Ehmmm No mayomick I asked for proof that the USA sold and provided Saddam Hussein with chemical weapons - which was what the person I responded to was stating.

CDC sent sample batches of various cultures and agents to both Iraq and Iran they in themselves are not weapons both the US and the UK do research in this area in the interests of defence against chemical or biological weapons attack - IIRC the first of these batch samples travelled to Baghdad as cabin luggage on a commercial flight.

Loads of chemicals and pieces of equipment have dual uses. Remember the post-graduate thesis that JIC "borrowed" large tracts of text from? The subject of that thesis was the elaborate network of dummy fronts and shell companies and organisations that Saddam Hussein set up to purchase and import prohibited items into Iraq. In the other thread about Syria the subject of Sodium Fluoride came up - it has many perfectly peaceful uses - even inside Syria or Iraq - does that mean it cannot be sold?

If there is one thing I am certain about World War Three would not be started by anybody to either save or replace Bashar Al-Assad and to suggest any such thing is totally ludicrous. Putin is at present using the situation in Syria to demonstrate to the world and it's dog how simple it is to run circles round Barack Obama and the USA - he didn't dare try any of that on with GWB, who when all said and done must have at least had full knowledge of, or had even given the Israeli attack the green light to nail Syria's secret nuclear facility (Operation Orchard September 2007).

As I have stated before it doesn't matter who was responsible. The point of the exercise is to apply pressure to the situation in general in order to ensure that they are not used again - and guess what? That is what has been done.

If there is another chemical attack I wonder how many will be prattling on about it being a "Black Op" on the part of the Syrian Army to discredit the rebels.

I reckon the fact that Russia has moved (And it has shifted its position as it could have suggested this right at the start) is that they now know that it definitely was Assad's troops that launched the attack, and they want a handle on things as and when that news along with the supporting evidence breaks.

Alternatives:

1: US targeted strikes - make Assad think that he personally might be a target

2: Put Syria's chemical weapons, which Assad and the Ba'athist regime in Syria are undoubtedly responsible for, under the control of an independent international body.

The first definitely gives the man an incentive, the second if organised and implemented under the direction of Putin's Russia will amount to just so much chat with nothing actually happening and as Ron said Assad will still at the end of the day have his chemical and biological weapons - which is very important to Assad because when the "rebellion" fails Assad will need such weapons and his army to keep his "loyal" citizens and his neighbours in the region in line - in exactly the same manner as Saddam Hussein did.