LORD WEST OF SPITHEAD - Former First Sea Lord and security adviser in Gordon Brown’s Labour government: ‘We have to be absolutely crystal clear in our own minds that the use of chemical weapons was by the regime. I’m very wary of military action, even if it is a limited missile strike. What do we hope to achieve? Where will it lead?

LORD KING OF BRIDGWATER - Defence Secretary during the First Gulf War: ‘There are no good options, only the least worst ones. I’m very wary of getting involved militarily in the teeth of a major sectarian Sunni-Shia bust-up that could affect the whole region. That’s why it’s so urgent that we get around the table to find a diplomatic and political solution.’

MAJOR GENERAL JULIAN THOMPSON - Ex-Royal Marines officer who led 3 Commando Brigade during Falklands War: ‘The attack in Damascus last week has altered the conflict dramatically because it has aroused a considerable amount of odium around the world. There is a perception that Assad is poking us in the eye; if we let him get away with this chemical attack, what will he try next? But I’m wary of acting if we don’t know what the consequences will be.’

VICE-ADMIRAL SIR JEREMY BLACKHAM - Former Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff in 1999: ‘I strongly condemn the use of chemical weapons, which is illegal, and the idea of a punishment strike is not at all unreasonable: how else is international law to be upheld? However, it would be most imprudent to do it without careful consideration of, and proper preparation for, the range of consequences which might follow. This is not a very nice dilemma and the answer is not at all obvious.’

COLONEL RICHARD KEMP - Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan: ‘If the Syrian regime carried out a nerve agent attack, then a limited but devastating surgical air strike is not only justified but necessary in order to send a clear message to Assad. But we must not be drawn into a protracted campaign, either in the air or on the ground. It would not be long before all sides turned against us. And while it will be possible – under the table – to square a swift and limited intervention with Russia, a wider operation would be much more likely to develop into a proxy war or worse. Nor should we supply rebel fighters dominated by Islamist extremists with anti-aircraft or anti-armour missiles: they are sworn enemies of the West.’

GENERAL SIR MICHAEL ROSE - Former SAS commander and leader of United Nations Protection Force in Bosnia in 1994-95: ‘The credibility of America hinges on Obama doing something after he said use of chemical weapons was a “red line” that couldn’t be crossed. We don’t know what the outcome is going to be, and we could end up with people in power who are worse even than Assad. This is a total lose-lose situation for the people of Syria. But however terrible their suffering is with Assad and his brutal ways, the end result of an escalating arms race will be to make things worse. The suffering will only be greater.’

Downing Street has told the media that we may expect to see Western cruise missiles launched against Syrian government installations within a matter of days. Parliament is expected to be recalled to debate the issue today, which presumably means that air strikes may follow soon after. Downing Street has not, however, indicated what the purpose or expectations of such strikes should be, save to give President Assad a severe whacking.

We can all see that Syria’s leader is an evil and murderous dictator. It is probably true that he is using chemical weapons against his enemies. Russia’s support for Assad lays bare the nastiness of the regime of President Vladimir Putin, who aspires to play the part of a pocket Stalin. But it is one thing to recognise the iniquity of the Syrian government and its allies, and quite another to entangle the US and Britain in a military campaign of which it is impossible to foresee a happy ending.

All the options for President Obama and Europe’s leaders are bad, as everyone except David Cameron and the idiotic President Francois Hollande of France can see. Syria is riven by warring factions, each holding chunks of territory. The Israelis have already mounted bombing raids in response to the intervention of the Hezbollah militias, their most deadly enemies. Iran has sent fighters to aid the regime.

If the struggle drags on, as it probably will, the whole region could be drawn into strife. The foremost reason Britain’s military, intelligence and diplomatic establishments have united to oppose intervention is that they do not believe any of the available options — notably air strikes and arms deliveries to the insurgents — will end the struggle. They will merely keep the bloody game in play and possibly make it much worse by precipitating a showdown with Russia.

"President (Barack) Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," Kerry said in the most forceful US reaction yet to the August 21 attack.

Speaking after UN chemical weapons experts came under sniper fire on their way to investigate the scene of the attack, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the use of chemical weapons was undeniable and "there is very little doubt in our mind that the Syrian regime is culpable." Kerry said Obama was consulting with allies before he decides on how to respond.

"What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry told reporters. "The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable. And despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured, it is undeniable."

The 15-nation council has been split on Syria since 2011. Russia, President Bashar al-Assad's ally, and China have vetoed three resolutions condemning Assad and calling for punitive steps against his government. But the United States has intervened in conflicts before without Security Council backing, most notably in the Kosovo War in 1999, and could do so again.

