I am shocked and surprised that Parliament refused to back the British Government’s proposal to join the United States in launching military strikes on Syria without the authorisation of a UN Security Council Resolution. Because Russia and China are certain to block any such Resolution this means that America will have to go it alone, unless they can persuade France or Turkey to join the fray.
With US as one of the most powerful countries in the world, they are morally obliged to assist, more explicitly to liberate oppressed people. Though it may encroach into another sovereignty, it has to be done for the greater good of the Syrians. Even though Iran's Rouhani has threatened to launch an attack against Israel, it is preventable by striking key Iranian military and government installations and taking the once ruthless leaders to justice. This could be done by Israel due to their superior military force as compared to the relatively primitive military of Iran. In order to prevent a Nuclear strike on Israel and the US, the two countries could deploy the Patriot Interceptor Missiles to intercept the ICBMs. In accordance to the Geneva Protocol, only NON-CIVILIAN targets would be simultaneously struck to minimize civilian casualties and an effective retaliation. These operations could be conducted by the USSOCOM and the Israeli Sayeret to ensure a clean, surgical strike. Simultaneously, the US could enter Syria and liberate its oppressed people. Once a foothold has been established in Syria and Iran, Multinational forces (i.E. UN Peacekeepers) could enter and facilitate full regime change, for a better future for the 2 countries.
Do you really think that attacking another nation - regardless of what occurs in that country - is moral in any sort of way? This is an attempt by the US to assert part of their lost influence in the Middle East again. It all comes back to oil, which is what the Americans seek. Look at Iraq in 2003? Did they have any Weapons of Mass Destruction? Yeah right. Same with Syria today!
American people and western people are very very good and friendly.
If US government really want to do some good for the Syrian people, just let them go to US and to be American. Then they won't be in the bad situation as you think now. The world will be more peace when US save these kind people again and again.
The United States getting involved with Syria is just another example of how the United States is using it's military force in order to intervine in another country's affairs. Yes, there have been crimes against nature in Syria, but getting involved through force will only serve to make the situation worse. It would be better if the United States just stayed out of the conflict, or gave supplies to the rebels.
The people of Syria may need help from an outside entity, but it's not more violence they need. What they need is humanitarian intervention. An offer of help for each Syrian individual or family would be justified by virtue of being a voluntary interaction. If the US were to intervene militarily, in what way would that be voluntary or representing the will of Syrians? War is indiscriminate - many people who don't deserve to die will die. How is anything made better by piling onto that indiscriminate violence? It's certainly not justice that's being dealt, for there are no trials or verdicts decreeing anyone's death sentence, much less for the innocents who will inevitably become casualties of good intentions.