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

I think at this juncture that we can all welcome the new US Ambassador to Australia, John Berry, to explain why Australia should back a US strike on Syria.

John after all, was in the US military and his new husband, Curtis, is an ironman http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/18/meet-john-berry-us-ambassador-australia .

We now have several arguments to explain US eagerness to swipe Syria:
- To destabilise Iran.
- To keep other anti-Assad Arab allies on side.
- To dominate the region.
- To secure access to oil.
- To maintain profits for US based business.
- Because the Israelis are dictating policy to the US.
Why do I remain unconvinced? I guess its because each of these individual arguments is contestable. And because all of them put together sounds like a massive conspiracy, spanning the whole gamut of everything that is conservative/neo-liberal/capitalist/Anglo-Saxon, etc.
My plea is that we do not mistake what is possible, even plausible, for what is real. I say again, I deplore US meddling in all sorts of corners of the world. And I accept that furthering US interests goes a long way to understanding such meddling. But I also understand that humans, even powerful ones, often fly by the seat of their pants. Politics, as I see it, is a game of opportunism. And governments' idea of strategic rarely exceeds the next election.

I do hope that Ambassador John Berry's husband, who according to those strange individuals who have an interest in these things, is an iron-man, doesn't go rusty!

WD-40 will help to keep the rust away along with the occasional all over rub with fine wet and dry.

Keeping the pipes rust free requires more effort but I'm sure Ambassador Berry is proficient in the ins and outs of these delicate areas!

On another issue, I wonder if Berry will run the American spy-network from the Embassy as did his predecessor?

Doubtless there will be a conga-line of political arse-lickers from the Tory Party eager to show to the U.S. just how sycophantic most Australians are and how anxious they are to serve in endless U.S. wars!

The other major reason for war on Syria is financial. The US has military bases in about 130 countries and they are causing more financial problems than they are worth. Added to that, the $700+ billion US military budget (not including a comparable amount given to subsidiary defense spending) has to be justified on a year-by-year basis.

The Pentagon can’t keep justifying its out-of-control military budget in the absence of war, especially now that neoliberalism and globalisation have bankrupted the non-military US economy. A similar problem is faced by the handful of corporations that control the global financial markets, many of whom are directly or indirectly involved with US military and defense spending. An absence of war means that their lucrative supply of defense-related contracts dries up.

Picking regular wars with small countries – Serbia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Libya and now Syria – is the perfect propaganda cocktail for keeping the Pentagon’s war budget healthy, while keeping the conflicts away from any direct threat to US home soil. Apart from the fact that they are small countries offering no real threat to the US, the one thing they have in common is that they do not go along with the Washington consensus.

As with all imperial ventures throughout history, these conflicts are essentially coward’s wars.

Obama fears assassination. Ray McGovern is an ex-CIA senior analyst. Obama when asked why he did not do the right thing in power said,"Don't you remember what they did to Martin Luther King Jr ?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gz3XwHyrVsQ

Obama is just another puppet who does mostly as he's told but to his credit is trying to stop WW3.

What a terrible link Arjay! Really, a youtube video, with some guy doing a voice over and a still shot of Ray McGovern from an unrelated interview. I'm interested in see all points of view, but this just has no credibility at all!

I reckon that naked little girl running down that road in Viet Nam would agree with Rhrosty's comment that Napalm is a particularly effective accelerant. Little doubt that she was accelerating.

Stezza. I know Ray McGovern's voice very well. He is not lying. Karen Hudes was a senior lawyer and whistle blower for the World Bank agrees.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owanSt6XnmM

David Smith hates the USA for some unknown reason, and he is prepared to write an article which is full of gross exaggeration to "prove" that the USA is as bad as Nazi Germany. He dishonestly equates white phosphorous and depleted uranium weapons with mustard gas and Sarin nerve gas on the totally spurious grounds that these are all "chemicals." By that standard, every army on planet Earth is guilty of using "chemical weapons" because even gunpowder is a "chemical."

If David Smith hates the USA so much and he wants us to agree with him, the onus is upon him to put forth a reasoned argument as to why we should agree with him. Writing an article which any teenager can see is a gross misrepresentation of the facts only convinces his opponents that he and his US hating friends will stoop to any subterfuge or misrepresentation to convince the naive and immature of his perverted worldview.

Memo to David. If you want educated and intelligent people to take you seriously then knock off the creative thinking which is needed to claim that black is somehow white. Nobody but Geoff or Perth, Arjay and Davod G are dumb enough to think that President Barrack Obama is the devil incarnate, who after getting into power on the peace vote now wants to conquer the world.

Such a worldview is childish. Your logic reminds me of a resident who lives in a crime prone neighbourhood who never ceases to blame the police for the situation that they find themselves in. The Shiites and Alawites are at war with the Sunnis in Syria, but all you want to do is criticise the Americans who are not even involved in that conflict. You can't even wait until the USA is involved before you start thinking up sinister reasons for any US intervention. Won't you be disapointed if the yanks do not get involved and both sides start using poison gas on each others civilians? Then you can get creative thinking up stupid reasons why the yanks were evil for not getting involved.