Here’s a reader response on Syria from Jose KL Sousa Santos:

Robert Ayson’s support ^[1] for possible US military action in response to the chemical attacks in Ghoula appears to be based upon an underlying assumption that the Assad regime is responsible for the attacks despite the absence of credible evidence.

That evidence may come if the UN inspectors are able to do their job and that is exactly what UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon is asking for. Time for the UN team to gather the evidence. This is not a time for emotional responses. As Ban Ki Moon pleaded, give peace a chance. The Syrian conflict has raged for over two year and a half years with the civilian death toll reaching Rwandan comparisons. The chemical attacks are without a doubt morally obscene and demand an international response. But ill-thought out military action would have substantial consequences for regional stability.  Ban Ki Moon has indicated his own red line; that the UN will not sanction military action without clear proof. This is a watershed moment for the UN and it clearly resonated with the British Parliament and public. One of the central lessons of Iraq is that if the case for war requires convincing the public sans proof, then cooler heads should prevail.