What is particularly significant about the use of chemical weapons as a decider as to whether intervention is necessary in the case of any case such as this?
Even before the protests developed into civil war Assad's troops where massacring the citizens of Homs in their thousands - is there a significant difference between women with babies in arms being cut down by sniper fire in Homs (it was reported then that the infants were being deliberately targeted)and them dying from asphyxiation and chemical burns - it's only a matter of degree, the end result is the same - it should have been stopped then
If Syria had possessed a significant oil supply it certainly would have been, Russian and Chinese vetoes notwithstanding.
At the time of Homs, the BBC's 'Question Time' devoted a great deal of time to the subject - the four representative politicians overwhelmingly agreed and Lib-Dem David Steele summed up their view, "it was not in Britain's interests to become involved" (pretty much what is being said here, after the chemical attacks).
The only voice of opposition on the panel was the token 'light relief' on the programme, comedian, Steve Coogan, who made a stunning contribution.
I'm more than happy to fess up that I supported intervention then as I do now.
It would have forced the U.N. to over-ride the vetoes, Assad's attacks could have been prevented from escalating into civil war and the many thousands of innocent non-combatants need not have died - but of course, "it was not in our interest to become involved!"
Assad has not only been allowed to slaughter his own citizens, but he has run rings round the rest of the world and has all-but destroyed the credibility of the United Nations.
Jim Carroll