OK, having reviewed where I'm getting information from, I think the “the US should do something” calls are coming from the following:
1) A subset of refugees – the video media has been interviewing refugees from the fighting and has found a number who want someone (anyone, really) to “do something”, mostly kill whoever was responsible for the gas attacks. I suppose if you want someone to bomb/kill someone asking the Americans to do it makes a certain sense given recent history. These same people also emphasize they don't want the Americans in Syria or running it, they just want a few cruise missiles or drones to take out the people responsible for the chemical weapons.
2) Some members of the Arab League, such as Saudi Arabia. However, this isn't a whole-hearted endorsement and it's clear they'd like buy-in by the UN. It's clear that however much they'd like the Americans to kill those responsible they don't want Americans interfering in Syria like in Iraq, which is an entirely understandable point of view.
3) The UK and now France seem to be on board with cruise missiles or whatever is being planned. The
Wall Street Journal reports that Turkey is on board now, too.
4) Lots of Op-Ed pieces in the US media (haven't checked the foreign Op-Ed) are pro-”do something”, but I wasn't considering them because they are
opinion. There are also Op-Ed pieces on the opposite side, though a minority in the US.
5) Politicians in the US and UK who feel they now have to do something or lose face or, I dunno, have their dicks shrink or something.
6) Some opposition groups in Syria seem to be hoping that a strike will weaken Assad's regime enough for them to finish taking it down.
On the opposite side we have
A) Russia definitely and China presumably opposed. Without those two on board this won't get past the UN security council. I'm assuming that the Russians and Chinese are anti-intervention because the chemical weapons were used in an internal affair of Syria and both those countries seem to feel that whatever the ruling power of a nation does to suppress rebellion and dissent is OK and no one else's business. And, oh yes, Syria is an ally/client of Russia. I suspect that if the Syrians had used gas against another nation those two countries might feel differently.
B) Some members of the Arab League, who really don't want more American involvement in the Mid East. Given recent history, I don't blame them for that sentiment. Lebanon and Jordan fear it will escalate the fighting and it could spill over into their territory, and even if it doesn't, it will still result in even more Syrian refugees in their countries. Egypt is opposed. This means that while a few members of the Arab League are in favor the majority are opposed to a military response.
C) A different sub-set of refugees from the fighting in Syria, same reasons as B
D) Apparently,
Europe aside from the UK and France are opposed to intervention
E) The “street” in the US and UK. Really. Stop listening to the US
government for a minute, the general public in the US is not at all eager to get into yet another war. The video media went to places like State Fairs, usually bastions of covervative/pro-military/AMERICA FUCK YEAH! and mostly found opinions ranging from “let's not” to “let someone else do it if it's so important”. Unfortunately, I don't expect Americans as a whole to do jackshit if the government does start another war (damn sheeple).
If South America or Asian nations outside of China have an opinion no one in the Anglo-sphere seems to be reporting on it. Australian newspapers are reporting on the situation but so far as I know haven't mentioned any sort of Australian position on the matter (I'm presuming they're intending not to get involved at all)
The people pushing military intervention a.k.a. bombing seem to be US and UK politicians. The rest who are pro “do something” are decidedly reluctant to use military force and would be happy for someone to suggest a response that isn't military. I'm not sure what else there is – a sternly worded warning? That's been done. Sanctions? It's a civil war, I doubt foreign disapproval is going to have an impact on whoever was desperate enough to use these weapons.
Which brings up another point – it is NOT, despite the statements of salivating politicians, conclusively proven that Assad's regime is responsible. They are are a logical suspect, but nerve agents have been manufactured and deployed by
non-government entities.. I find it suspicious that the
opposition seems reluctant to allow the UN inspectors into the affected region, and no one wants to claim the snipers that fired on them.
