Yesterday was a silent, sunlit, windless day. Only a few leaves have turned.

Maureen and I went down to Dartmouth un the morning to see her brother. In the evening the British parliament voted not to support a US-led military strike against Syria after it was reported that President Assad of Syria had used chemical weapons, namely sarin gas, against both civilians and opposition fighters.

On my timeline I had posted: “I don’t know what to think about this,” and attached  the headline in the New York Daily News that said: “The British Aren’t Coming”.

I got a lot of comments:

Evelyn: I am glad the British rejected. America acts like a rogue state sometimes.

Mikey: No Evelyn. We don’t gas civilians.

Evelyn: We are about to kill people in a state we dislike on inadequate evidence. The British were right to reject.

Maureen: I’m with Evelyn here.

Dennis: Do you think we should just walk away from a brutal dictator who flouts an international convention?

Evelyn: No, we must reinforce the international rule of law. But it has to be through the UN and other institutions like the International Criminal Court.

Dennis: Meanwhile car-bombs explode in crowded markets every day and dictators gas civilians?

Evelyn: Good people must carry on fighting for better world governance, press the institutions to do better.

Dennis: If nearly all the nations on the planet have agreed to a rule and they cannot or will not enforce it, surely someone has to lead. As long as we get our facts right, history will be on our side. I am ashamed of my country. We were once prepared to defend human rights.

Henry: This was a mistake by the British. I hope the US does not follow suit.

Maureen: Does that mean the UN can never work? It’s a hopeless project?

Henry: Maybe the UN can arbitrate some conflicts but the conflict between liberal democracy and autocracy runs too deep. We must be prepared to defend it. The questions is: how best to do that?