Matt's Current Event

I know you all have probably been really looking forward to hearing my current event last week (Yeah, probably). But I was unable to present it due to unfortunate conflicts. So I apologize to those who were deeply upset with the delay of my presentation. I did it today if it makes you feel any better. And as you can probably tell, my article is "old". If you don't like it, there's always another more current current event you can respond to. You have freedom of choice, so that's nice.

My article was about how Russia is important for future foreign policies for the U.S. President Obama has goals of stopping Iran's nuclear program, stopping the situation in Syria, and reducing the number of nuclear weapons in the world. Russia is an important factor if these goals are to be achieved or not. The U.S. and Russia did sign a pact two years ago to reduce each side's number of nuclear arms. The Russian President at the time was Dmitry Medvedev, and now it is Vladimir Putin.
The article also mentioned that China has been a problem for the U.N. when they tried to place sanctions on Iran. They just found ways to trade with them without violating the sanctions. China is also Iran's top trading partner and they have many economic and security reasons to be doing this. China, along with Russia, has also rejected measures that would have dealt diplomatic blows to Syria. Experts have said that if Russia continues to back Syria, it will hurt them in the long run in that area. They have also said that Russia would not like to see a "nuclear Iran".
(Here's the article --> http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/dotmil/2012/05/16/putins-russia-is-pivotal-for-future-us-foreign-policy)
My question is: Do you think Russia will eventually go along with the U.N.'s actions and what should the U.S. do to sort of nudge them in that direction?

Kevin's Current Event

Massacre in Syria In February 1994, a crowded marketplace in Bosnia was attacked by a 120mm mortar, killing 68 and wounding over 200 others. In July 1995, over 8,000 Muslim men and boys were gathered and executed. Yet it wasn't until a third attack by Bosnian Serbs in August 1995, which used mortars again, that killed another 37 did NATO get involved and end the conflict. Last Friday, the Syrian government launched mortars at civilian homes and had people with knives execute people who survived the bombing. Over 100 people died, a third of which were children. People around the world are outraged that the world is letting the Syrian government continue these killings, as the death toll climbs over 10,000. One of the main reasons that the UN and NATO won't get involved is that Russia's last middle-eastern ally is Syria, and the last time the UN got involved, in Libya, there was a total regime change. Russia would lose a lot of money in weapons sales if the Syrian government is overthrown. http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/29/world/meast/syria-sarajevo-and-srebrenica/index.html?iref=allsearch My probing question is: Do you think US involvement in Syria fits into the "Just War Theory"? If not, what foreign policy tool should be used to handle the situation?