Just watched Obama on television slugging away at his policy (which we wre told he doesn't agree with - wonder where our resident prat got the idea that the Tea Party were the Tea Party were the only ones supporting intervention - strange world!!)
It seems the main argument against intervention is that it "isn't in our (America's") interest - fair enough I suppose.
I never thought I would ever support the idea of the U.S. sending troops into anywhere (I was one of the 50,000 crammed into Grosvevnor Square in 1969), but to leave the Syrian people to be massacred by one of out old Allies seems totally obscene to me.
The Assads of this world are largely our creatures - we traded with them, we were silent about their appalling human rights records - we even sold the bastards munitions, even provided the wherewithal to make the chemical weapons they are now using.
After the Arab Spring protests started we were holding Arms Fairs to sell to potential Assads including Bahrain for ****'* sake!
The fact that the Syrian Arab Spring protests were allowed to develop into civil war can largely be laid at the door of the 'civilised' west is due largely to the fact that the rest of the world sat on its hands and did nothing because "it was not in our interests"
If intervention galvanises the U.N. into getting off their collective arses, or even if it only causes Assad to pause and thin on what it MIGHT DO to Syrian/British relationship we are informed he treasures so greatly, we will have at least made an effort.
To sit back and watch further slaughter is unthinkable if we are to continue to call ourselves human beings
"And the great game of the conquering empires goes on and on"
Can't say how much I agree with your last paragraph Guest
Jim Carroll