Steve, this comment of yours starts out by saying that it is suspected that Assad used chemical weapons and then inexplicably segues into attributing Iran's leaders...blah blah...What type of response are you trying to elicit from me?<quoted text>
Just for you faith...as story about "our friends" Read it ans weep:
As President Obama departed for Israel, there came a startling report. Bashar Assad's regime had used poison gas on Syrian rebels.
Two Israeli Cabinet members claimed credible evidence. Justice Minister Tzipi Livni said, "It's clear for us that (gas is) being used.... This ... should be on the table in the discussions."
Yet, 72 hours later, the United States still cannot confirm that gas was used, and Syria and Russia have called on U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to investigate whether it was used, and if so, by whom.
This, of course, is to attribute to Iran's leaders an insanity they have never exhibited. Not in memory has Iran started a war. Saddam attacked Iran, not the other way around. When the Vincennes shot down an Iranian airliner, Ayatollah Khomeini himself ordered the Iraq war ended for fear America was about to intervene on Baghdad's side.
Now we come to the sinister role of the U.S. Senate in setting the table for war. Consider what Senate Joint Resolution 65, crafted at AIPAC, the Israeli Lobby, and now being shopped around for signing by Sen. Lindsey Graham and Sen. Robert Menendez, does.
SR 65 radically alters U.S. policy by declaring it to be "the policy of the United States ... to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability and to take such action as may be necessary to implement this policy."
Obama's policy — no nuclear weapons in Iran — is tossed out. Substituted for it in SR 65 is Bibi Netanyahu's policy — "no nuclear weapons capability" in Iran.
A) If Assad IS using chemical weapons....I'm glad, because I see that the rebels are nothing more than the usual terrorist rabble.
B) Intensifying the nature of the war in Syria will further
debilitate alliances and order in the muslim world. And
that's a good thing. Chemical weapons will add to the carnage and disintegration of the muslim power base.
C) Any resolution that will harden the US stance on Iran and define
the tangible steps that will be taken to prevent them from
developing nuclear weapons is positive....especially if it means destroying Iran's ability to make war.
Why would I be "weeping", Steve? It sounds like rather positive developments are taking shape.