My favourite formulation of the Precautionary Principle is this:

"When in danger or in doubt,
Run in circles, scream and shout."

which I'm sure I recall reading in the books by E Nesbit, though Google doesn't seem to be able to find it there.

My second favourite is Pascal's Wager, mainly because so much has already been said or written about its failings that can be directly applied to the claims of the warmistas:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

And perhaps the best response is that attributed to Viscount Falkland: "When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make a decision."

"I wish I'd written that"

Hear, hear.

Fair enough Don… if you define the precautionary principle in the worst possible manner.

I wouldn’t define it as grimly as you do.

I don’t think that any of the six ‘weak spots’ necessarily apply. For example; we certainly do not need to assume the worst case scenario before it is pertinent to observe the precautionary pricinciple. We simply need to feel that not observing it is likely to place us in a worse situation than if we observed it.

There is a lot of merit in being cautious, erring on the side of caution, exercising the precautionary principle, or however you’d like to say it…. as opposed to just blundering forth and not worrying about the consequences.

The whole tenet of your article is that the precautionary principle is fundamentally flawed and the proactionary principle is what we should be observing.

Well, I’d say the latter is certainly true, but the former certainly isn’t.

The two are by no means mutually exclusive!

Of course the proactionary principle should apply in circumstances where we need to change our ways of doing things.

We should be both very proactive and very cautious!

Thoughtful comments, Ludwig. Balance is the key.

The precautionary principle has been adopted as a defense mechanism for the lack of facts.

That defense mechanism is stunningly exemplified in Ludwig’s post by “socializing” reality.

The implication is that Don is guilty of presenting it “in the worst possible manner”, it is “grimly” defined, the six “weak spots” don’t “necessarily apply”, we “do not need to assume the worst case scenario” (but we do).

We do however need to create sufficient fear and threat by feeling “that not observing it is likely to place us in a worse situation than if we observed it”.

That “erring on the side of caution” is necessary because without is we risk the confected alternative of “just blundering forth and not worrying about the consequences”.

Then we have the misdirection that “The whole tenet of your article is that the precautionary principle is fundamentally flawed and the proactionary principle is what we should be observing”.

No Luddy, what I think he is saying is that it is the application of the precautionary principle to CAGW that is flawed.

“Of course the proactionary principle should apply in circumstances where we need to change our ways of doing things”. Really? So the proactionary principle should now apply when, in someone’s unsubstantiated opinion “we” need to change our ways?

So now the “proactionary principle” has been hijacked, seconded to the CAGW “cause and can now be used without a blink of hypocrisy, to get us to change our ways instead of the “precautionary principle”.

Socialization often goes full circle and ends up schizophrenic, so where do you end up Luddy? You end up with this gem, “We should be both very proactive and very cautious!”

LOL, I rest my case

<< LOL, I rest my case >>

( :> |

LOL indeed, Spinny!

Now… when you come down off of whatever narcotic substance you were high on when you wrote that extraordinary post, perhaps you would be so kind as to LOGICALLY explain what on earth you think is wrong with being both proactive AND cautious!!

Luddy,

There is nothing wrong with being both precautionary and cautious providing you can explain what you mean by that. Does this mean that you reject the proactionary principle however; it has sufficient merit to lend credence to your failed precautionary principle, so now you can have your cake and eat it? You said it, you explain it, it’s not my logic Luddy it’s yours.

You firstly rejected the case made by Don, you then offered a whole string of mitigation for the precautionary principle, then you explained why it was necessary and the alarmist basis for using it, then you abandoned the precautionary principle to “adopt” the proactionary principle offered by Don, as a means for achieving the changes “we” must make, then you finished with a flourish of a “bob each way” strategy.

You also telegraphed your inability to rationalize your case by totally ignoring the criticisms I leveled at you and then drew only on my last sentence to attempt to make your case by omission.

Schizophrenic or what?

Boy oh boy Spinny, you’re weeeird!

Simple fact is that it is eminently sensible to be cautious in whatever we do.

The very act of planning our actions is to exercise caution and hence to observe the precautionary principle at least to some extent, if you define it in its broadest sense…. and certainly not in the highly end-of-the-spectrum and totally negative manner that Don has defined it.

And get this: the very act of planning our actions is also to exercise proactivity... at least to some extent!

