Further to my posting yesterday, Will we bomb Syria? Yes, say press stories as papers urge Cameron not to do it, more papers give their views today.

The Financial Times's editorial is headlined "The moral case for intervention in Syria: There are no good options but to do nothing is the worst".

It believes the White House was right to dismiss Bashar al-Assad's assent to UN inspectors monitoring the area where chemical weapons were alleged to have been used as too little, too late.

The weight of evidence, says the FT, points to the culpability of the Assad regime because it "controls enormous stockpiles of chemical weapons, has the military capability to deploy them, and was conducting an offensive in the area on the day of the attack." The paper continues:

"Intervention is not about entering Syria's civil war. It is about sending a message to rogue states that the use of WMD will not be tolerated… Officials suggest intervention would be limited to a few targeted strikes on military assets – airfields or missile sites. This is understandable given the desire of western powers not to be drawn into a protracted civil war. While some will argue that such action is merely symbolic, it will send an important signal to the Assad regime – and other regimes – that the west cannot countenance the use of chemical weapons."

With President Obama having said that chemical weapons were a red line, "failure to act decisively would weaken his credibility further."

The FT concludes: "Military action bears risks. There are no good options to resolve the threat that Mr Assad poses to his own people and the wider world. But to do nothing would be the worst one of all."

But the FT also carries a blog by the former UN deputy secretary-general Mark Malloch-Brown in which he contends that "there is no military solution – only a political one."

He points out that "the uncharacteristic unity of the international community in demanding an investigation" made the Syrians budge. Malloch-Brown continues:

"It has created a slim chance that deft diplomatic action combined with a sharp, but limited, military response might bring all the parties to the peace table…. Stalwart allies of the regime, such as Russia and Iran, called for the UN investigation. The latter government has it own experiences as reason for detesting such weapons – and neither would want to be seen as believing the regime has something to hide."

Patrick Cockburn, writing in The Independent, also argues that the slaughter in Damascus should be seen "as an opportunity as well as a crime."

He also calls for a diplomatic initiative by foreign powers "to launch the much-delayed peace negotiations in Geneva." He writes:

"Peace conferences have the best chance of succeeding when one side knows it has won and wants to formalise its victory while the defeated want the best terms possible. Alternatively, peace negotiations may be productive when both sides are exhausted and come to realise they are not going to win a complete victory."

Lord (David) Owen, former foreign secretary, also appears eager for diplomacy in a Daily Mirror article "Why Syria crisis must be taken seriously by its allies in Russia".

"I'm wholly in favour of making it look like we are willing to act," he writes. "But this thing can only be brought to an end with Russia on board with us."

The Mirror itself is worried about David Cameron going to war without parliamentary support. It says: "MPs must be allowed a vote… before a single bomb is dropped or missile fired. There is widespread opposition to yet another war… Taking Britain to war shouldn't be the decision of one man."

The Daily Mail agrees, as its leader headline, "MPs must have the last word on Syria", indicates.

"No decision to involve Britain should be taken without the express consent of parliament," says the Mail:

"First, David Cameron needs to lay out the facts about the Damascus attack with none of the embellishment or lies spread by Tony Blair in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq… This, surely, must mean waiting for the report of the UN weapons inspectors, who braved sniper fire yesterday in their quest for the truth. Next, the prime minister must spell out precisely what he believes can be achieved by military action – and, crucially, how he would decide the mission is complete. If he aims merely to punish the use of chemical weapons, what guarantees can he offer that Britain will not be sucked further into the conflict, in support of rebels who include many hostile to the West? Above all, he needs to convince MPs that any intervention will ease the suffering in Syria, rather than prolonging and exacerbating it, as happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya."

An accompanying column by Max Hastings, "Immature advisers, moral indignation and the folly of wading into this bloody morass", is a trenchant polemic against any intervention.

He writes: "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."

And The Sun? After yesterday's spread, headlined "Kick his ass", the paper steps back from jingoistic sabre-rattling in its editorial today, "Listen to army".

Bashar al-Assad "is a monster", says the paper, but it's not a simple as attacking the Syrian president - or kicking his ass - so "before we take any action, we have to be certain what good it would do."

The army's leading general, Sir David Richards, "is convinced it would be a waste of time" and, anyway, parliament should decide, not the prime minister alone.

Now that's what I call a U-turn. Did editor David Dinsmore change his own mind, or was it changed for him?