Just because you should do something doesn't mean you ought to. That might sum up one way of thinking about whether the United States should bomb Syria in response to the horrific chemical weapons attack presumably launched by regime forces against civilians earlier this month.

The Syrian conflict is reaching critical mass. Reports of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government is forcing regional and global leaders, including the United States, to act. The UK parliament just gave an emphatic no to Prime Minister David Cameron's proposal for military intervention. Lines of varying color have been drawn and naval ships are on standby. Oh, and Russia is being Russia. So what are President Obama's options?

It’s not about saving Syrian lives. It’s about Obama saving face. This is how one Syrian, Abdullah Omar, describes the US proposal to carry out limited strikes against the regime of Bashar al-Assad in the wake of a suspected chemical weapons attack against civilians last week. Omar lives in a rebel-held town near Turkey, where he and his family assist refugees turned away from the Turkish border.

A Facebook post said to be written by the 11-year-old son of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, and “liked” or commented on by several people who appear to be the children and grandchildren of other senior members of Mr. Assad’s government, may offer a glimpse into the mindset of Syria’s ruling elite as the country braces for a potential Western strike in response to a chemical weapons attack on Aug. 21.

Hours after US officials declared that the United States may launch missile strikes against the Syrian government, pro-Assad hackers known as the Syrian Electronic Army hijacked the domain name servers of several media companies. The New York Times website was down for several hours, although the company quickly established a backup site to continue their reporting. The DNS of Twitter and Huffington Post UK were also hacked, redirecting users to a server that appeared to be hosted by the SEA.

"Quick, run, run," shouts Kurdish commander Roshna Akeed, as she orders two young female fighters to move toward a brick wall that represents the front line between Kurdish forces and al Qaeda-linked militants in this northern Syrian town. Six male Kurdish fighters are already guarding this part of the front. They have removed some of the bricks from the five foot-high wall, and their guns peak through small holes toward the enemy, which is positioned in a hamlet roughly one-third of a mile away.

It seems to have taken an apparent chemical weapons attack killing hundreds in Syria to bring human rights into the foreign policy debate of the Australian elections. Until these horrific events in Syria, human rights have been a glaring omission from the foreign policy agendas of both the Labor Party and the Coalition.

In the past week, social media masses have swiftly begun to unleash their ire with user generated content poking fun at the big players in the Syrian conflict. Social media users were torn between those who mocked Assad for getting the cold shoulder treatment by Russian’s Putin, whilst others channeled their creativity to portray that Assad is a victim of a global conspiracy.