So there you have it – precautionary and proactive at the same time!!

Sure, it is possible to do one without the other. But it is eminently sensible to do both at the same time.

Now is that still too schitzo for you to comprehend?

No Luddy, you are again going down the side of the issue.

The issue is that Don’s proposal is for the Precautionary Principle, which is inertia or maintenance of the status quo, to be replaced with the Proactionary Principle where action is preferred to inertia.

You can change the definitions and socialize them as much as you like but you cannot have both inertia and action and that is the point being made, they are contradictions in terms unless you wish to rewrite Newton’s Laws of Motion.

You want to assert << So there you have it – precautionary and proactive at the same time!! >>.

No, you have deliberately removed the sub title of Don’s article to eliminate the inertia vs. action context and then given it “your meaning” to make your case. That Luddy, is socializing the topic.

You can’t have your cake and eat it? Sir Isaac Newton says so

The issue that has long bothered Don Aitkin and everyone else who rejects the CAGW scam is the warmmongers' hijacking of the perfectly valid precautionary principle (e.g. basis for taking public risk insurance) to demand we trash the economy just in case CO2 emission is heading the world for climate disaster, and cutting the emission enough might head it off.

The most likely outcome whatever we do or don’t do is that by the time the fossil fuel runs out temperatures won't have perceptibly risen. But there'll be no more fossil fuel. In the meantime frackers seeking the declining traces will have poisoned the country's water table. THEN what do we do?

The precautionary principle properly used as risk management means assessing the size and probability of the risk, the cost of preventive measures, and the probability of the measures really reducing or eliminating the risk. Misused as the warmmongers misuse it means burning the forest down because a little boy cries that he's seen a wolf in it, or paying a door to door insurance salesman a premium to bribe airlines to re-route their flights in case a wheel falls on your roof.

Dear EJ,

Nobody with an ounce of intelligence denies that the
planet has a finite amount of resources or that it
can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution.
If world population continues to grow rapidly,
if industrialism spreads around the world, and if
pollution and resource depletion continues at an increasing
rate - and all these things happen - we need to ask the
question where is human society headed?

The most optimistic answer would be that, one way of
another, sweeping social changes await us.

your quote..is accurate..except..it inverts MUCH*..of the present reality

lets say bankers or elites..or autocrats/bureaucrats/organized lobby
or the old school tie..

and the taking of things like bailouts for the rich..
or like 12 billion$..of fuel subsidies for mining..

anyhow AFTER expanding on the first word
YOU ARE CORRECT*..to a POINT.

<<..Activists*
etc

..get away with AVOIDING...the burden of proof trick
by managing perceptions of risk instead of examining the real risks.>>

like bailing out the auto industry
superanuation industry..farmers needing free fences..
or gas frakkers needing free ports rail/pipelines[infrastructure]

<<This move is particularly dangerous because we have limited resources to address a multitude of risks. We cannot afford to make decisions driven by manipulated perceptions.

It's crucial that we rely on a comprehensive, scientifically grounded perspective when choosing which risks have the strongest claim on our attention.

Sixth, and finally, the precautionary principle conflicts with the more balanced approach to risk and harm derived from common law.*>>

thats huge..we went from criminal/damages law
to self regulated statute..or con-tract..law
where the corporate..PERSON*..[ltd/inc]..trust..has subverted right..AWAY from..the people..to the statuted corporate fiction

<<..*Common law holds us liable for injuries we cause,!*!
..our liability being proportionate with the degree of foreseeable risk.>>

no..*the actual DAMAGE*$$
plus costs

<<By contrast, the precautionary principle dismisses liability and acts like a preliminary injunction, but without the involvement of a court, without the burden of proof, and without taking responsibility for harm caused by the injunction.>>

anything we sign..is a CON-tract'
'just put your mark..here
ie [the mark of the beast/..THE paper fiction*]

the crime police dont police

Look, I was going to write a comment and got halfway through. But something cautioned me not to so I experienced several minuits of inertia. Then I thought, 'Damn it. Join the debate! Be proactive!'

Then my wife said, "Please hang out the washing instead of wasting your time talking to the OLO crowd about rubbish like whether God needs a special language or whether the Israelis should kill all the Palestinians."

As I hung out the clothes I wondered if I was procrastinating, rationalizing or putting off a fight or flight moment.

