In our last show of August,
we're talking economics, science and a couple of legal cases,
but we're starting with the possibility of countries taking action against Syria.
Rather than acting on their own, nations are more likely to try to form a coalition and work together.
Several governments are building a case for a possible strike on Syria.
In the United Kingdom, British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's highly likely that Syria's government used chemical weapons.
But some members of parliament are unsure about approving military action.
The question before the house today is how to respond to one of the most of horrid uses of chemical weapons in a century, slaughtering innocent men, women and children in Syria.
It is not about taking sides in the Syrian conflict, it is not about invading, it is not about regime change, or even working more closely with the opposition.
It is about the large scale use of chemical weapons and our response to a war crime, nothing else.
The weapons inspectors are in the midst of their work, and will be reporting in the coming days.
That is why today couldn't have been the day when the house was asked to decide on military action. Yes.
For this happen, is surely a basic point.
Evidence should precede decision, not decision precede evidence.
President Obama was planning to brief some members of the U.S. Congress yesterday on his plans regarding Syria.
Other lawmakers have signed the letter, urging the president to lay out his case to the entire Congress and to the American people about whether the U.S. should get involved.
Teachers, for the latest developments on Syria,look for the link on the resources box at cnnstudentnews.com.