Image caption The UN team spoke to witnesses and survivors in Muadhamiya 
 
 Russia and China have stepped up their warnings against military intervention in Syria, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region. 
 
 The US and its allies are considering launching strikes on Syria in response to deadly attacks last week. 
 
 The US said there was "undeniable" proof of a chemical attack, on Monday. 
 
 UN chemical weapons inspectors are due to start a second day of investigations in the suburbs of Damascus. 
 
 The UN team came under sniper fire as they tried to visit an area west of the city on Monday. 
 
 A spokesman for UK Prime Minister David Cameron says the UK is making contingency plans for military action in Syria. 
 
 Mr Cameron has cut short his holiday and returned to London to deal with the Syrian crisis. 
 
 The administration has deliberately left itself almost no room for manoeuvre - its credibility would now be zero if it failed to take some form of military action How Syria conflict affects neighbours 
 
 Russian foreign ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich has called on the international community to show "prudence" over the crisis and observe international law. 
 
 "Attempts to bypass the Security Council, once again to create artificial groundless excuses for a military intervention in the region are fraught with new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," he said in a statement. 
 
 Late on Monday, the US said it was postponing a meeting on Syria with Russian diplomats, citing "ongoing consultations" about alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. 
 
 Hours later, Russia expressed regret about the decision. The two sides had been due to meet in The Hague on Wednesday to discuss setting up an international conference on finding a political solution to the crisis. 
 
 The Russian deputy defence minister, Gennady Gatilov said working out the political parameters for a resolution on Syria would be especially useful, with the threat of force hanging over the country. 
 
 Image caption UN chemical weapons inspectors spent nearly three hours in the suburb of Muadhamiya in western Damascus on Monday. Image caption The inspectors visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors over last week's suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital. Image caption Amateur video was posted online apparently showing a UN inspector measuring and photographing a canister. previous slide next slide 
 
 On Monday, Mr Cameron spoke to Russian President Vladimir Putin who said there was no evidence yet that Syria had used chemical weapons against rebels, Mr Cameron's office said. 
 
 The official Chinese news agency, Xinhua, said Western powers were rushing to conclusions about who may have used chemical weapons in Syria before UN inspectors had completed their investigation. 
 
 UN visit 
 
 Both the Syrian government and rebels have blamed each other for last Wednesday's attacks. 
 
 Medical charity Medecins Sans Frontieres said three hospitals it supported in the Damascus area had treated about 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms", of whom 355 had died. 
 
 Models for possible intervention Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait 
 
 US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures" 
 
 US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures" Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out 
 
 UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi Models for possible intervention 
 
 US officials said there was "little doubt" that President Bashar al-Assad's government was to blame. 
 
 UN inspectors spent nearly three hours in the western district of Muadhamiya on Monday where they visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors. 
 
 A UN spokesman said they had collected some samples. 
 
 Earlier in the day, the UN convoy came under fire from unidentified snipers and was forced to turn back before resuming its journey. 
 
 UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon condemned the shooting and asked the UN team in Syria to register a complaint. 
 
 'Accountability' 
 
 In the most forceful US reaction yet, US Secretary of State John Kerry on Monday described the recent attacks in the Damascus area as a "moral obscenity". 
 
 He said the delay in allowing UN inspectors to the sites was a sign the Syrian government had something to hide. 
 
 He said Washington had additional information about the attacks that it would make public in the days ahead. 
 
 "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world. It defies any code of morality," Mr Kerry said at a news conference on Monday. 
 
 "Make no mistake, President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people." 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption John Kerry: "There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons" 
 
 Washington has recently bolstered its naval presence in the eastern Mediterranean and military leaders from the US, UK and their allies have convened a meeting in Jordan. 
 
 Analysts believe the most likely US action would be sea-launched cruise missiles targeting Syrian military installations. 
 
 But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told reporters on Monday the West had not produced any proof that President Assad's forces had used chemical weapons. 
 
 He was responding to suggestions from some Western countries that military action against the Syrian government could be taken without a UN mandate. 
 
 Mr Lavrov said the use of force without Security Council backing would be "a crude violation of international law". 
 
