Umm, 68 world leaders committed suicide. A specific example of "an entire nation willingly committing suicide," we have Germany in 1945, in which a documented 7500 people committed suicide (many leaders and military officers included), although the numbers are speculated to be well over 10,000. Then there's the smaller factions, such as the Jonestown massacre of 1978, and the suicides of the Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God in 2000. There are also many other instances in history where suicide was preferred over surrender.
Assuming others carry the same ideals of self-preservation is a poor card to bet on.
Try putting it into context, we were talking about taking a country into a nuclear exchange from the off which would be pre conceived mass suicide, not the same thing at all. Unless your trying to suggest that for some reason the hate of Israel who actually have nothing in terms of resource value would be enough for the 3rd biggest oil rich country in the world in the event of gaining nuclear capability to throw everything away including the respect they would have to be shown internationally and the wealth economically by going to an nuke exchange with Israel.
This is purely a western propagandist supposition, scaremongering and utterly ridiculous
If your suggesting such an option by Iran would be likely then i'm calling you a hack.
The initial uprisings in Syria were not led by the Muslim Brotherhood, and it was at this time that U.S. political leaders posed support in defense of citizens. However, support waned as the Muslim Brotherhood slowly, over the course of two years, became the dominant opposition in Syria.
US support has waned, your kidding me right ? the
only reason its backed off
publicly is the international spotlight and objections and statements made by various other countries very loudly, China and Russia being the most obvious but by no means alone, and other international organisations. The Muslim brotherhood, House of Saud, terrorism, rebellion, US government hypocracy, big international business, Military Contracts, Petro Dollar I could go on and on adding to the list ...all linked at the bank, have been for decades.
Id rather not get into Geopolitics but suffice to say its all about the public perception not about what is right or wrong because that changes from year to year
When the US or west supports a non elected group they are called Rebels, when it dosnt they are called Terrorists. Hypocrisy at its finest can be seen in Afghanistan and its Anglo Soviet American coalition attempts to play all sides and cards relabelling as they go, to the point of creating a self serving boogey man war on "terrorism."
Umm, no. Bashar al-Assad and many of the Syrian leaders are Alawite, although the bulk of the Baath party is Sunni. Bashar al-Assad's administration and the Iranian government (Shiites) have strong ties. The conflict is not a religious one, but there is indeed religious camping going on and there are groups, like the Muslim Brotherhood, that are trying to make it about religion.
The conflict is about whatever the players involved decide it is.
Of course its as much religious as anything is within the region. Periodical historical persecution by the Sunni majority makes Alawite's naturally an allie of Iranian Shiites, it stems from the close strategic alliance between the Assad family and the Iranian regime since the 70s but over the past 40 years the ties have grown not waned and are still very strong,agreed its a misconception they are one and the same but they are closely allied. The moment a regime in the region looks to be in for a change out come the various flags, it is all interwoven, it dosnt matter on what level they are flown be it political ethnic or religious , as long as they get attention. So yes its as much religious as anything else, at least in public view.
There is no evidence to support this assumption.
By evidence you mean like there was unrefutable WMD in Iraq ? no not that kind of evidence, the real easy to see, been there, made things worse and here we are again as usual, common sense kind of evidence.
The question remains on the chemical incident and the finger is pointed squarely at western backed Terrorists or if you prefer Rebels, depending on the media you get fed.
Dosn't look too rosy to me