Syria : Almost a hell

Syria occupies a vital position in the Middle East, jammed between Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, and allied with Russia and Iran. Under the leadership of Bashar Assad and his principles of ruling, today Syria is facing mass murder and destruction with no help whatsoever from any concerned nation. The UN did pass a resolution which could cure Syria's condition but thanks to the veto issued by Russia and China, the resolution was repealed. Now, the question arises - Should the United States interfere in Syria despite the rejection of the UN resolution against the whims of its two permanent members- Russia and China or step into Syria to help restore order against the brutal dictatorship of Bashar? Will this interference mean a direct indication by US to fight a Third World War against Russia and China? Will Syria attain political stability post-interference? All these questions desperately need to be answered.
Israel is a bad example post-interference. Afghanistan is a good example. History gives us detailed accounts of issues which arose when a third party interfered in a nation's sovereignty. So what is sovereignty exactly? What I understand of it is, sovereignty is a "right" enjoyed by a "ruler" as long as the people he's ruling are complacent. Also, it implies that no nation can interfere in that nation's mechanics. But, if there is any serious Human Rights violation in that nation which supercedes the benchmark of sovereignty, other nations "acquire" a right to interfere because now the sovereignty enjoyed by the ruler of that nation no longer stays his right but it becomes an "acquired right" (Genocide Convention).
In the case of Syria, this benchmark is crossed by Bashar's policies. His regime has taken a bloody route, which is why on grounds of urgency and practicality it seems fair for the US (or NATO to be exact for US is preparing herself for the upcoming November Elections) to interfere in Syria to protect it's citizens. Moreover, the lengthy civil war happening there is fetching no obvious results. Mayhem is in it's worst state. So shifting Mr Assad from power as fast as possible is essential. It is too late for him to negotiate an accommodation with his people by overseeing reform and an increase in democratic ideals fast gaining popularity, thanks to the influence of the western liberal democracies. But why, despite everybody wants to dethrone Bashad, he's as powerful as ever? The main reason is lack of unity. This lack of unity is not only at the United Nations and in the Arab League but also among Syria's opposition. The Syrian National Council is a divided gaggle of exiles, with only limited authority in a place they still call home, which is a pity.
So what is the solution?
Yes, the rebels need to unite. There's no way that their scattered groups can win against Bashar Assad in a head-on fight, for Assad commands crack units and a relatively loyal officer corps, as well as tanks, heavy artillery and an air force. The remedy is not providing weapons to the opposition. A country awash with weapons would be plagued by the very violence that the world was seeking to avoid. (The guns that flooded into Afghanistan to arm locals against the Soviet Union helped create the chaos that spawned the Taliban.) With a single voice and a credible leader, the opposition could seek to reassure the merchants, Kurds and Christians who back Mr Assad that they will be safer and more prosperous without him.
Now, let's understand the possible reasons why Russia and China simply vetoed the resolution which claimed to end all miseries being endured by the innocent civilians of Syria, victimized by the brutality of Assad. Russia and China are not great fans of democratic-style of governance. If the US invades Syria, it is obvious that it will try to establish democracy in that region which these two countries are against. So, on a larger perspective it becomes insane that such great countries have such narrow ideologies. But, nevertheless, they have an ideology which, if challenged, can definitely mean trouble for the world. Moreover, both these countries sell arms to Bashar's armies. So, if he is ousted, Russia and China directly lose a great part of their income which, obviously, they won't wish to happen.

Now let's analyze if USA's interference in Syria's matter against the whims of Russia and China can cause a World War or not. Definitely, there is a major difference between the situation back then and now. Then, nuclear wars weren't very probable or extensive but today any country which uses nuke possesses the capacity to cause a major damage. So, it seems unlikely that Russia and China are going to risk their safety for the offense USA can inflict if she decides to poke into something they totally disprove of. Also, democratic ideals weren't that popular then. With Russia suffering from a major governmental breakdown, the only Communist superpower today would be China and since almost the entire world supports Democracy, again, China won't risk herself on account of Syria.
Definitely Mr.Assad's brutal days are numbered but if the United States outrightedly disobeys the outcome of the UN resolution, it can number all of our days as well for it's certain that if there is a World War-3 at all for any reason whatsoever, only cockroaches will survive and rule our charred world.