There does not appear to be an existing thread on the sitaution in Syria, not one that I found anyway, so I thought I'd raise the topic to provoke discussion.
What concerns me is how misrepresented the situation there is by the Western media, and how this may represent a softening up of public opinion in favour of an imperialist invasion.
The war is now effectively a sectarian civil war, not some kind of heroic battle of freedom against tyranny. This was recently and explicitly confirmed by a UN report under former Hague prosecutor Carla del Ponte, which found that no form of military intervention would improve things. Nevertheless, Western media sources continue to paint it as some kind of liberation struggle and argue that we should support the "rebels", when in actual fact the military assistance that has already been coverly given to them has escalated the conflict. They also constantly quote from unreliable anti-government sources such as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which consists of a single man who owns a clothes shop in Coventry, and report government attacks on places on the basis of little evidence.
Even long-time dictators will cave in without support (Ceaceascu crumpled like paper as his own army deserted him at the first sign of popular discontent), so it's clear that Assad has a signficant degree of support and therefore that an intervention opposed to him rather than a negotiated settlement aimed at power-sharing would harm rather than help the situation.
The most likely explanation for America's motive is to take out a long-time Soviet and now Russian ally and increase its strength in the Middle East under the guise of "humanitarianism".