Thousands have been killed already with conventional weapons in the Syrian civil war, in addition 70 people have now been killed in an attack using chemical weapons. The UK, US and France did not take military action when bombs were raining down on highly populated cities.
The decision not to take military action, especially in a country where people are suffering at the hands of a leader like Assad, must be as difficult a choice to make as the decision to bomb.
I can't image what it must be like for the PM when the US president calls asking for support to conduct an air strike. Refusal would have consequences but a British PM should be strong enough to say no. History would look on Tony Blair's premiership very differently if he had said no when Bush called about Iraq.
If the interventions of the recent past teach us anything it is that dropping more bombs on an already bombed country is unlikely to bring about an end to the suffering of the people there. There are other arguments against the intervention; one bomb costs over half a million quid, we don't have the backing of UN and the decision has not been put before parliament.
Real leadership quality is pretty scarce on both sides of the Atlantic. The only politician who seems to provide an alternative voice to the rhetoric of war is Jeremy Corbyn. I hope that when these issues are debated in parliament voices like his are heard.