Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

That sounds like a version of "the riot squad are restless, they need somewhere to go."

How do you go about making the American/Russian/Chinese president sign up to giving it the powers you want?

if you ignore the universal reports that the military is highly disapproving of any actions against Syria. the word "insane" has been used.

But it's okay for the US to slaughter innocent folks. After all, we're on the moral side of this war. How many of our kills will balance the amount of kills by Assad?

Brits first in action. RAF Typhoons scrambled from Akrotiri.

Well--that's not quite true. It seems we supplied the gear to make Sarin. (Instructions on back of carton.)

scientific american has an interesting article that has it that it is probably impossible to tell if this sarin was industrial or homebrew, which tells me that it will be impossible to know from the scene who did this. regardless of who did you can bet your bottom dollar that it was sent on its way in Syrian Army shells, which the rebels have captured many of.

Good question it should be put in front of the members listed here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states

That list only proves that countries love to belong to international organizations - without the responsibilities. They love sending delegates to meetings in NYC to remind the rest of the world that they exist. They exude a lot of hot air in a somewhat outdated building, and accomplish nothing worth reporting in the media.

Another good topic to bring up.

But the UN does accomplish things which would not be accomplished if it wasn't there. And what it does accomplish is reported somewhere if not in media you allow yourself to consume.

If it doesn't accomplish things that you consider it ought to accomplish it is not a reason to belittle it.

It is in a similar position to the early Church.

How often would chemical weapons have been used if the UN had not ruled them out?

The idea of the early Church was to inhibit the powers of sovereigns in the interest of world peace.

The UN is a forum like the Philadephia Convention and the negotiations for the EEC. It is a place where national sovereignty is negotiated away very gradually in order to create world peace. A dream. A faith.

Maybe a pipe dream and maybe a misguided faith but the alternative is not a very enticing prospect. All nationalism is war mongering. The symbols surrounding its highest expressions are war-like.

It seems to me that we either rid ourselves of it or self-destruct. And just like ridding ourselves of sexual promiscuity was no easy task so will this project.

It is a flaw in Spengler's great book that he didn't consider a successful UN a possibility. He thought that the "hidden hand", MONEY, would end up the governor of the world and then collapse.

It is not an argument that because enough is not being done to meet with your approval the whole edifice is to be condemned.

I doubt my opinion is worth two cents to anyone here, nonetheless, I agree that the Obama administration in many ways fell below expectations for those who had expectations in regards to NSA, drones and detainees rights. However, I got to say, I am disappointed in the UN, the world and the Brits in regards to Syria. I mean, those people suffered who were gassed and died. It is not something the US made up out of thin air. Pictures are coming out and they should horrify anyone with half a conscience. (I don't want to hear it JTT) I don't understand why people think just saying that was a bad thing is doing any earthly good whatsoever which is basically all the UN is doing. The only way this situation relates to Iraq would be if ten years from now we decided to bomb Syria for what Assad did in August of 2013 so people hanging their hats on the background of Iraq do so on faulty logic. In this case, it is the world who is at fault for not doing anything about Syria situation and that is just how I feel about it. When we went into Kosovo, we didn't ask, well, what if Saddam Hussein uses it again and what happens afterwards. What is the difference now?

There's no smoking gun. I don't think anyone denies that chemical weapons were used, that innocent people died as a result, that civil war is hell, that there is much the world can do to intervene, or that sitting idly by while atrocities continue is inhumane.

It's a matter of trust. Without a smoking gun there's no way to know for sure. Why must we perpetuate the killing when we aren't 100% sure who the worst of the bad guys are? Be assured that people will die as a result of any intervention, some of them will be civilians.

I value your opinion, rev. The UN, the world, the Brits, now France and the US are taking a serious look at what it is we're proposing. That's not a bad thing, imo.

Of course chemical weapons were used and thousands of innocent people died - not only as a result of it but during that hell of a civil war.

I've just seen a report from a refugee camp of some thousands of Syrian Christians (in Harissa/Lebanon, which is a pilgrimage site as well, Our Lady of Lebanon) : not helped by Assad, chased by the rebels ... .
Their only hopes have been the prayers with the Pope that no attack will come: they are caught between two stools.

I saw a program on the Syrian refugee camp in SW Jordan. Over 100,000 people. Horrible conditions.

All three governments are as sure as they can be that Assad was the one who used them. He delayed five days the inspectors coming to sites until he bombed the suspected sites. There are intercepted messages with those in Assad regime, plus, it is nonsense that the rebels would kill so many of themselves and their children even if they had the capabilities of dispersing chemical agents on the scale which was used last month. I am not sure what people would accept as a smoking gun, but I suspect, not much.

When we went into Kosovo, I am sure that there were unintended loss of life. There has been thousands of loss of life so far in their civil war. I agree with McCain that more needs to be done to help the moderate rebels in Syria to help the tip the balance. Not all of the rebels are extremist who kill Christians. But even so, does that mean Assad just gets away with it with just as a "you are a bad boy" from the UN?

Nah! I always read your stuff, and there are many I don't even see. I may even come to agree on this issue, though there is no question in my mind that this was perpetrated by the Syrian government.

And we Europeans (especially those, living on the Balkan) still have to deal with this war/conflict. (For instance, Germany only now starts programs to help Kosovo refugees to return to their homeland[s].)

It seems that the Syrian intervention could last for 90 days. Which indicates that Obama's plan goes beyond just punitive measures.
What are the plans? The current situation has already destabilized Lebanon and Jordan - what will be the result for them and the other countries in the Near East during a longer war? Who's going to help them? And who's paying for that?

I agree; I'd only hate to see the US go at it alone. That's not how the world community should react to such atrocity, and let the US become the world police.

If that happens, nobody else will take any responsibility for future atrocities.