Then a bee stung me and, throwing inhibition, caution and inertia to the wind, I yelled and ran inside.

Was this reactionary or just instinctive?

The precautionary principle has been distorted by green groups to mean something very different.

In essence it means that if you are deciding whether to do something new, one should analyse in depth all the possible risks, and take action to minimize or eliminate them, and if you can't then simply don't do it.

The modern "green" meaning now includes panicking the moment that any bone head predicts that the sky is going to fall. Especially since the greens have a predilection for fabricating and exaggerating evidence and consequences.

Just look at the huge scare campaign against GM crops, none of which have come to pass.

Objections 1 to 5 are just different ways of saying the same thing: that you don't like the way it "shifts the burden of proof". But that depends where you think the burden of proof belonged to begin with.
"Precautionary Principle" is just a Latinate name for sound risk management.
Before a new pharmaceutical comes onto the market, we generally accept that it should be subjected to substantial safety tests. Drugs are not considered innocent of harmful side-effects until proven guilty. We have an inherent bias against the new, for the excellent reason that for all the ills of prior art at least we know what those ills are, and that we have survived them.
The same innate conservatism underlies attitudes to new scientific theories, whether or not it is justified in that context.
When it comes to climate change, the trick is to realise that although the Industrial Revolution began 250 years ago, in geophysical terms it is still a new experiment. The clearest message from the science is that it is taking humanity into uncharted climate waters.
The sixth point in the article contrasts it to common law. But why should we assume common law is all? Historically, common law is about penalties and compensation after the offence. It does not cope with offenders unable to pay compensation, nor with damage so cataclysmic that no amount of compensation is relevant. Where common law fails, risk management must take up the task.

Ludwig, you need to be careful when discussing things with Spindoc, he has a funny way of seeing the world.

Once a person has committed to an errant path, evidence of mistakes will not be sought, and if they are found, they will be ignored and denied.

The farther the person goes, the worse the self-deception gets. The situation might seem appalling to outside observers, but the traveller on the path will delude himself or put on a brave face.

This is exactly where Spindoc likes to take people. Be careful

Geoff

'Nobody with an ounce of intelligence '

seems to be a favourite cliche Lexi to shut down anyone who disagrees with you lately.

davidG/quote..<<..rationalizing or putting off..a fight or flight moment...>>

no just another,..pre-cautionary principle
lets rationalize..

you didnt put it off
but was called off..by one needing your assistance

..<<Then a bee stung me and, throwing inhibition,
caution and inertia..to the wind, I yelled and ran inside.>>

and posted

[the beeis a sign..to let it be
[ie there is more to this..than hanging out the washing
like what specificly was your thought..just before the bee stung
or what article..specificly..can give a clue too[even color/type of peg]..or where in the action..of cloth hanging..the sting occured

it could be the cautionary principle
but likely was just a call..to..*'be;..[or let it be]
or..let who will get stung..be stung....

regardless..if a sign..
it links to the real-time issues..there/then..in mind

thus..<<..Was this reactionary or just instinctive?>>

the bee sting..was just an upset be-ing..
for reason of posting the post..it was likely a reaction..not instinct

i would say a learning opportunity
rather than a wake-up call..

but its true meaning..lies..or rather..*lays within you
play with it..there is a pre-caution..every time a principle bites the dust.

Dear runner,

What? You talking to me about cliches?
Great try!

Dear runner,

I did specify, that "no one with an ounce of
intelligence would deny..." so why do you feel that
I'm trying to shut you down? I made that statement
generally speaking - because most people do have at
least an ounce. Sounds like you're feeling a bit
inadequate.

And that's not my fault.

Shadow Minister

I agree, the basis of the precautionary principle is sound if it requires a proper consideration of the effects of unlikely events with significant consequences. The problem is that it has mutated into a “principle” that demands we never do anything, just in case. It’s also excessively asymmetrical, under-valuing the positive consequences of actions relative to the negative.

This article is a reflection on what we would have missed out on if past generations had applied the principle:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000006DD7A.htm

Thanks Geoff. Yeah my old mate Spindoc, with whom I have had exchanges on this forum for quite a few years now, is an odd-bod for sure! ( :>)
.

