The United Kingdom’s Parliament ended its session on Thursday, August 29th coming to the conclusion that the United Kingdom will not intervene with military action against the Assad regime in the nation of Syria in response to alleged reports of chemical attacks against Syrian rebels. United States President Barrack Obama had hoped that the U.K. would join the U.S. in intervening militaristically in the skirmish, but was disappointed. The news of the U.K.’s response drew much commentary from major international media organizations. CNN compiled many media reactions in an online article titled “Syria intervention debate: The world’s media reacts.” I found the article a very interesting read in the aspect that many media outlets had writers imposing distinct opinions about countries and high-ranking authority figures featured in the story. For example, BBC political editor Nick Robinson commented in his piece that “[U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron] has lost control of his own foreign and defence policy and as a result he will cut a diminished figure on the international stage.” Another example comes from French media outlet France 24 announced disbelief in response to the vote and assured readers that French President Francois Hollande still stands by his stance of military intervention, similar to that of Obama. Another response I have to the article is the interesting facts that were brought up in regards to the vote in Parliament. British political television program “Newsnight” claimed British defense secretary Philip Hammond mentioned deterring deceased Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from chemical weapons. Regardless of how the turn of events unfolds, the international media will have its eyes and ears locked on political leaders for the next few months. This conflict involves many developed nations across the world, and has the potential to either be only a countrywide civil conflict with no outside military action from outside nations. In contrast, a highway to hell can be paved to a conflict resulting in World War III. Granted the latter outcome is an extremely unlikely situation to occur, political leaders possess the button to change the outcome in history in front of them. All it takes is one or more leaders feeling a sense of danger, and the button will be pushed and history will be inevitable.