By injecting high explosive into a country peace will surely result, or will it?

US-French high explosive injections into Syria may involve such risks as:

- mass Syrian civilian deaths

- international and home-grown terrorist reactions (see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-07/us-orders-beirut-embassy-staff-to-leave-over-security-threats/4942302 of September 7, 2013)

- Assad or Hezbollah deciding to widen the war through shelling or firing missiles at Israel, Turkey and Jordan,

- Syrian use of anti-shipping missiles against tankers which would cause a large spike in world oil prices.

- all leading to an expansion of the war beyond the expectations of limited US-French involvement.

Pete

LEGO,

"But the yanks are tired of the ingratitude of the world when it comes to being the world's policeman," The "world's policeman" has killed millions in its various "interventions" since WW2 and naturally, the survivors of American "humanitarian" efforts often hate the bastards.

"The sensible thing to do would be for US ground forces to invade Syria and confiscate or destroy the vast stockpiles of chemical weapons that that idiot Assad has stored away"

Really? Sensible? The real reason that the Coalition nations invaded Iraq was that they probably knew that the country didn't possess WMD, it would be far more sensible not to invade Syria

Mr Quinlan's position as Australia's choice at the Security Council is probably the best thing we have going to organise some meaningful diplomatic maneuvers to deal with the horrific levels of violence in Syria.

"Violence is not overcome by violence,
but by forbearance."

-St John Chrysostom

Well, don't worry mac, this time the Ayrabs can gas, nuke, irradiate, shoot, bomb, starve, or infect each other to their hearts content and the yanks won't do a thing about it. This time the Ayrabs can hate each other.

May the best religious fruitcake win.

Much as some may think that the 'right' or 'sensible' thing to do is to 'attack' or to 'invade', this is all wrong.

It is time to turn the swords into ploughshares; not the other way around.

As reported in recent media, Assad has sent messages to many of the world's leaders seeking their understanding and forbearance, and appealing to their better nature and their demonstrated commitment to family and moral values.
It is therefore time to call Assad out; to call for him to demonstrate the courage of his 'espoused' convictions, and the 'honesty' of his 'appeal', by stepping down immediately and calling an election.
This should not be (or be construed to be) to call Assad's 'bluff', but must be a genuine offer of truce - subject to necessary conditions: a halt to all attacks on civilians or so-called rebels/insurgents; Assad's immediate stepping down; and the immediate commencement of dialogue between the regime and the leadership of 'opposition elements' to pursue an end to internal strife and the achievement of peace and stability; And on the understanding that, should any of these terms not be implemented fully and transparently, then Assad may be assured, in the strongest possible terms, that horrific vengeance WILL be rained down upon him and his regime.

Assad's choice; to put up, or shut up. No second chances.
And, a sound basis for the UN to resolve a course of action, entirely dependent on Assad's timely response.

I fear I was somewhat hasty in various aspects of my previous posting on this subject, and wish to make a correction.

Having reviewed more recent information on the situation in Syria, it appears that Assad may not be the great rogue some are portraying him as, and the greater fault (and hazard) may well rest with various of the so-called revolutionary 'groups' - some of whom are aligned with Al Qaeda and/or other radical Islamist interests - with religious 'cleansing' as a significant part of their agenda (as indicated by the attacks by some such forces on peace-loving Orthodox Christians, driving them from their homes).

It is well possible that more support should be given to Assad to quell and disband such rebel groups - with as little violence as possible - lest Syria should fall into an even worse mess than Egypt is currently experiencing, and with potential to draw the whole of the Middle East into one huge Islamic State subject to Sharia Law and sectarian governance.
Iran should give us a miniscule taste of what this could mean for relations with the West, and with Israel - and what might then become of the Israel/Palestine question.

Things are not always the way they seem at first light.
(Getting rid of Saddam has not turned out very well for Iraq, and Afghanistan is also still in a mess.)

The spectre of 'out of the frying pan ...' looms as a real possibility for Syria, should this situation be handled badly.
I feel The West (via Arab emissaries) would be wise to engage much more closely with Assad, and to review and evaluate the dire potentials of this situation, before leaping to any ill-founded conclusions or ill-fated actions.

To build, and not destroy, should be the vision for the 21st Century.