Spinny, you wrote:

<< The issue is that Don’s proposal is for the Precautionary Principle, which is inertia or maintenance of the status quo, to be replaced with the Proactionary Principle where action is preferred to inertia. >>

Well that just seems to be entirely about-face! The precautionary principle is not analogous to inertia!

For example, as it concerns so-called CAGW, the status quo (business as usual) is the continuation of the exploitation of fossil fuels, at a rapidly increasing rate.

Exercising the precautionary principle is very different to the status quo!

The AGW debate is an excellent example of where the precautionary and proactionary principles should come together. Not only should we be very cautious about the continued unfettered exploitation of fossil fuels for reasons pertaining to climate change, but we should be very mindful of the economic impact as oil becomes harder to obtain and the price increases, and we should thus be striving to develop alternative energy sources with a passion!

Caution and proactivity….they go hand in hand!

And um… I wouldn’t have a clue as to what you are on about with this ‘socializing the topic’ business!

Yes, Rhian,

>This article is a reflection on what we would have missed out on if past generations had applied the principle:<

Like:
Asbestosis,
Thalidomide,
Chernobyl,
Fukishima,
multiple species extinction,
abandoned beehive syndrome,
various wars,
widespread obesity,
Aids epidemic,
world over-population,
acid rain, mad cow disease, et al.
(Global Warming?)

But, of course you mean penicillin, antibiotics, vaccines, air travel, transplant surgery, high-speed trains, iPads, internet, 'twitter' and 'facebook', nuclear energy, solar panels, wind-power ....
And, the A-bomb, H-bomb, intercontinental ballistic missiles, 'victory' in various wars, Corporatism and the GFC?

"Moderation in all things"? Or, "Let the Devil take the hindmost"?

Science has provided many advancements. The question is when and how to apply caution.
Or, do we intend to ignore any 'uncomfortable' truths or indications?
(To our possible detriment.)

To err is human; to be idiotic is not 'sublime'.

The precautionary principle dictates that you minimize risks if you can't eliminate them. i.e.

When you drive, you obey the road rules, use a seat belt etc, and you will minimize (but not eliminate) your chance of getting killed on the way to work. The only way to eliminate all risk is to stay in bed.

Another example is Coal Seam Gas (CSG). It is true that there were problems when extraction first started with contamination of underground water, but the question is whether the risks have been reduced. The answer is yes. The chemicals being used have changed, and what was happening decades ago is not happening now. The benefits are a cheap clean and relatively low GHG emitting source of energy that the US has used to drastically reduce its energy costs and reliance on coal.

In Australia, there is a hysterical fear campaign being run against CSG. There are thousands of wells already in use, with no verifiable damage. If CSG was exploited to the extent of the US, our power prices would drop, so would our GHG emissions, farmers would get a bundle for their land, and the only people that would lose out would be the greens.

We need to replace the sensible precautionary principle with a proactive one!
Why? Well additional reliable data/evidence, (melting of the formerly thaw proof frozen tundra and ocean acidification which has literally doubled in just the last sixteen years etc/etc) informs us we should do so, or face a century that could end with a 5C increase in ambient temperatures.
The last time we had a temperature rise of that order of magnitude, nearly all life on planet earth was eliminated!
What's proactive?
Well companion algae farming, beside coal fired power stations, to absorb all the carbon they produce, plus create an additional income source.
[Objectors? You don't like additional income or coal fired power which no longer sends tons of carbon skywards?]
It's utilizing our waste to create endlessly sustainable and very low cost energy, instead of pumping energy into it to get rid of it, out into the marine environment, where it does nothing but harm.
It's replacing old coal fired power stations with cheaper than coal thorium.
It's replacing fire land management, with much more effective and much more profitable cell grazing!
Simply put, all of the above will quite massively improve our economic performance and productive capacity, and simply shouldn't be feared or bagged.
Unless of course, you are among a recalcitrant few who earn a more than comfortable living/income from the current status quo?
Rhrosty.

John Howard struck a chord with his “WE decide who comes into our country” (a privilege that was never extended to native Australians). But if we shifted from misrepresentative government (we elect them, they buy them) to democracy then the communities using Australia’s aquifers would be empowered to say “WE decide what is put into our water.”

