The post you are reporting:
If we could surgically remove Assad's WMDs without collateral damage (nigh-on impossible) I would be in favour of limited strikes. But the danger of making things far worse is too great, in my opinion. Then we have credible reports that the rebels also possess chemical weapons, (either looted from Government stores or provided by the Saudis), and that the 'attack' last month might have been an accidental release of gas. So what then? Syria is already deep in a multilateral civil war and much of the country is in a state of total anarchy. We should be putting our resources into humanitarian operations to help the one-third of Syria's population displaced by this conflict, not embarking upon courses of action, based on incomplete information, which may raise the temperature further and lead to further loss of life.
I would like to see Obama, Putin, Cameron and Hollande getting together with the Turks, Iraqis, Jordanians and Lebanese to develop an assistance plan for the innocent victims, not arguing over who is going to fire the first shot.
Two wrongs do not make a right.