Which is exactly why we should not be involved. The Middle East is a mess of religious and fanatical factions that have no place in our society and in the same way we have no place in their society. Africa has pretty much the same problems but mainly there due to corrupt and inept government. I don't think the average American really understands how much they are disliked by the rest of the world.

The UN was built on the premise that international warfare such as we have witnessed in the last 100 or more years should have enough members within it that by mutual agreement this will not happen again. A major conflict between the USA and the USSR was only just averted after years of posturing getting closer and closer to the edge all the time.

If the USA had six hands, they still wouldn't have enough fingers to dip into every conflict that is happening worldwide and which doesn't suit their need for global power, their own internal groups, like the CIA, creating mayhem wherever they are covertly involved so that when the good guys, the USA and whoever they can rope in to do their dirty work, come along to sort it out they are seen as the saviours.

So, if we want to get into a USA, Russia and Chinese debacle, being pals with America in the the Middle East is the way to do it. We should have learned that lesson during the cold war.

I have every heartfelt sympathy with the children and the innocents in this disgusting civil war but if they don't care about their own people, why should we and in fact why should the USA. They stood back and watched us in the Falklands and in Northern Ireland, not that I believe either of those did us any favours, when we had tried to resolve the problem with an armed response. Let us now stand back in return.

Add in Yemen and Nigeria......

it does not matter who is the baddie.

if two kids are fighting in the playground & one grabs a stick to hit the other with, you don't step in, take away the stick & let them carry on punching each other. You certainly don't take sides.

you stop them fighting & get them to resolve what it was they were fighting about in the first place.

That is what numerous UN peacekeeping forces do around the world. Sadly they end up too often with bloody noses from both sides...

no one said it was easy.

sitting back & pontificating isn't the right answer.

Unfortunately, in the Middle East I think they have been fighting so long they've actually forgotten what it was about.

Doing nothing is not an option, agreed, but with an agency that I think should take the forward role (UN) apparently silent on the subject so far, and the US putting out their version of the truth ahead of the 'official' story I feel very uncomfortable we are being fed information to create a desire to send a gunboat.

For one, the story about the 'napalm raid' on the school has many odd characteristics.....

The US is taking sides. The analogy is flawed.

.. and I don't want to take sides based on their intelligence. I suspect an air of self serving bias might be the name of the game.

I sleep at night a little bit more easily knowing we are not entering into a conflict that doesn't have anything to do with us.

The "superpowers" think it's their job to tidy up, often for money, territory, control or oil, these sorts of countries and then wonder why these countries have terrorists which hate them and plan attacks against their people.

Ultimately we as a nation did not want to enter the conflict and this was made clear all along.

Err, no actually.

Fighting in the region mainly since the end of WW1 when we had to teach the Turks a lesson & broke up the Ottoman empire & redrew the map of the middle east with all those stringht lines that take no account of tribal, religious & regional differences.

more like lines equally spliting up the spoils of war.

And then of course giving in to terrorism after WW2 & creating Israel.

No it isn't flawed - that is the point I was making & why the Russians & Chinese won't agree to any action.

they have their sides & the US has its.

The flaw is that the action the US seems to be keen to take is not 'separating the sides', but helping one side advance its' cause. Bearing in mind where the majority of Syrian military materiel comes from Russia they cannot claim any high ground.

The politicians seem to be saying they want to act as peacekeepers, but their proposed methods seem to be anti-Government. Under current appearances what would replace - an Islamist and aggressive regime - is likely no more favourable?

Iraq all over again.