And Assad. Absolutely, Mubarak's and Assad's vice seems to have been money, while the other two openly supported international terrorism in one form or another as long as it was somewhere else. (Gadaffi stopped when he got bombed though). When Anwar Sadat got shot to pieces for trying to get along with Israel and Mubarak breezed into power he was considered (by us) the best president ever, a moderate and modern man friendly to the west. They all jailed anyone who could be a threat to their regimes, including Islamic extremists. The CBC today reports that the jihadis have a big recruiting drive on to pour fighters into Syria and we can't control who ends up running that country no matter what we do so maybe sending our few ships is a bad idea. Will they save lives should be the deciding factor. The drug and arms interdiction patrols they do in the gulf and anti piracy cruises still need to be done by someone. Rubbing out the engineers of the gas attack with a covert strike team just to send a message is a heart-warming thought, but unlikely imo. The mandate of. The mandate of the UN inspectors should have included checking out the cache of chemicals the army supposedly found but since the regime stalled them for nearly a week from getting into the target area that's probably won't happen. I think it was the army and Assad doesn't care because his back is to the wall. When he is gone the other civil war between the factions will continue.

Oh for goodness sake, where have I commented on the withdrawal or otherwise from Iraq? Why don't you stop trying to catch people out?

I worry daily about Syria and Lebanon as I have a very dear friend living in Beirut who has family in Damascus. I have not heard from him for some months. So pardon me for an emotional response.

Oh yes and I have seen chemical weapons burns at very close quarters.

Not to worry though, after all, the country is shit.

Everything looked so normal last month too according to the videos on the Syria tube site.

Check out this video Syriatube:

http://youtu.be/4D3Q8DC-abU

If you say so,.

As someone not in the military I'll not be quick to advocate sending Canadian troops (or UK/US/FR/EU/whoever) into what will obviously turn into a complete disaster.

Has intervention anywhere in the middle east/north africa/central asia ever really improved matters?

I don't agree with this but it would depend upon what they are tasked to do.

An ominous gathering of force may persuade the regime to act reasonably.

That would depend upon how you define "improved matters"

What exactly is that supposed to mean?

We have Western and Middle Eastern governments giving weapons to Al Qaeda and their friends to attack the Syrian government. How do you expect them to respond?

Now, suddenly, our 'rebel' friends are losing and Assad supposedly chooses to drop chemical weapons on them despite the fact that Obama has said it would be justification for America to bomb them (because chemicals are icky while bombs are not). The UN sends a team to inspect the supposed attack, but our 'rebel' friends shoot at them so they can't reach the site.

That makes total sense.

Of course, there are a large number of assumptions stated there.

Are you suggesting that no one is arming the Assad regime?

Do you believe that the Assad regime was justified in using chemical weapons?

I have no idea what is happening on the ground, just as I have no idea whether a gathering of force (as opposed to talking about doing so) would have the desired effect.

Unfortunately, the UN security council has shown time and time again that it is not really prepared to act to protect civilians.

Its an internal matter and has nothing to do with other countries.

That's one way of looking at it

.....I think the answer to that might be NO!

But why do 'we' decide to intervene in some situations, but just leave other Monsters to do what they want to the local populace with impunity...Zimbabwe and the Congo spring instantly to mind, but there are loads of others, with just as many innocent poor sods being slaughtered daily.

Is it what politicians want to be seen doing, or when what happens becomes more public knowledge? When you can ignore the wife beater next door until he beats her out on the front lawn?

Syria has had an appalling human rights record for years, under both Al Assads. There was no freedom of expression, even expats had to watch what they did abroad for fear of reprisals to their families back home. Torture and disappearances have long been inflicted on the people by this government.

Saddam used mustard gas against Iran, the US and the UK knew and did nothing because the wanted rid of the Iran govt.

So it has nothing to do with human rights and saving civilians but what the politicians can get out of it.

I think the key factor in most of these interventions is oil, gas, minerals etc. If you have nothing to offer to the west then they politicians turn a blind eye

It's hard to imagine someone wanting to pay $1,410,000 for a Tomahawk cruise missile + delivery to target, without them wanting some sort of ROI.