To prevent a jihadist victory in Syria, stop arming them. This will probably mean backing the current administration in Damascus, but so what? Not so long ago we all quite liked this Bashar al-Assad fellow, back when he was using his jails to hide and torture our rendered ones.
Syria has been significantly weakened after two years of a bloody civil war. Ease up, Bibi Obama. Enough already!
Or is the prize really that Russian port in Tartus? And the different options for getting gas into Europe?

JON,

It is a pity that your comprehension skills are so feeble that you could not grasp that the comparison I made was not between the war in Syria and Poland, but between the action of Chamberlain who reluctantly chose to defend an otherwise defenseless people against a tyrant, and JB whose attitude is "not my problem mate!"

I will endeavor to use small words so you can understand.

Your prejudice is blatant. Your post consists of a factually devoid rant against the author. There is no UN report that the rebels used Sarin, only claims from some civilians. Considering that Assad has stockpiles of Sarin and the rebels don't, your claim is tenuous at best. You also choose to ignore that 70 000+ people have died in the last 12 months or so, mostly at the hands of the Syrian government, and unless the conflict is stopped the casualties are likely to continue rising.

Israel's attack on Syrian arms supply to Hezbollah is barely relevant to the conflict, and considering that the last attacks happened withing 48hrs, the likelihood is that they were yet to occur at the time of writing this article, as they go through an approval process first.

The intervention in Libya was a stunning success and saved the country from the carnage that is now happening in Syria.

SM: I really doubt the utility of debating with you as you are impervious to facts. The report of sarin gas use by the "rebels" was from Carla del Ponte of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on Syria. Even Reuters reported it.

There is no evidence Assad actually has sarin gas. The earlier stockpiles are probably past their use by date, but the evidence is unclear and in the absence of evidence one must be cautious. There is evidence that the "rebels" are being supplied with chemical weapons by Turkey and the GCC.

I did not ignore the 70,000 killed in the war thus far. What you refuse to acknowledge is that the fighting is fuelled by foreign intervention. There is no reliable attribution to who caused how many deaths. Any number is too many and at least one way to reduce the carnage is to stop arming jihadists groups that are intent on overthrowing a sovereign government and replacing it with a version of Sunni militant fundamentalism, as may be seen in the areas the "rebels" already hold.

Israel's attack is an act of war contrary to the UN Charter (although Israel is never bothered by that as they do it regularly). There has been plenty of time for Labor and the Coalition to condemn this latest outrage but they haven't done so.

You say that the "intervention in Libya was a stunning success." If you really believe that then there is nothing I or others might say to put you in touch with reality.

I agree with James.
The rebels or jihadists (AKA U.S mercenaries) are suspected of deploying some sort of Sarin weapon in Syria, not the Assad forces.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188

There was an incident in Iraq in 2004 in which someone rigged an old Sarin shell with an explosive charge and used it as an IED against the Americans, I'd expect to see that sort of thing in Syria.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/4997808/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bomb-said-holddeadly-sarin-gas-explodes-iraq/#.UYdiToKp2E4
Nerve gas is extremely tricky to use in effectively in battle, that's why the most common chemical weapons used were choking and blister agents like chlorine or mustard gas or hydrogen cyanide and even those are extremely dangerous to the user as well as the target.

Where would we be now?
shadow Minister,
I'd re-phrase that to where could we be now ?

This is very similar to Julie Bishop's articles on foreign policy.

They take a straight-by-the-book stance that assumes every Western media release and Washington-consensus statement is gospel truth. This stance also assumes that all the disastrous military actions taken in the past against countries whose leaders we don't like, if repeated often enough, will eventually bring us the exact perfect military outcome we want this time around.

They are also dependent on the intractable Western belief system that we are the good guys and that any and all catastrophic destruction we bring down on the populations of countries whose leaders we don't like is for the purpose of protecting them from the leaders we don't like.

And if we still fail to be convinced, bring up the good ol' Chamberlain defence.