I wonder how many farmers realize that the insecticides they use to protect their crops trace their origins to the poison gases developed as weapons during and after World War I?  That people have benefited from the higher yields these poisons have made possible is a reminder that good can come from bad things  — just as bad can come from good things.

Rarely has separating good from bad been more difficult than in deciding what, if anything, America can and should do in Syria.  For two years now Syrian rebels have been battling the regime of former London optometrist turned brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad.  Since it began in March of 2011, an estimated 100,000 people have died, half of them civilians.  And another 2 million people have fled to neighboring countries, creating a huge refugee crisis.

In addition to all this human suffering there is also great concern because Syria has a substantial arsenal of Russian-made chemical weapons.  President Obama appeared to make it very clear that the U.S. would not tolerate the use of those weapons against the rebels, declaring that to be a “red line” Assad had better not cross.

But the trouble with ultimatums is you have to be ready to carry them out if the other party doesn’t back down.  Reports have been coming in for months indicating that poison gas has been used, but America has done nothing in response – claiming only that more information was needed.  This despite calls from many on both the Right and the Left demanding action to end the suffering of the Syrian people.

Last week thousands of Syrian citizens were injured and hundreds killed in what is believed to have been a “neurotoxic” agent – some form of poison gas.

No one (except Assad) denies that there is a great humanitarian crisis taking place while the rest of the world sits by doing little or nothing.  Some urge sending additional arms and ammunition to the rebels so they can overthrow Assad.  But exactly who are these rebels?  Originally they were young pro-democracy demonstrators guided by the dream of a free and fair society.  But beyond this they had little cohesion or organization.  This made them ripe for infiltration by fundamentalist Muslims, including groups allied with al-Qaida.  There’s a very real danger that if/when the rebels do overthrow Assad, the arms we’ve supplied will then be turned against us in terrorist attacks.

Enforcing a “no-fly” zone has also been proposed.  This seems to have aided rebels in taking control of Libya.  But the chemical attacks last Wednesday came via rockets, something a no-fly zone could not prevent.  There has even been talk of seizing the chemical weapons depots, but it is believed many weapons have already been moved, making them that much harder to locate.

To really take control of the situation would require a full-scale invasion of Syria, an invasion that experts estimate would require at least 75,000 troops.  These troops would have to stay there for years to prevent Syria from breaking – like Iraq — into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish factions, all at war with one another.

Usually when I discuss a problem in a column I try to suggest a possible solution, but here I can’t.  Because of the devils in the details, we’re damned no matter how we choose to intervene.  Because of the terrible human cost of this war, though, we’re morally damned if we don’t intervene.  They say the road to Hell is paved with good intentions; it would be hard to find a better example of this than the appalling situation in Syria.

P.S.  As I went online to post this I received an email from a German friend currently in Lebanon (which neighbors Syria).  He said “The Christians in Lebanon (and neighboring countries) are an endangered species. A local Christian taxi driver recently told me that he wanted to die in Lebanon. Although he meant that he does not want to emigrate, when our churches get torched by radical Muslims equipped with American or Saudi weapons his wish might be granted.”

He then quoted Shakespeare in regard to the hope Obama once inspired in many, saying,

“Now is the winter of our discontent
Made glorious summer by this son of York;
And all the clouds that low’r’d upon our house
In the deep bosom of the ocean buried.

He then added:

 “Looks like the ocean has released the clouds we hoped to be contained.  [King] Richard’s fate should be a warning to [Obama]…

Best to you sitting safe in the homeland while your elite plays with fire at other people’s expense.”

Recently someone mentioned to me that no one can effectively proof read their own writing.  And buy and large that’s true.  For many years now I’ve been blessed to have Donna Smith as my proof reader.  But after that comet about proof reading, I’ve decided to prove that I can right just fine without any help.

After all, this is the 21^st century and for decades now computers have included spell checkers – if you can just get reasonably close to spelling a word correctly the computer will take care of the details.

To err – especially when spelling — is human, but part of the glory of computers is there inability to err.  Computers are highly-evolved calculators – they function at the most basic level by adding and subtracting binary numbers – so just as there can only be one write answer to a math problem, anything else a computer does is just as clear-cut and error free.

If a computer does encounter an error it will freeze, thereby letting the user know that he or she has done something incredibly stupid and the machine can know longer justify wasting its valuable time working with an idiot.  Only a good dose of penitence will prevail upon the computer to relent and start working again.  Usually this requires calls to technical support, which are the modern equivalent of wearing a hair shirt and walking on one’s knees all the way to Jerusalem.

That computers even exist is an acknowledgement that people are excessively error-prone.  Computers are the manifestation of our ideal of metal perfection, the electronic avatar of a properly functioning mind.

For centuries humans have tried to wrap their feeble mines around such perplexing problems as how many stars are in the sky, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and how much a CEO’s compensation package really adds up too.  All these questions involve numbers and too help answer them people first invented the abacus.  Over the ages the abacus evolved into the adding machine and finally the electronic computer.  Operating at speeds two fast too comprehend (maybe we should ask a computer too explain), computers perform millions of repetitive tasks in an instant, tasks that would take humans months, years or even forever to perform (that reminds me – I need to ask my computer just how long forever is).

Computers and computer-based devices like smart phones and GPS units are so indispensable that doctors have now coined the term “digital dementia” to describe people’s increasing inability to perform simple math, remember important numbers and dates and even to find their way from one place to another without electronic assistance.  But who cares?  Those are all things that people have never bin very good at.  (I recently answered my wife Lori’s query regarding the date of our anniversary as “June 31^st” which she informed me was wrong – it seems the last day of June isn’t the 31^st, but how was I to no, I wasn’t at my computer?)

Humans are complex and emotional creatures and often our feelings overrule our logic.  This has long been a source of trouble and it is a testament to our inventiveness that we have compensated by creating computers.  Utopia is now upon us – or at least it will bee after I spend a few hours on hold to India in order to find out how to get this dam column to print!