And just like with the run-up to the Iraq War, the official reason keeps changing.

I cannot believe they would expect the people to buy that little squeal in a poke again?

it started out as "proportional/punitive response over chemical weapons" and now it's "sending a message to Iran about nukes" and "moral bindings"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=590552

The reasons are changing right before our eyes. I guess we get to try and guess the reason.

So they can take out their nuclear plants? They have been getting real close to nuclear weapons, if they don't have them already? All they need is an excuse. If Iran intervenes, they would give Israel and the US the excuse to take them out. Perhaps?

on edit: This would include any actions by Hezbollah, an arm of the Iranian government.

This administration has worked consistently and tirelessly for one and only one group, and it ain't us "little people".

So any further use of CWs would have to be by the rebels...Obama won't be able to blame Assad anymore. And he'll have to sit on his hands while Russia makes punitive strike against rebels to "send them a message".

Don't forget, when Saddam used chemical weapons against the Iranians and Kurds, the US immediately pointed finger at Iran...in full knowledge US sold him the precursers and advised him on best tactical use.

America and her allies have decided this may be the time to take out the nuclear operations of Iran. If Hezbollah does anything stupid, that would be reason to take out Iran's nuclear capabilitiies.

Then why were Obama and Kerry shreiking about Assad's chemical weapons? And what justification does Iran's nukes have in attacking Syria?

Once again, what we're seeing is that Obama has a war-boner and is desparately looking for a pretext to bomb someone....that, or Israel is calling the shots and we're their bitch.

They are fighting side by side with Assad in Syria against the other "terrorists", including the freedom fighters backed by the US and Saudi Arabia.

They are a weak link. They could do something unpredictable at any time, like shoot some rockets into Israel.

The US would still bomb Assad but they could go after Iran also, if they were looking for a justification.

...would be to hurry up and develop nukes so US and Israel dont attack. Probably not the result we'd like to end up with.

Syria is only the avenue to get there.

then he should make the case, not make up lies about Syria.

Personally, I think Iran has every right to build a nuclear weapon. I'd rather they not, but understandable given 30 years of threats and belligerence from US and Israel.
There might be a problem with selling an Iran strike. A) They aren't a threat to the US or any NATO country. B) US will never get UN approval for a pre-emptive strike. C) AIPAC will grease Congress's palms heavily no doubt, but there would be overwhelming public opposition to being Israel's bitch.

And Israel took out Iran's nuclear facilities, would that make Obama "Israel's mercenary"??

And if Israel want to make a pre-emptive strike on Iran, let them go for it...just keep us out of it.

BTW, do you know when Iran last attacked another country? Try looking it up.

and they border Israel. They have attacked Israel before. But they are sponsored by Iran.

They certainly aren't capable of hitting Israel without Assad's help. And, given what's going on...don't think Assad is going to be thinking about that.

Is there something going on in the shadows... probably. We optimists like to think a tragedy has been averted. But, from experience...there's always a wild card or a motive that's being hidden.

I'd like to have a pause and hope that Obama pulled back hoping the Russians would come in because he doesn't want a bloodbath in the Middle East.

But then...why should I be optimistic?