Any strike by the United States, Britain, France and others without a clear UN mandate would likely infuriate Russia, which could be expected to denounce it as illegal. Richard Haas, president of the US Council on Foreign Relations think tank, rejected the idea - suggested by Russia - that a Western attack on Syria would need UN approval.

"The UN Security Council is not the sole or unique custodian about what is legal and what is legitimate, and, as many have pointed out, it was bypassed at the time of Kosovo," he told reporters in a conference call. Legitimacy for a strike on Syria, Haas said, could come from a "coalition of the willing" of individual countries that support retaliation against Assad to demonstrate that the use of weapons of mass destruction will not be tolerated. That coalition could include Arab countries and have formal backing from NATO or other institutions, he said.

Last week Barack Obama had convened an emergency meeting to discuss the violent crackdown against the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, only for the US president to find himself confronted with an even more dramatic challenge – a chemical weapon attack in Syria. Both events pose obvious and immediate policy challenges. Should American aid to Egypt be cut off? Should the US make military strikes against Syria? The case for military action against Bashar al-Assad’s regime is gathering international momentum: Britain, France and Germany have all indicated support for military [intervention].

How America responds will, in part, be dictated by how firmly Mr Obama decides to stick to his foreign policy strategy: he wants to lessen American involvement in the Middle East, so allowing him to concentrate on domestic reforms, addressing the rise of China and the perfection of his golf swing.

Where possible, Mr Obama has preferred to let allies take more of the strain of unfolding events in the region. He let Britain and France take the lead in military operations in Libya – albeit with indispensable American help. Ideally, he would also like to respond to turmoil in the Middle East in concert with a group of like-minded regional allies. But there is a big problem with that strategy. Traditionally, US policy in the region rested on strong relations with five crucial players: Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and the Gulf states. Whatever their differences on the surface, all these nations were status quo powers.

However, the old status quo in the Middle East no longer exists – and America’s traditional allies are now all pulling in different directions. The result is that the Obama administration will find it extremely difficult to forge a common regional approach to the turmoil. The situation in Egypt, more than Syria, has created irreconcilable differences between the US’s partners.

Speaking to an Arabic-language radio station operated by the United States, Syria's Deputy Information Minister Halaf Al-Maftah said that Israel would face not only Syria in the event that the US, Britain and France attempted to unseat Bashar al-Assad. A coalition consisting of Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria would respond to any attack against Assad with a response against Israel. In addition, terrorist groups in Syria and Lebanon would attack Israel with full force.

Al-Maftah added that Syria has “strategic weapons” that it would use in its attack on Israel. He did not specify what those weapons were. “Syria is ready to deal with all scenarios,” said Al-Maftah. “We consider these declarations of a possible attack as a form of psychological warfare and pressure on Syria. We are not worried about them. We hope that those threatening us will listen closely to what we are saying. We believe that the only solution for the Syrian issue is a political one,” he added.

In recent days, the US has sent warships off Syria's coast, with the assumption being that they were waiting for word from the White House to attack Syria and remove Assad from power. Over the weekend, the US Navy expanded its presence in the Mediterranean Sea with a fourth cruise-missile-armed warship.

"Using force without UN Security Council backing is a blatant violation of international law that will only worsen the situation on the ground," Lavrov told reporters in Moscow. Russia would not allow itself be drawn into a fight, he said. "Look at our position over the last years", he said, referring to Libya, Yugoslavia and Iraq, where Moscow did not offer a directly military response.

Mr Lew said that in such a case it will be unable to meet obligations such as pensions, military salaries and Medicare payments. The country's borrowing limit is currently capped at $16.7 trillion (£10.7 trillion). "Extraordinary measures are projected to be exhausted in the middle of October," Mr Lew said in a letter to House Speaker John Boehner and other lawmakers.

"At that point, the US will have reached the limit of its borrowing authority, and Treasury would be left to fund the government with only the cash we have on hand on any given day," he said. The cash balance at that time is forecast to be about $50 billion, which Mr Lew said, would be "insufficient to cover net expenditures for an extended period".

He warned that a delay in raising the limit "would cause irreparable harm to the American economy". He explained that if investors become unwilling to loan to the United States, the country could face an immediate cash shortfall. "Such a scenario could undermine financial markets and result in significant disruptions to the economy," he said.

The Daily Treasury Statement released today showed the status of the government’s accounts as of the close of business on Friday, August 23. Because the Treasury does no business over the weekend, the federal government’s debt did not change on Saturday or Sunday.

The statement for August 23 said the federal debt subject to the legal limit set by Congress was $16,699,396,000,000 — or $25 million below the current limit of $16,699,421,000,000. Every Daily Treasury Statement since May 17 has also shown the legally limited debt at $16,699,396,000,000, or $25 million below the limit. During the 100-day period from Friday, May 17 to Sunday, August 25, according to the Treasury, the legally limited debt of the federal government did not change.