It’s fine for Shadow Minister to say the first poisons to be put into the water have been replaced with other poisons, maybe milder and maybe not, but the democratic solution is for those who have to use the water to decide, not foreign investors. If the first chemicals to be put in the water were, as Shadow Minister writes, more poisonous than the replacement, were the landholders asked whether they wanted the stuff or not – and their decision respected? Were there town hall meetings where independent scientists were present to advise, on the acceptability of the alternative poisons (or none) before a binding vote was taken or (better) referendum held?

The sirs deciding for the plebs in the interest of the sirs is called social engineering.

The "Precautionary Principle" is alive and well, generally it is called a "Cost Benefit Analysis", you know the thing that was never done with NBN's FTTH. Similarly there was some analysis before the Pink Batts fiasco, the Bureaucrats warned but were ignored, much the same as the Labor's murderous high-seas, economic immigrant program. It does not encompass placing infinite costs on the currently fashionable Lefty bête noire, but intelligent evaluation.
Why is it that the most "Nobel" of Lefty endeavors always result in working-class deaths and harm? Answering myself (à la Rudd), because Lefties seldom have had a real job.

http://investmentwatchblog.com/breaking-four-destroyers-positioned-near-syria-assad-warns-u-s-not-to-intervene-saying-such-a-move-would-set-the-middle-east-ablaze/

The Precautionary Principle bites the dust
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/24/syria-cameron-obama-intervention

Did the West Gas Thousands to Rescue Failed Syrian War?

http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/defeated-nato-dangerously-desperate-in.html

As far back as 2007, it was a documented fact that the West, including the United States and its allies Saudi Arabia and Israel, conspired to use terrorists drawn from the ranks of the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Qaeda in an attempt to overthrow the governments of Iran and Syria...
http://www.activistpost.com/2013/08/us-positions-for-attack-on-syria.html

http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/us-moving-towards-war-on-syria/62519/

http://syria360.wordpress.com/2013/08/21/urgent-facts-about-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-damascus/

The UN is stalling for time so that evidence can be removed and/or planted at the scene to bring it in line with the official story.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/23/un_blocking_its_own_chemical_weapons_investigation_into_syria

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-24/putin-responds-syria-escalation-may-reinforce-naval-grouping-mediterranean-following

I have to wonder: just how malleable might these UN chemical weapons inspectors be to US/Israeli/UK pressure?!?

What juicy tidbits from their personal lives has the US's NSA harvested, in advance of just such a situation?!?

Only time will tell: but this group is under a lot of pressure to do their job very quickly: in a process like this, quick and thorough are real adversaries.

And what happens if the findings are not to the US/UK/Israeli governments' liking?!
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/08/24/320330/syria-will-let-un-probe-chem-attack/

Anti-Syria chemical plot
http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/08/41442-anti-syria-chemical-plot/
There is No question what's going on in Syria. It's so clear cut. The so-called opposition are nothing more than invading "mercenaries" backed by western proxies on a mission to destroy Syria.

The so-called progressives that say otherwise have a lot to answer for. Similar to what happened many times before. The mass gassing incident may turn out to be a modern day Gulf of Tonkin incident.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

the decision to attack has already been made,
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_UNITED_STATES_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-08-24-07-37-32

and that this alleged approach of "waiting until all the facts are assessed" is just bovine excrement window-dressing for an upcoming strike
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/171234#.Uhjy638piHs

http://whatreallyhappened.com/

Shadow, most people get stirred up about CSG because they do not
understand how it is different to shale oil and gas.

Dear McCackie,

What results in working-class deaths and harm
is the result of greed by "cowboy" contractors
who take shortcuts and don't follow building regulations
or apply for permits.

Fortunately these people are a minority because
legitimate businesses do follow the correct
procedures otherwise there would be many more deaths.

It's accepted practice by professionals, ( architects
and engineers and therefore politicans) to accept the
fact that those regulations and procedures will be
followed by registered contractors. Unfortunately
when there's the smell of money, cowboy contractors
will always appear.

If you really believe that "Lefties seldom have
a real job," then one can only assume that you don't
really know very many hard-working, workers.
Do you by any chance own a small business?

Please, please, hard working Lefties is an oxymoron, their raison d'etre is to spend other peoples money and as can be seen they are running out of it. Personally I have always dislikes accusing the Green / Labor axis of spending like drunken sailors, sailors have earned their money and can do what they like with it.

