Chemical Weapons in Syria

Chemical Weapons Attack in Syria:

On August 21st a massive chemical weapons attacked was conducted on rebel forces near Eastern Damascus.  The international group "Doctors Without Borders" said it tallied 355 people killed and more than 3,000 people displaying symptoms of a nerve gas.  The U.S. now puts the death toll at 1,429 people killed, many of whom were women and children.

Syria is currently engaged in a civil war.  The conflict has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the past two and a half years.  Also in this time 4.25 million people have been displaced within the country and 1.8 million have fled to neighboring countries according to U.N. figures.  Chemical weapons have been used before but on a smaller scale.  This most recent event was massive.  The Syrian regime has denied a role in the attacks, suggesting that anti-government rebels carried them out to frame Syrian President Assad.  U.N. Chief Ban Ki-moon pleaded for more time to allow a team  in Syria to establish the facts and give diplomacy another chance. 

The U.N. Security Council's five permanent members have met but failed to reach agreement to authorize military force against Syria per  Chapter 7 of the U.N. Charter to protect civilians from chemical weapons.  Russia and China have blocked past attempts to sanction Assad's regime.  Russia found  proof that Assad used the weapons "unconvincing".

British P.M. David Cameron was behind the U.N. resolution for action,  but Members of Parliament voted against taking part in a military action.  The use of chemical weapons by Assad crosses President Obama's "red line" and so the administration believes the U. S. must prove its credibility on the international stage by responding.   With no U.N. resolution and Great Britain out of the picture the U.S. will have to go it alone if it decides to act.  President Obama assures that the purpose  of any military response would be "to hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons , (to) deter this kind of behavior, and to degrade their capacity to carry it out."

So, the question is does humanitarianism compel  us to defend the rebels and their supports?  Is that our place?  What will the consequences be for the U.S. and our allies, particularly Israel. What effect will it have on the area at large?  Is their a diplomatic solution? What do you think?