5 News has told you about the growing conflict in Syria, the use of chemical weapons by President Assad's regime, and the community's response to President Obama's announcement that he would seek a military response to the chemical attacks.
But will the United States have allies or will they have to walk this path alone?
America is on the brink of getting involved in another conflict in the Middle East, but this time without close ally Great Britain.
"It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that, and the government will act accordingly," British Prime Minister David Cameron told Parliament.
It came as a shock and a political blow to the United States and President Obama when Prime Minister David Cameron couldn't corral support in the British Parliament to approve a military response to President Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people in the Syrian Civil War.
Despite Britain's choice, some folks 5 News spoke to have said that they believe a response to Assad is a moral obligation.
"We're talking about a regime that's just straight-up killing their own people, and that's unacceptable through our standards and it's unacceptable through other people's standards. I'd say the United States absolutely has a moral obligation to go in and react to a government that doesn't care about it's own people," said WVU student Matt Nuti.
Even without Great Britain, the United States has found support from Syria's neighbor Turkey. Turkey lost two fighter pilots who were shot down in an airspace dispute during the Syrian Civil War.
The U.S. is also likely to have France as an ally. French President Francois Hollande has pledged his support to bringing military action against Sssad and the Syrian government. But with action against Syria could come unintended consequences. Russia and Iran share an alliance with Syria both militarily and economically, while China holds an economic interest in Syria.
"That will inevitably cause the start of World War III. With the amount of domestic problems we have going on in this country, I think that we should focus on those instead of getting involved in the affairs of other countries," Drew Pleasant told 5 News.
While fears of a world war are premature, President Obama has had to walk a careful line and has already pledged that he does not want to put any soldiers on the ground. He has made his disappointment with the international community for failing to respond to the Syrian Civil War earlier quite clear.
"Here's my question for Congress and for every member of the global community. What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price?" President Obama asked as he addressed the nation.
At this point, a proportional response seems to be the only option on the table, but there is still plenty of opposition at home.
Australia has also said that Assad must answer, but they have not said if they'll get involved militarily.
Sep 01, 2013 at 8:40 PMWould those who so quickly want to get into another countries civil war go sign up for military duty and go yourself, WVU student Matt Nuti? It's easy to sit at home and give your opinion when YOU aren't involved in sending a loved one or YOURSELF over there!