Iran violating arms embargo with shipments to Syria: France
Iran has repeatedly violated a UN arms embargo with exports to protest-hit Syria, the French foreign ministry said on Monday, citing a UN group of experts.
"The UN panel of experts on Iran has identified and informed the Security Council of several violations of the embargo on arms to or from Iran set up by... the United Nations Security Council," said spokesman Romain Nadal.
"These arms deliveries are illegal and deeply shocking because they benefit a regime that has chosen a kind of repression that the UN rights council has repeatedly said constitutes 'crimes against humanity'," he said.
"We condemn these violations and call on Iran and Syria to comply with Security Council resolutions," Nadal said in response to a question about a US accusation that Tehran was sending arms to Damascus.
Senior US officials told AFP on Friday that Iran was supplying munitions to aid Syria's bloody protest crackdown in an initiative spearheaded by the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps' elite Quds force, Qasem Soleimani.
Iran is forbidden to import or export weapons or ammunition under the terms of UN Security Council resolutions dating from 2007 and 2010 slapped on the Islamic republic because of its controversial nuclear programme.
Turns out, world leaders didn't pay attention in history class. When you alienate entire countries, they tend to not listen to you. In order to not invoke Godwin's Law, I am not going to give examples.
This is pre-WWII. You can sort of tell from the sketch style, from thee way it refers to Japan (Japan in the 1950s was still rebuilding from WWII), the spelling of Tokyo, lots of details. Nothing obvious... except that the upper right hand corner of the page reads "November 1931." --- Simon_Jester
The great thing is its illegal for Iran to export the weapons, not for Syria to obtain them thanks to Russia. But not like it strictly matters either, Syria has 1 x massive pile of weapons 1 x massive pile of ammunition and 1 x largish pile of chemical weapons. Its doubtful they'd actually need imports to kill every single person in Syria, but since they've got to worry about a wider war they'll certainly want to keep importing stuff to maintain those stockpiles. Syria also has some local production of all important small arms ammunition.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
Makes you wonder whether or not a war with Iran might actually be for the best. Joking of course, but one can always gets tired of these damn rogue states...
Life sucks and is probably meaningless, but that doesn't mean there's no reason to be good.
SpaceMarine93 wrote:Makes you wonder whether or not a war with Iran might actually be for the best. Joking of course, but one can always gets tired of these damn rogue states...
Yes because other other two major conflicts in the past decades resulted in nothing but good news.
SM93 let me put this into prospective to you. Without Iranian weapons Syria would be doing just as great a job of oppressing people considering how much they got from China and Russia and how much they have home grown at this point. If we went to war with Iran to stop the arms to Syria the only result would be a further depressing of our national fortunes and a higher profit for Chinese arm manufactures as we eliminate one of their competitors.
"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom Wolfe Pardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton
This news doesn't surprise me. Iran is a little short on friends at the moment (for which it only has itself to blame), so losing Syria would be a serious blow. For that same reason, they have little to lose by sending weapons.
War with Iran? It depends primarily on how you define war. A full-scale invasion would be lunacy for oft-stated reasons. An aerial campaign would be considerably less risky and expensive, but expensive nonetheless. Also, the 'short victorious war' factor is not guaranteed. David Cameron hasn't gotten much out of Britain's involvement in Libya, despite success.
Since it's syria, why not arm israel some more? They attacked syria fairly recently of suspected WMD sites w/ impunity. Plus they've won all their previous fights w/ syria.
or they could give some support to the protestors, airdrop some uzis & Spike ATMs & divert a few missile drones away from attacking the west bank & pick off a few syrian tanks & HQ bunkers, kill someone who DESERVES it, for once.
ComradeClaus wrote:Since it's syria, why not arm israel some more? They attacked syria fairly recently of suspected WMD sites w/ impunity. Plus they've won all their previous fights w/ syria.
or they could give some support to the protestors, airdrop some uzis & Spike ATMs & divert a few missile drones away from attacking the west bank & pick off a few syrian tanks & HQ bunkers, kill someone who DESERVES it, for once.
You want Israel to openly support the Syrian opposition? Are you actually trying to make it easier for Assad to paint them as "Zionist stooges"?
eyl wrote:You want Israel to openly support the Syrian opposition? Are you actually trying to make it easier for Assad to paint them as "Zionist stooges"?
Does that even matter? Besides being the decent thing to do (the only real democracy in the region supporting democratic movements), I doubt anyone's gonna go:
"DEATH TO ASSAD!"
"You know, the protesters are supported by Israel..."
"Oh, right... DEATH TO THE PROTESTERS!!!"
Plus, it might win them some much needed political goodwill...
eyl wrote:You want Israel to openly support the Syrian opposition? Are you actually trying to make it easier for Assad to paint them as "Zionist stooges"?
Does that even matter? Besides being the decent thing to do (the only real democracy in the region supporting democratic movements), I doubt anyone's gonna go:
"DEATH TO ASSAD!"
"You know, the protesters are supported by Israel..."
"Oh, right... DEATH TO THE PROTESTERS!!!"
Plus, it might win them some much needed political goodwill...
There are so many things wrong with what you just said it's just... Dear god, you're clueless. Yes, if Israel actively supported the protesters, well, that's pretty much what would happen. Saddam Hussein invaded another Arab country and the threat of the coalition falling apart and losing us all Arab support was... ISRAEL ENTERING THE WAR!
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan
You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan
He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Scorpion wrote:Does that even matter? Besides being the decent thing to do (the only real democracy in the region supporting democratic movements), I doubt anyone's gonna go:
"DEATH TO ASSAD!"
"You know, the protesters are supported by Israel..."
"Oh, right... DEATH TO THE PROTESTERS!!!"
You're being sarcastic here, but this very well could be what happens, no irony.
"Yee's proposal is exactly the sort of thing I would expect some Washington legal eagle to do. In fact, it could even be argued it would be unrealistic to not have a scene in the next book of, say, a Congressman Yee submit the Yee Act for consideration. " - bcoogler on this
"My crystal ball is filled with smoke, and my hovercraft is full of eels." - Bayonet
Stark: "You can't even GET to heaven. You don't even know where it is, or even if it still exists." SirNitram: "So storm Hell." - From the legendary thread
" -