders" trump up a new unecessary war. Keep calling those reps., folks. The warmonger's credibility is melting....help I'm melting......

Someone on the boards said that it was the "Jewish Lobby". Well, I have to tell you that this is a misnomer. The American Israeli
Political Action Committee represents the Israeli govt., not Jewish opinion. More than half the Jews in the US are against this proposed war on Syria. So let's not go there, okay?

[GeorgeGist]

17. She must be related to Condi!

[frylock]

18. just like the Iraq strike deterred Syria

[David__77]

21. Was it supposed it?

I don't think so. Further Syria didn't get anything it didn't already have since 2003.

[christx30]

19. Iran had a front row seat to what

we did in Iraq over the last 10 years. They saw the world famous shock and awe campaign. They saw the Surge. If none of that deterred them from nukes, how much ordinance are they planning to drop on Syria? Is this supposed to scare them? Are we planning to flatten every building and kill 80% of the population? Is this the limited bombing campaign they were planning? How much death would scare the Iranians?

[Pterodactyl]

22. So that's the goal now?

[daleo]

23. This amounts to bully logic

Pick on some weakling to remind the neighbourhood who's boss.

[arewenotdemo]

28. I have to say that it has been disheartening to read about

the positions of the most influential women in this Administration and Congress.

I had imagined that women would be much less likely to be hawks.

But Clinton, Rice, Power, Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi...whom am I leaving out....are certainly not women of peace.

Why is that? I'm curious.

[Celefin]

25. Seriously... WTF?

Here's an idea: Bomb Venezuela to send a message to Brazil to prosecute Greenwald and his spouse.
Makes as much sense on its own.

Do they really say that we have to bomb some country on a pretext to send a message to its stronger ally which we don't feel like attacking just yet, just to show we mean business? It certainly has the potential to make Iran double down on its nuke program - countries with nukes don't get attacked. And when Iran doubles down on its nuke program - voila- casus belli.
Neocon-chess.

[grahamhgreen]

27. Kind of like the whipping boy concept, perhaps:

A whipping boy was a young boy who was assigned to a young prince and was punished when the prince misbehaved or fell behind in his schooling.

Insanity reigns supreme.

[customerserviceguy]

30. Yeah, our failures

in Iraq and Afghanistan have taught them nothing...