Trying to dress it up as evil, cowperson capitalists does not relieve the Axis of its responsibility for due diligence, the Ministers were warned. Get over it and accept responsibility for once. Cowpersons are in all walks of life, that is what "due diligence" and "cost benefit analysis" include, frankly you have confirmed what I said.

Yes construction technical functionaries ("architects and engineers") specify and talk within standards but to try that as a excuse for decision makers, Politicians (who were warned by their functionaries), is sophistic in the extreme. Why are Lefties becoming irrelevant, because past a point sophistic arguments become mere "white noise".

the absurdity..of abc lefties..well prove it
i resent the mind NUMBING dumbing Down..with light entertainment/quiz shows..sport cooking shows..commentary..in-lue of reporting things like..

WHY..US ‘banksters’ have Syria in sights
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/08/26/320593/us-bankster-have-syria-in-sights/

An American author and journalist says war profiteers and “banksters” in the United States have embarked upon a vigorous “media campaign” to bring Washington closer to another war in the Middle East.

“The banksters are looking for a pretext to get at the oil, natural gas and pipeline roots that run through Syria,” Dean Henderson said in an interview with Press TV on Monday.
http://12160.info/video/when-will-america-get-sick-of-middle-east-wars-for-israel?xg_source=activity

3..more attacks
SYRIA demandsd investigation

The Syrian government is demanding that the United Nations immediately investigate three alleged chemical attacks carried out by rebel groups on the outskirts of Damascus last week, Syria’s envoy to the UN said.

Ambassador Bashar Jaafari said he had requested UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon that the team of experts currently in Damascus investigating an alleged use of chemical weapons last week also investigate these other attacks.

The attacks took place on August 22, 24 and 25 in Jobar, Sahnaya, and al-Bahariya, Bashar Jaafari told journalists Wednesday. The “militants” used toxic chemical gas against the Syrian army,

http://rt.com/news/syria-investigate-un-chemical-116/

[re the fauix march..the in-crowd own..it all
via a toxic fiatised lie..toxic money

http://12160.info/video/author-ron-macdonald-they-own-it-all-including-you-by-means-of?xg_source=activity

the other march..to war
http://rinf.com/alt-news/breaking-news/the-neocon-march-on-damascus/63717/

the old rummy..talking of 911..secretly recorded
Rumsfeld On Tape..Terror Attack Could Restore Neo-Con Agenda

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oLuTQEL3ec

we are still marching on Saturday
as most of us got two jobs..yet no fear
http://intellihub.com/2013/08/27/war-syria-rallies-happening-saturday-august-31-worldwide/

no war powers ..mr president
http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/14746-no-the-war-powers-act-does-not-authorize-unilateral-executive-preemptive-military-act

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-israel-defences-idUSBRE97R0MQ20130828

cause thats supposed tobe here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5984&page=0

The sudden escalation of military threats..by Washington against the Assad government..is a result of pressures and rewards..dangled by Israel and Saudi Arabia.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/08/28/226684-bandar-ibn-israel/

The Wall Street Journal has confirmed what many suspected, that the West’s so-called “evidence” of the latest alleged “chemical attacks” in Syria, pinned on the Syrian government are fabrications spun up from the West’s own dubious intelligence agencies.
http://bit.ly/191gSJS

Okay, Barry,..if you really feel..that way;
USA WILL GO.."ALONE"

http://news.yahoo.com/us-willing-alone-against-syria-needed-211725309.htmlhere's your rifle, here's your parachute, we ran out of the desert camo so here is a bright day-glo orange jumpsuit left over from Gitmo. Watch your head climbing into that transport plane, and we'll call Assad and tell him you are on your way to kick his butt all by yourself.

because after that whopper about Saddam's nukes, and the recent whopper saying Assad invited UN chemical weapons inspectors into Syria, then unleashed a chemical weapons attack right in front of them, you will forgive WE THE PEOPLE if we sit this one out and keep our children safe at home.

You say you are willing to go it alone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23863179

You ARE alone.

I would not get involved in Syria as I think the Middle East is a lost cause.
It would be much better for us if we just let them get on with it.
If they weaken themselves then that is a plus for us.

Might seem callous, but nowhere near as callous as the moslem bombers.
Frankly, we do not owe them a cracker, everywhere they go they cause trouble.