Do we really have to take military action to Syria?

No boots on the ground has barely left his lips before boots on the ground is proposed.

there were no boots on the ground in Libya, the government argument is that the soldiers were CIA not military so they dont count as boots.

They could just have brought the 2 disputing parties, the Syria government and the party opposing the Government to the G8 meting and try to negotiate solution to the problem.

and Obama keeps promising to join the war on their side

Why not just have a G8 summit just for trying to resolve this conflict with parties involved,

Not much has changed in the past 20 years. Faced with a question of war and peace, Congress as an institution seems to hope the president will act without asking permission. That way, members can attack him if things go south, and pass resolutions praising themselves if they go well.

Even what seems like a step back for executive power may actually be a retreat for Congress's shared responsibility. For an example, look at the language of the Senate joint resolution approved this week by the Foreign Relations Committee to authorize a military strike in Syria. Hidden among the "whereas" boilerplate in the document -- mostly discussing the villainy of Assad and the danger of chemical weapons -- is this short clause: "Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States ..."

Glides right past the eye, doesn't it? Good old Constitution, empowering the president to protect us all!

The only problem is it's not true, and it represents a two-century high-water mark in claims of executive power. Having been consulted by the president, Congress is poised to respond by throwing back at him not only the current decision but sweeping new powers he didn't have before.

During this crisis, all of us should be checking Lawfare the way heart patients check their pulses. Jack Goldsmith of Harvard, writing there, was the first I know of to pick up the strange little constitutional time bomb:

The draft AUMF enhances, through congressional recognition, the President's claims of independent constitutional authority to use force in Syria. Here is why. The draft acknowledges in its last "Whereas" clause that the President "has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States." This broad and unqualified congressional acknowledgment of independent presidential constitutional power takes on special significance when combined with other "Whereas" findings, especially Congress's recognition that (a) "Syria's acquisition of weapons of mass destruction threatens ... the national security interests of the United States; and (b) "Syria's use of weapons of mass destruction and its conduct and actions constitute a grave threat to ... the national security interests of the United States." (My emphases.)

Note that this astonishing language did not appear in the administration's own draft authorization. Having been asked for broad authority already, the warriors on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, for all their minimizing language, have in practice widened the White House's mandate -- to the point that, if it is adopted by Congress, neither Barack Obama nor any future president will likely have to come back for additional authority to fight against Syria and its chemical weapons anywhere in the region. And it will have written into law an explicit statement that the president doesn't need authorization to use force anywhere, any time he or she determines that "national security" demands it.

There might be more than 2 parties involved. So get all the parties with something they want. Get them on a table and discuss what an agreement between all parties that can be agreed upon so there is minimal loss of dead and wounded from all sides involved. What better place for it to happen than a room at an event such as G8 summit. Why not just have a G8 summit just for trying to resolve this conflict with parties involved,