White phosphorous, agent orange, napalm, cluster bombs, mines depleted uranium. Yes all these things are bad, inhuman and designed to assist in killing the enemy; and justified, on purely military grounds.
However, not one of them is going to kill you hiding in your cellar/bomb shelter. They will however harm you, if you are active in the field.
Nerve gas is completely different.
Just a few droplets on your skin and you're condemned. And no it's not a comparatively quick death but all too often a long drawn out decline, where your fear raked body struggles more and more mightily to breathe.
And those who used it against unarmed women and children knew exactly how to maximize the kill and the propaganda, that surely follows.
Agent orange is a particularly effective defoliant; Napalm a particularly effective accelerant, which together cleared vast tracts of tropical forest, and denied the enemy safe ground from which to mount largely covert operations.
Depleted uranium adds to the effectiveness of Armour piecing rounds.
And all justifiable in any conventional war, that follows the rules of war!
That said, if only we humans could set aside our supposed differences, or traditional enmity, and just learn to live in peace. Resolving any difference out on the footy field or boxing ring!
President Obama can't win!
If he doesn't go in, Al Qiada and others will replace the west, and help defeat Assad.
Their only real goal, to replace Assad with something even worse and gain a foothold and comparatively safe sanctuary from which to operate, all while crowing, where were the Americans in your darkest hour?
This is not something we can allow, but need to act, even while denying we are doing so.
We could ask the Israelis to act for us all while protecting their backs.
What is required is a quick air campaign to remove Assad's air power. Followed by a another two or three day operation to take out Assad's Armour.
The people need light arms only. They can do plenty of damage with just those, particularly after Assad is removed!
Rhrosty.

The US concept of injecting high explosive (via cruise missile) into Syria as some sought of socio-political toll has to be widely discussed.

Whether US high explosive will improve the lives of Syrian civilians is a hard theory for the US to sell.

Obama, like many previous Presidents in trouble, sorely needs a limited, quick, war to boost his political standing, particularly to impress the Republicans in Congress.

The article asks appropriate questions about how the US is framing the international debate and trying to turn a positive Russian idea into a medium term go-to-war trigger for the US.

I am very sympathetic to your argument Dave that the US and others are being very selective (you call it hypocritical) in applying their norms when it comes to chemical weapons. The same for conventional arms, for that matter. I am particularly supportive of your contention that no-one gave the US the right to be judge, jury and executioner for what happens in all sorts of corners of the world. However, I am less convinced of the rationale you propose for their involvement in Syria: "control over the entirety of the Middle East" because of its strategic importance to the US, being an "oil-rich" region.
Firstly, is Middle Eastern oil really that important to the US? With the development of shale gas and tar sand resources in North America, the US has never been less dependent on foreign oil than right now. And the future of energy lies in renewables.
Secondly, why has it become so urgent and necessary to establish "control over the Middle East" at this particular time? Why the domino strategy now and not 10 or 20 years ago? Don't we need a bit more evidence than a view expressed in a retired General's book?
I am inclined to see limits to the influence and foresight of states, including superpowers like the US. The Iraq war cost the Republicans the White House. Recent events in Egypt can hardly be described as favourable to US interests. In short, when I look at political decision making, globally and nationally, I see much more dysfunction and pragmatism than your thesis suggests.

You make an important point, Willem, about the US's diminishing reliance on Middle Eastern oil reserves. It was said of Iraq that if it's greatest export crop was broccoli there would have been no 2003 invasion. Even so, I suspect that even if Syria's main export were broccoli, it wouldn't make much difference at this stage.

I believe the US wants to dominate the region (and indeed the world) but oil is not the only factor any more.

* Iran is the only real regional power not accepting US hegemony. Destroying Syria and Hezbollah will bring Iran to its knees.

* The Israeli's have a clear agenda for Syria, as seen by AIPAC's frantic pro-intervention lobbying, and Obama is beholden to their agenda

* Other US client states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar have their own reasons for wanting to overthrow Assad, and the US wants to keep them onside.

No, it is not as simple as oil, but I believe it is still basically about power and about profits for US-based business

Father Dave

Father Dave, though I am an atheist, I welcome your article. We are obviously both anti-war unlike the bulk of deluded people who comment on OLO!

Yeah, we have some real radicals here, the type that don't care if there is nuclear war because they stupidly believe that they and their children won't be affected!

They fly the U.S. flag with real enthusiasm caught up as they are in the comic world of fifty years ago when the U.S. was topdog, it and Superman!

How the world has changed! Most people, because of endless propaganda, believe that war is as normal and cleaning one's teeth, and they react appropriately to the pro-American, pro-capitalism, pro-fear and pro-hate doctrines as if they were real.

Thanks for your article. It sure beats some of the drivel we receive almost daily thanks to the Israeli lobby, the capitalist lobby, the Tory lobby, the American lobby (don't you just love it that the new American Ambassador brought his husband), and the Church lobby!

Peace to you, Father Dave!

Hi Father

It also needs to be added that US foreign policies are not the only drivers of a strike on Syria.

US DOMESTIC pressure on Obama is strong (in US rightwing public and Congressional quarters) for him to complete the strike he promised.

Even a Democrat President is aware that there is nothing like a war on America's terms, for manufactured righteous causes, to boost the popularity of a failing President.

Cheers

Pete