This is such a well presented argument that I can only hope it gains a wide audience.
Luckily, the vote went against Cameron's rush to war in the House of Commons last night. Also, the UN is far from unanimous in thinking Syria needs smacking about with Tomahawks for what might yet prove to be a bogus claim of government-sanctioned chemical weapons use.
This all leaves the US maybe going it alone. Perhaps they will, although I can't quite believe they will be so obtuse. What price must we all pay for Obama's incautious statements about red lines and other arbitrary unilateral posturing?
More and more this strident rhetoric is looking like Obama pre-positioning himself for the coming G20 meeting in St Petersburg. Hopefully that is the case. Having been led up the garden path by Bush and Blair just over a decade ago, a path that soon turned into a prickle patch, the last thing the world needs is to blindly go there again.

Targeting military installations is hardly likely to kill civilians.
The Assad regime imported foreign mercenaries to kill its own people. It's not a big step from there to the use of chemical weapons, which they have, and hope the fog of war allows them to blame the rebels.
If anyone is truly concerned about civilian deaths, then the Assad regime must be removed along with all its inventory of chemical weapons.
Dictatorship is in their DNA, and therefore, there is no prospect the regime will accept a peaceful negotiated solution.
Not as long as they have the unholy alliance of a godless Russia and a God bothering Iran in their corner.
There is only one way for this conflict to end, and that is to change the balance in favor of the rebels. (Syrian civilians.)
The people, the Syrians can then take care of a mass murdering Tyrant, as they see fit.
If Russia wants to maintain any influence, they need to swing their support very much in favor of the Syrian freedom fighters or revolutionists, now today!
Let's face it, there is only one way this conflict can now end!
Some destruction of Assad's military hardware and resources, would likely swing the balance in favor of the freedom fighters, particularly if it were backed up with a no fly zone.
Arming the rebels with anti tank weapons and some S.A.M.S, would further swing the balance in their favor, along with a blockade, that prevents resupplying the Assad regime.
Drones could patrol the sky, to ensure the Regime's tanks and self propelled guns can no longer operate with complete impunity.
As for civilian deaths?
The only way to minimize civilian casualties is to end the conflict as quickly as possible; and, remove the Assad regime!
Simply put, there is no peaceful solution! Too many have died and or sacrificed; and their deaths and sacrifice cannot be in vain!
Look, it's perfectly okay to build dream castles in the clouds. they only become problematic, when you move in as permanent residents.
Rhrosty.

Rhrosty sets a new record for being wrong he wins the internet.

I wonder how long it will be before Australia joins the Yanks on the killing fields of Syria?

Given that both sides of politics in Australia are addicted to playing the 'Follow The Warmongering Leader' game, it won't be too long.

Even the British Parliament refused to endorse Cameron's plans to join the U.S. in another mass slaughter. In Australia we don't have politicians with backbone or ones who have the intellect to see that independence of foreign policy is sometimes the best long-term position.

Rhostry I think misperceives the situation in Syria as being about good guys (rebels) fighting bad guys (regime) who are killing civilians. The reality is much more complex and nuanced.
For instance, what happens to the 15% of Syrians who are Alawites when the Assad regime falls? I suspect they will be either killed or driven out of the country to become refugees in the surrounding countries. Do we want their blood on our hands? Are their lives less important than the other ethnic groups in Syria? The regime will likely fight to the death, because to do otherwise is suicide.
I don't see any solution other than watching and waiting for nature to take its course, all the while seeking some kind of diplomatic solution. To back either side makes us complicit in the blood bath that is taking place and is unlikely to result in less bloodshed.

Rhrosty your statement that "There is only one way for this conflict to end, and that is to change the balance in favor (sic) of the rebels. (Syrian civilians.)" is about one of the most naive statements I have read in relation to the Syrian conflict.

The rebels are a rag-tag bunch of fighters, including mercenaries from Qatar and Saudi Arabia who have a vested interest, along with Israel, France, the UK and the US in the fall of the current Syrian regime.

Additionally, CIA, British SAS and Mossad agents are already on the ground in Syria, further messing around with the rebels. The CIA has also been training rebels in Benghazi for the past year in preparation for the final push into the Syrian conflict.

Don't be fooled by the main-stream media and their minions, seek out and look at the real facts before making such misinformed statements.

Cheers

Geoff