With Britain's intentions of assisting in a military option against Syria for it alleged gas attacks shot down by Britain's parliament, the U.S. finds itself with few other willing participants internationally and questionable support at home.

Britain’s Parliament voted against military action, making that vote the first in a century and a half that did not back military action when called for by the Prime Minister. Prime Minister David Cameron faced humiliation when the vote came in at 285-272 to refuse his motion to authorize military strikes on the middle east nation, with a full third of his own party crossing over and voting against the measure.

Cameron did not need approval of the parliament to authorize a military strike, but he put it to parliament to decide on the matter.

The vote mirrors the expected outcome of the British proposal before the U.N. Security council. That proposal is expected to fail with China and Russia using their veto power to stop it.

Germany, which has not voted against action is however against any military action without United Nation’s go-ahead as well and has said as much.

France’s President Francois Hollande is still supporting the U.S. and “firm” action in Syria and does not need parliamentary approval either as long as the action only continues for four months otr less.

The Arab League refuse to endorse any action without U.N. approval as well.

At home, support for a strike is questionable. While less than half, 42% support using force in the Syrian situation, that number increases to 50% when considering using missiles from off-shore to retaliate for the chemical attacks. But, a full 58% feel that the President should seek congressional approval before carrying out a strike at the middle eastern country.

That feeling is escalating in Congress as well. 119 House Republicans, including House Speaker John Boenher, and 20 Democrats feel the same way and think that Obama should seek Congressional approval before carrying out any plan to attack Bashar Assad’s country.

With today’s release of information concerning the chemical attack, the U.S. Government assessment estimates the death toll for chemical agents to be approximately 1,430 peopple, including 426 children. The report also points out that the attack very unlikely to have orifginated with the rebels and instead it has been determined with all likelyhood that the Syrian government was responsible for the hostile release of chemical weapons, and most likely was responsible for previous uninvestigated attacks.

The decision that in all probability that Syria carried out the atqtacks came from increased intelligence traffic that began three days prior to the presumed attack. The vast majority of this information was provided to the United States by Israel.

The case for action against Syria was presented by the White House to Congress on Thursday night despite the growing opposition to any action in response to the Syrian attacks. President Obama remains undeterred by the growing pressure both internationally and within the U.S. government to belay any action saying it has both evidence and legal justification to strike.

A fifth destoyer has been moved into the vicinity of Syria in the eastern Mediterranean.

Russia has announced plans to move assets into the off-shore region as well. It was reported that Russia was moving a missile cruiser and anti-submarine vessel into the area to bolster its military presence near Syria in the event of increased conflict. Russia pointed out that the move is to to protect their national security interests and do not pose a threat to any nation. They called the deployment a “planned rotation.”

These new Russian ships add to the 16 warships already in the area.