You're on the wrong thread.US cannot strike Syria based on whatsoever because that is again on the same thing of chemical weapons like the Iraq case before--which gives rise to today's troubling current Iraq that US is being blamed for.
As it was destructive issue to use the finding to check chemical weapons on Iraq, it is also meaning it is a very damaging issue to talk about chemical weapons. Obama is wrong by saying using chemical weapons to escalate the story--just like what he is wrong to say the world needs to have gay people for the societies and families of every country, including Russia. Obama must not say his disaster views any more, on Syria in particular at this time. And people go with Obama are bad people.
Facts are that US bombs have killed lots of more people than those killed by chemical weapons. Middle East by far has had lots of too many people killed by US bombs and people fighting there, but few are killed by chemical weapons, so that chemical weapons issue is not it.
Whether proof or CONVINCING EVIDENCE or NOT on chemical weapons usage, is not IT, and IS NOT THE POINT.
WHY DOES US HAVE TO ACT ON SYRIA, BASED ON WHAT, because that is not the sake of US that it has to, but the world view of standpoint?
WHO says Syria is rebels' country?
Just asks the people of Syria then--but they are the victims of rebels by rebels taking seize of violences to cause lives destroyed, that the people have to run for lives because of rebels, or seek somewhere to hide or fight US facing US wanting to kill them by striking. US is a big evil villain in getting the worst with bad rebels.
US cannot act on SYRIA according to chemical weapons issue, or proof or convincing evidence of, to say chemical weapons have killed a few hundred (Is rejected and not justification) to strike Syria, to kill a few thousand or tens of thousands of more people, regardless of how many rebels and US soldiers will lose lives--that will add on increasing bigger tolls.)
What is any difference by saying gassing people--made up by other words from Kerry and Obama (convincing evidence is purely destructive criteria to look at, as people are also killed by rebels-- gassing people or not, but the Iraq case is the lesson to learn to not base on the same way of view and looking at chemical weapons issue again from Iraq drama and disaster), because ME is very clear not it of people dying from chemical weapons, but from US bombs?
SO, US BOMBS ARE IT AND IT THAT KILLED TOO MANY PEOPLE THERE--THAT is why US cannot strike Syria as US bombs are it, but not chemical weapons.
Obama is not allowed to do the same way of Bush again. It is pathetic and ridiculous that Obama who opposed Bush on Iraq were to make Bush mold to do Bush again.
WHAT STAKE IS US, other to not make troubles again for self destruction as that is not the way of doing things in these new times--because not he same way of looking into Syria on chemical weapons like Iraq before (from learning from the past)?
THAT IS ALL TO IT.
There. You're welcome.