Hi Saltpetre.

I loved your philosophising, and I knew straight away that your sort of muddle headed thinking is responsible for so much strife and division in the western world today.

It is a wonderful idea to think that human beings are intelligent and that we can think our way out of war. But human beings only think rationally when all other means are exhausted. Human beings are tribal and territorial, and no amount of good intentions is going to change our DNA. Every war on planet earth today is essentially a struggle between two or more competing cultures for dominance over a single territory. The question always begs. "Who's culture is running this place?"

Doe eyed idealists think that every war is caused by "oppressors" and "victims", but I put it to you that while in some cases that may be true, for most wars it is a pretty childish way of thinking.

Muslim men believe that they may have multiple wives and that females are minors, but in Australia we say that this is wrong. Are we "oppressing" Muslims because we will not allow them to follow the dictates of their stupid religion? And when civil war eventually erupts in Australia involving Muslims will you say that it was because the Australians "oppressed" them? Or was it a case of two incompatible value systems cohabiting on the same territory?

Next comes the fuzzy concept that all would be well with the world if everybody was equal. That is ironic because it is usually espoused by tertiary educated elites who think that they are God's gift to the human race and everybody else are just stupid peasants or money grubbing bourgeoisie. If there is one thing that life has taught me, it is that people are most definitely not equal. Equality is a nice principle among any social group but it can never be fully implemented because some people are definitely worth more than others and deserve more because of that.

Trying to create class blind societies failed, and trying to create race blind societies will fail also.

"Despite U.S. claims of "little doubt that Assad used these weapons," there is significant doubt among the international community about which side employed chemical weapons."

No there isn't. The evidence is very clear.

"Many view the so-called rebels as trying to create a situation to provoke U.S. intervention against Assad."

As the rebels don't have access to chemical weapons this is a spurious argument, at best based on hearsay.

Marjorie Cohn is at best a pacifist making up stuff to stop US involvement, at worst an apologist for a genocidal dictator.

And yet the Turkish press reported finding canisters containing sarin gas in the possessions of detained Syrian rebels just last month. Or was it the month before? Anyway, it seems the rebels do have access to chemical weapons.

Haldwell,

Perhaps you should read reputable news items, not take rumours reported as fact.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/us-syria-crisis-turkey-idUSBRE94T0YO20130530

" (Adana governor Huseyin Avni) Cos said unknown chemical materials were found during the raids and sent away for investigation. He denied media reports that a small amount of the nerve agent sarin had been uncovered."

It is not enough to make Sarin, you need to be able to deliver it.

from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
Testimony from victims of the conflict in Syria suggests rebels have used the nerve agent, sarin, a leading member of a UN commission of inquiry has said.
Carla Del Ponte told Swiss TV that there were "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof".
Ms Del Ponte did not rule out the possibility that government forces might also have used chemical weapons.
In other words, the jury is still out.
As to how rebels would obtain and deliver chemical weapons, can there be any doubt that agents provocateurs coming across from Israel and/or north from Jordan or south from Turkey would have access to everything in the West's larder?
Fortunately Obama has decided to hold off on any attack until he can get the OK from the US Congress. France has indicated they will wait on the same verdict. So I guess the question of whether to attack or not now rests with the Israeli lobby in Washington DC.

Haldwell,

Carla Del Ponte did not provide testimony, she made a comment in an interview at the early stages of the investigation, that there were some witness testimony that implied that the rebels used sarin gas.

The final verdict of the commission made no such finding.