Well, there we are. Common sense appears to be prevailing. It looks as though America and Russia have agreed to a plan to 'eliminate' Syria's chemical weapons. Isn't that a much better idea than a missile strike from America?
Simplistic reasoning. Whilst it might be possible to control some of the 'government' weapons, how do you achieve that with the 'rebel' forces, assuming that they have chemicals too? They agreed to nothing.
"Alongside that, a UN protectorate. Kick out the Islamists of Al-Qeada & their ilk, let a secular democracy arise" -Chairman Bill.
Isn't that pretty much what was supposed to be happening in Afghanistan? And who's to decide if Al.K is or is not unpopular? Or does popularity not apply in the Midle East as a basis for voting in a party? We seem to love it in the West, where the more impossible the dream on offer at election time, the more popularity and support it can get... Do we really, really want to waste even more money and resource via the UN?
IMO, as long as they stay willing to sell us oil, why stick unwelcome noses into their business? Any calls for our 'help' are but ploys to give whichever faction the muscle it takes to give them victory they can't get alone and unaided. They don't want us; they want our power to kill.