I think the neighbouring states have a key role in Syria, partly because the government’s actions are driving out so many refugees and they are suffering so much. The risk from a US-led aerial attack is that the people of Syria will suffer more and will flee the country in greater numbers than at present.

The Bulgarian situation was a war between states rather than a civil war, even if it was sectarian in nature.

The responsibility to protect principle says that states have a duty to protect their own citizens. Clearly this responsibility has been contravened in a grossly serious way with the use of chemical weapons (regardless of who has used them).

Thus, international law ought to support an intervention for peace and dialogue. It also would assist with the refugee situation in the region rather than making it a greater humanitarian crisis, which would be the result of a military intervention.

Since the UN is deeply flawed, like most organisations, I am less troubled by formal ‘UN approval’ than by the need for widespread international agreement about intervention – and a substantial ‘coalition of the willing’ to join in. The UN tells us that ‘Russia and China’ do not want to intervene but who knows what a majority of Russians and of Chinese would like to do? In the UK we know that a large majority is against intervention. This is not so much a matter of principle as of the unhappy outcomes of the Bush&Blair interventions in the West Asia. Gladstone was generally against foreign interventions but happy to hector other countries (notably Ottoman Turkey) on how they ought to behave.

The use of chemical weapons (by whoever used them) may result in the opinion that the conduct of a civil war in Syria is no longer legitimate under the Vienna Convention. Having Russia and China at the table with the Europe and the US would ensure that both parties to the war had equal status in the negotiations.

A forced peace is better than a forced war.

Yes, it would be good to let the deer out of their pens and return Greenwich Park to a deer park. I am not sure if there is an historic precedent for pleasure gardens and deer parks which could be followed to manage the issue of flowers?

I can see the case for intervening in Syria but do not think a quiver of cruise missiles or a hail of bombs would do any good to such a tragically war-torn country. But I can see no case for the UK getting involved without a UN mandate. Since the benefits of intervention are so uncertain I would rather see a protracted effort to shame the Russians and Chinese into agreement.
For Greenwich Park, the best thing would be to let the deer out of their pen. The problems would be with dogs, which could be kept on leads, and with flowers, which could be restricted to protected areas. Nice though it would be to have elephants I think the idea is highly impractical!

It also seems the use of chemical weapons is against the earlier Geneva Protocol.
[ http://www.international.gc.ca/arms-armes/non_nuclear-non_nucleaire/agreements-accords.aspx?lang=eng ] The Geneva Conventions are primarily about the conduct of war, and there are different kinds of war. The one is Syria is a civil war. I am not sure how the war against the Kurdish people was classified – perhaps it was genocide rather sectarian in nature?

I am not sure that initiating external warfare in a civil war situation is the right way to go. Perhaps there is an urgent need for state parties to agree to appropriate sanctions on the use of chemical weapons in different situations?

Are you proposing a new sort of zoo or safari park for Greenwich Park? Or should it be a nature sanctuary for British wildlife?

Me too re the elephant. And a very interesting classification of Dutch bicycle paths. One day, perhaps, English towns will be as well-run as Dutch towns. I think the English problem began in 1914, so perhaps it will draw towards a close after 2014. The problems, which we still see in the Tory and Liberal posturing over Syria, is partly a misplaced sense of pride in the old Empire and a well-placed sense of guilt about the wrong decision to enter the First World War (taken by a Liberal government) and its bad conduct (‘Lions led by donkeys’) by the old Ruling Class.
Greenwich Park has been very dry this summer. The grass looks like a savannah and I think we could easily find space for elephants to have a dirt bath. It was made as a deer park and the deer are now imprisioned in a small enclosure, supposedly for their own safety. I think elephants could roam the park and would have no problems with dogs.

Yes, it would be wonderful to design an elephant friendly town.

There seems to be some connection between elephant friendly design and cycle friendly design so I am thinking you are on the right track here.
[ http://wiki.coe.neu.edu/groups/nl2011transpo/wiki/695bc/ ]

Access to dirt and water showers seems to be a requirement? [ http://www.cruiseafrica.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/elephant_640.jpg ]

And flowers…[ http://s.ngm.com/2008/09/africa-elephant/img/elephant-flowers-615.jpg ]

Thank you for the images, which put me in mind of Robert Frost’s Road not taken
Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;
Not excluding the hotel, your photographs made me think ‘I chose the right road that time’ – until I got to the photograph of the elephant. I love elephants. Just think how wonderful Dodoma would be if had been designed as an elephant-friendly town. If such a thing is possible with African elephants then they should still do it. Indian towns often have elephants and they contribute much to Sri Lanka’s tourist industry. Elephants get on very well with humans who do not steal their tusks http://www.news.wisc.edu/story_images/569/original/Atwell_Elephant.jpg But African elephants are much more difficult to domesticate http://animals.nationalgeographic.co.uk/animals/mammals/african-elephant/

The problem with most development work is that it engages in ‘hut building’. That is it provides solid cheaply construct buildings. [ http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1352/4720491225_fa723f0016.jpg ]

And what results is worse than the adhoc ‘slums’ in design and urban [ http://www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Africa/Tanzania/Dodoma-2242402/TravelGuide-Dodoma.html ] quality (if not construction quality and sanitation). [ http://images.travelpod.com/users/forbes.thompson/1.1258693657.downtown-dodoma.jpg ]

Where are the elephants when you need them?! [ http://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/media/photo-s/01/43/12/04/dodoma.jpg ]