I think the timing is kind of interesting on Iran because they support Syria so this could be part of that issue, to help cool things because many see our reaction to Syria as part of our problem with Iran. Regardless, I would love to see us work with the people of Iran. I started working with some of the Iranians when the Shah was still in power and screwing his people. The people are wonderful. The big problems there have mostly been in reaction to us, supporting the Shah and the Bush threats. Anyway, I hope the new feelings are sincere on both sides.

I have a great deal of trouble with us being in the lead on calling for no nukes in other countries such as Iran and N Korea. We are the only country to have used them and we will never get rid of ours, so I just find it way too hypocritical. This kind of hypocrisy just adds to the image of us as bullies saying we can do it but no one else can. No, of course, I don't want countries like N Korea and Iran to have them. However, I think one of the worst countries is Pakistan and they have them. For oskar, the point is probabably that Israel has them. One of the big problems with them is the chance that really bad people can gain control of them. I think the potential for that is greatest in Pakistan. At ay rate, I want the saber rattling to stop and more quiet diplomacy to rule on the nukes. The threats get us no where.

We do not have 100% proof that Assad used the chemicals. We will never have that proof. There is nothing that would justify military action against him as long as there remains the very real possibility that someone else did it, a splinter Assad supporting group, the military on its own, one of the many rebel groups, another country. A lot of evidence does not equal proof enough to take military action and kill people. We have a huge bias and desire for it to be Assad. Because of that I would rather err on the side of caution. Russia and Iran have a huge bias annd desire for it to be the rebels. I don't trust their words either. There is no intelligence in that area that I trust enough to take military action. There are too many factions involved, too many other countries involved and our intelligence has proven to be faulty too many times.

I am very glad the other incidents will be investigated. That could provide some more evidence on who all could have used chemicals.

Very well stated. I couldn't have done it any better.

"Of course Syria has no chemical weapons." - Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Bouthayna Shaaban.
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500257_162-549397.html

It's interesting that Syria went from claiming they did not have chemical weapons to agreeing to have those nonexistent chemical weapons removed from their county.

I just hope that they aren't lying about this US/Russia deal.

John, which country doesn't lie at first when put on the spot? We have certainly done our share.

I doubt that we will know for sure iif they get rid of all the chemicals. I doubt Assad even knows where all the chemicals are since the rebels can easily bring some in from Turkey and elsewhere.

What do you propose if they are lying? Would we hold Russia responsiible, too? Do we bomb?

Bombing Aukland would make sense.

Well, I guess we have established that - as Dr. House says - "Everybody lies".

So if the cast of characters are all known liars and there are 2 different claims, then the task is to decide which is the truth. Or we can make no decision at all.

If Syria is lying and they have no intention of giving up their chemical weapons, we would need to look at the situation at that time.

As I have said before, these situations are not simple or easy.

Exactly. Which is why I was opposed to the bombing. That answer was too quick and easy.