The West would be justified if they decided to attack Syria. Assad has proven to be a war criminal because has used chemical weapons against civilians. The international community agrees that he needs to be removed from power in order to guarantee the safety of innocent people in his country.
I think that there was more than enough justification to attack Syria. There has been footage found of dead Syrian people who have been tortured. Assad clearly has been and is doing horrible things to his own people. The bodies in the photos showed signs of mutilation, starvation, strangulation and many other horrible atrocities.
When there is a dictator using chemical weapons on his own citizens--thousands upon thousands of people--something needs to be done. He didn't listen to warnings from several countries and doesn't listen to his own people. What else can you do in a situation like that besides remove the person by force?
Enough said. We invaded two Middle Eastern nations already, a third one would be the nail in the coffin. Our economy, global reputation, global influence would all falter and our military would be bogged down in a conflict with an army that is much more trained than the Taliban. Plus the fact it would heavily destabilize the area.
I personally think that Syria should be justified to attack because of the intelligence of chemical attack to justify U.S. strike as well how it affected so many people. The Syria has affected the economy because of the justified attack. I personally think that it would better the government if Syria don't get worse.
At this time, I do not believe that there would be any reason to attack Syria. While they are having a very awful and drawn out civil war, that battle is a domestic dispute that they must solve among themselves. Hopefully they will eventually come to a resolution that will avoid further loss of life.