On May 17, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew sent House Speaker John Boehner a letter indicating that the Treasury was then hitting the legal limit on the debt and that he would begin using “extraordinary measures” to allow the government to continue borrowing money without exceeding that limit.

The market for dollar-denominated junk-rated debt has expanded more than eightfold since the end of 1997 from $243 billion, according to Morgan Stanley. That compares with a quadrupling of the investment-grade market to $4.2 trillion as tracked by the Bank of America Merrill Lynch US Corporate Index.

While Federal Reserve policies have pushed investors toward riskier investments to generate high yields, allowing even the neediest companies that might otherwise default to access capital markets, concern is rising that missed payments may soar when benchmark rates begin to increase. Martin Feldstein, a past president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, said last week that low rates should be allowed to rise because they’re driving investors into risky behavior.

“The growth in the market, and volume of supply is less important than quality of issuance,” Adam Richmond, a credit strategist at Morgan Stanley in New York, said in a telephone interview. “When we see a heavy volume of lower-quality deals, that’s when you need to worry a little bit.”

This from a 2010 Genie Energy press release: Claude Pupkin, CEO of Genie Oil and Gas, commented, “Genie’s success will ultimately depend, in part, on access to the expertise of the oil and gas industry and to the financial markets. Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch are extremely well regarded by and connected to leaders in these sectors. Their guidance and participation will prove invaluable.”

“I am grateful to Howard Jonas and IDT for the opportunity to invest in this important initiative,” Lord Rothschild said. “Rupert Murdoch’s extraordinary achievements speak for themselves and we are very pleased he has agreed to be our partner. Genie Energy is making good technological progress to tap the world’s substantial oil shale deposits which could transform the future prospects of Israel, the Middle East and our allies around the world.”

Hedge funds, meanwhile, are also dumping Monsanto stock, most likely due to sharply increased "negative sentiment." This means people increasingly don't like Monsanto, and that's a direct result of all the growing realizations about the dangers of GMOs, Monsanto's predatory business practices, the company's dangerous experiments that have already unleashed genetic pollution, and the fact that GM corn has been experimentally found to cause widespread cancer tumors in rat studies.

Just the fact that Monsanto's GE wheat trials got out of control and contaminated a wheat field in Oregon - causing Japan and South Korea to ban U.S. wheat imports - has resulted in 150 groups now demanding the USDA keep a tighter lid on Monsanto's GMO experiments. These groups are fed up with seeing the market value of their crops destroyed by sloppy "open field" experiments being conducted by Monsanto that spread genetic pollution across the country and contaminate non-GMO crops.

The use of chemical weapons is beyond the pale, we’re told, and must be met with force to show Assad and the world that it is unacceptable. But it’s important to remember that Washington doesn’t view the use of chemical weapons as unacceptable always and everywhere. The US supported Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in its war against Iran throughout the 1980s, even as they knew Saddam was deploying chemical weapons on a scale far more devastating than anything seen in Syria to date.

Indeed, it isn’t enough to say that we supported Hussein while he was deploying chemical weapons; we supplied him with intelligence about what Iranian targets to hit with the expectation that he would attack with chemical weapons. We then proceeded to block Iranian attempts to bring a case against Iraq to the United Nations.

From 2004 to 2007, the Bush administration persuaded the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to define massive, overwhelmingly innocent clusters of communications data as terrorism-related “facilities” subject to authorized US surveillance. In 2009, US officials labeled the Fort Hood shooter a “terrorist” for killing fellow US military personnel. In 2010, the CIA designated the fatal bombing of its drone-war operators in Afghanistan as a “terrorist attack.”

Now the United Kingdom has pushed the definition one step further. It detained David Miranda, the domestic partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for nine hours at Heathrow Airport - threatening him, interrogating him, and confiscating his laptop and other storage devices - under an anti-terrorism law.

According to the UK, this statute authorizes detention and confiscation because Miranda’s documents expose sweeping government surveillance methods and therefore, if released, might help terrorists evade that surveillance. Counterterrorism now justifies the use of force to prevent the exposure of domestic spying.

The Rim Fire is now raining ash on a key reservoir that supplies water and hydro-electric power to San Francisco. City officials say they are moving water to lower reservoirs and monitoring supplies for contamination. The blaze is also threatening thousands of homes and some of California's renowned giant sequoia trees.

On Monday officials said the fire was 15% contained after burning for more than a week - up from 2% containment on Friday. Strong winds are making the fires more difficult to control. "This fire has continued to pose every challenge that there can be on a fire," said Daniel Berlant of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

The blaze began on 17 August in the Stanislaus National Forest but the cause is still unknown.