There are different perspectives on the Syrian argument. BBC (2013) for instance presents the argument that the alleged chemical weapons attack against Syria is what led to the US military response. Here the military attack can be supported on moral and humanitarian grounds. Geoffrey Robertson QC, an international human rights lawyer states that “There has never been any need for a Security Council resolution” (BBC, 2013). This comes in the wake of the UN resolution that has been passed for helping Syria. Robertson states that before the UN resolution happenings there have been times when action has been taken against piracy and slavery and an UN resolution was not needed in those cases. He states clearly that when the world bans chemical weapons, it should not in any way be inactive when some part of the world is actually using chemical weapons against them. However at the same time Robertson also asserts that it is extremely necessary that the culpability of the criminal be established before any form of action is taken against them. Here the people whose culpability has to be proved are that of the Syrian State. He asserts that there could be political and moral elements that have to be analyzed. In these arguments that are presented there are two perspectives by itself, both are perspectives supporting military action, however in one it is seen that the context for military action is supported very strongly as the humanitarian cause makes it necessary to not wait. In the other form the author has presented a more caution oriented perspective. Here the author states that there any state when entering into military action against another has to ensure that it is fully aware of the nations crime.