Interesting.
Now that the UN is going back to investigate other chemical attacks, precluding another unprovoked US attack, Mr. Obama starts railing against Iran again.
Can't the US function more than 24 hours without trying to provoke something?

UN chemical weapons investigators leave for Damascus Sept. 25

Thomson Reuters
Posted: Sep 24, 2013 4:30 AM ET|
Last Updated: Sep 24, 2013 4:30 AM ET

United Nations chemical weapons investigators are expected to return to Syria on Wednesday to continue investigating allegations of chemical weapons use there, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Tuesday.

"We are pleased that our persistent calls for the return of UN experts to Syria for the investigation of other episodes have born fruit," Ryabkov said in parliament, referring to alleged incidents of chemical weapons use other than an Aug. 21 attack.

"According to the latest information, the group ... is leaving for Damascus tomorrow, Sept. 25," he said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/un-chemica ... -1.1865872

oskar, what "railing" are you talking about? ~ Iran's new government has made overtures to mend fences ~ and Obama favors diplomacy ~ why do you have a problem with that? ~ Sooz

Obama: Iran overtures on nukes a step toward relationship of 'mutual respect' ~

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy, and directly – or through proxies – taken Americans hostage, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight – the suspicion runs too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship – one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

http://www.policymic.com/articles/64995/obama-un-speech-transcript

What would you have Obama say at the UN Oskar? Wave at the Iranians and say "Howdy - nice weather we're having"?

What would you have Obama say at the UN Oskar? Wave at the Iranians and say "Howdy - nice weather we're having"?

How about apologizing for all the unjustified interference in Iranian affairs and asking for apologies back for things like the hostage taking?
Instead, he pretty much is still saying "do what you're told" but in a nicer way than the Shrub did.

As I posted above, he said; "Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs, and America’s role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the Cold War. "

"Do what you're told"? No, he says "These statements made by our respective governments should offer the basis for a meaningful agreement. We should be able to achieve a resolution that respects the rights of the Iranian people, while giving the world confidence that the Iranian program is peaceful."

And why do certain standards apply to Iran while those same standards don't apply to others in the ME?

Perhaps because of Iran's prior behavior and threats ~

Sooz

Their history of imitating the US, you mean?

Oskar, other than criticizing the U.S. for our past mistakes, I don't see where you are offering alternate solutions.

Should we back off Syria and imply that if they gas their people, we won't say a word, let alone take any action?

Should we tell Iranians that if they want nukes to go for it? Even while we know another nuclear nation only creates more problems and more dangers?

Should we back off Syria and imply that if they gas their people, we won't say a word, let alone take any action?

Who gassed "their people"?

Should we tell Iranians that if they want nukes to go for it? Even while we know another nuclear nation only creates more problems and more dangers?

So only Murrica's "friends" should have nukes?

When will the US stop murdering? stop renditions? torture? illegal incarcerations?
The US might want to look in the mirror before pointing fingers elsewhere.

Who gassed "their people"?

Well, we could get into that argument again, but why? You seem to hold the opinion of the Russians higher that that of the US, Britain, France and others.


So only Murrica's "friends" should have nukes?

In my opinion that's the wrong question.

What we should ask is; Does having another nation with nuclear weapons is a good thing? Especially in the Middle East?

Well, we could get into that argument again, but why? You seem to hold the opinion of the Russians higher that that of the US, Britain, France and others.

I have no opinion yet since I haven't the facts and I refuse to point fingers at anybody without the evidence.
Why is the US always in such a hurry to pull the trigger?
Now, given the history of lies from the US, Britain and France, why should I believe them now?
Russia isn't any better but at least this time they had the intelligence (unusual, I must admit, since they are just as ruthless and deceitful as the other three) to step in. The US ought to thank them for preventing yet another one of their ill-conceived massacres.
So now the UN is apparently going back to investigate the other chemical attacks.
Does the US have a problem with that?

Howard Zinn

http://warincontext.org/american-empire/

NSSM200

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_S ... randum_200

In my opinion there is plenty of evidence.

The only reason Russia stepped in was for their own interests and because Obama had called for strikes. Do you honestly believe they would have made the offer if the only thing Obama did was to verbally condemn the use of chemical weapons?

So you can't believe the US, Britain and France. What nations can you believe? Any at all?

In my opinion there is plenty of evidence.

Good. Please share it with the world.

So you can't believe the US, Britain and France. What nations can you believe? Any at all?

Not without evidence I don't.

I shared much of it. Based on responses, I saw no reason to share more.

You've discounted anything said by the US, Britain, France, and any other source I've posted.

How can they have "evidence" before any investigations were actually carried out?
All we have is somebody's word for it and given the history...
Assad's denials are just as valid.

For me, the only one trying to "provoke" something is you, oskar ~ and you haven't answered my question: do you have a problem with Obama responding to Iran's outreach by agreeing to diplomatic efforts?

Sooz

Nope.
But he could have left out the wee bit of sabre rattling.
I don't think too many are overly impressed anymore.
And I hadn't seen the question. Sorry.

I'm uncertain what evidence you expect to find.

When it is pointed out that Sarin was used...
When it is shown what weapons fired it...
When it is shown the reasons Assad used it...
When it is shown where the attacks occurred...

...all seem to be discounted as evidence.

So I'd like to ask what evidence would be proof to you?

WHO used it? and where is the evidence as to WHO used it?
And what about the other alleged incidents that will now be investigated?

That's not what I'm asking.

What would you consider to be sufficient evidence that it would prove Assad used chemical weapons?

Some item, some document... what?

An impartial investigation that says so might be a start.
However, that was not part of the UN's mandate for some reason.

And what would you hope that investigation would uncover? What could they find that would put the blame on Assad and no one else?

I would say that your opinion isn't about evidence, it's about trust. And you seem to trust Assad as much as anyone ("Assad's denials are just as valid.")

Assad, the US, Russia and the rest are equally trustworthy given the record of lies and deceit by all of them.