 Earlier, UK Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC an international military response to the suspected use of chemical weapons would be possible without the backing of the UN. 
 
 The UN Security Council is divided, with Russia and China opposing military intervention and the UK and France warning that the UN could be bypassed if there was "great humanitarian need". 
 
 In a column in The Times newspaper, former UK PM Tony Blair has written that if the West does not intervene to support freedom and democracy in Egypt and Syria, the Middle East will face catastrophe 
 
 The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees. ||||| In October 1983, the United States led a military invasion of Grenada, a tiny Caribbean island nation, after a bloody coup ousted the government of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, who was assassinated. President Ronald Reagan was said to have been concerned about a 10,000-foot-long airstrip that the communist country's military was building, which he thought would enable planes loaded with arms from Cuba to reach insurgents in Central America. The administration was also concerned about the safety of 800 American medical students studying in Grenada. 
 
 Grenada: Unilateral U.S. military action In October 1983, the United States led a military invasion of Grenada, a tiny Caribbean island nation, after a bloody coup ousted the government of Prime Minister Maurice Bishop, who was assassinated. President Ronald Reagan was said to have been concerned about a 10,000-foot-long airstrip that the communist country's military was building, which he thought would enable planes loaded with arms from Cuba to reach insurgents in Central America. The administration was also concerned about the safety of 800 American medical students studying in Grenada. AP 
 
 Since the Vietnam War, the United States has engaged in several military interventions. As the West looks ready to act against Syria, accused of using chemical weapons against its own citizens, here are 10 instances when America has intervened, sometimes without authorization from the United Nations. Produced by Anup Kaphle. 
 
 President Obama is weighing a military strike against Syria that would be of limited scope and duration, designed to serve as punishment for Syria’s use of chemical weapons and as a deterrent, while keeping the United States out of deeper involvement in that country’s civil war, according to senior administration officials. 
 
 The timing of such an attack, which would probably last no more than two days and involve sea-launched cruise missiles — or, possibly, long-range bombers — striking military targets not directly related to Syria’s chemical weapons arsenal, would be dependent on three factors: completion of an intelligence report assessing Syrian government culpability in last week’s alleged chemical attack; ongoing consultation with allies and Congress; and determination of a justification under international law. 
 
 “We’re actively looking at the various legal angles that would inform a decision,” said an official who spoke about the presidential deliberations on the condition of anonymity. Missile-armed U.S. warships are already positioned in the Mediterranean. 
 
 As the administration moved rapidly toward a decision, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said the use of chemical weapons in an attack Wednesday against opposition strongholds on the outskirts of Damascus is now “undeniable.” 
 
 Evidence being gathered by United Nations experts in Syria was important, Kerry said, but not necessary to prove what is already “grounded in facts, informed by conscience and guided by common sense.” 
 
 The team of U.N. weapons investigators on Monday visited one of three rebel-held suburbs where the alleged attack took place, after first being forced to withdraw when their vehicles came under sniper fire. The Syrian government, which along with Russia has suggested that the rebels were responsible for the chemical attack, agreed to the U.N. inspection over the weekend. 
 
 Videos and statements by witnesses and relief organizations such as Doctors Without Borders have proved that an attack occurred, Kerry said. The U.S. intelligence report is to be released this week. 
 
 Among the factors, officials said, are that only the government is known to possess chemical weapons and the rockets to deliver them, and its continuing control of chemical stocks has been closely monitored by U.S. intelligence. 
 
 Kerry said Syrian forces had engaged in a “cynical attempt to cover up” their actions, not only by delaying the arrival of the U.N. team but by shelling the affected area continually. Any U.S. strike would probably await the departure of the U.N. inspectors from Syria. 
 
 Kerry’s statement, which he read to reporters in the State Department briefing room without taking questions, was part of an escalating administration drumbeat, which is likely to include a public statement by Obama in coming days. Officials said the public warnings are designed partly to wring any possible cooperation out of Russia — or an unlikely admission from the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad — before Obama makes his decision. 
 
 The administration decided to postpone a meeting with the Russians this week in The Hague to discuss a negotiated solution to the Syrian war, “given our ongoing consultations about the appropriate response to the chemical weapons attack in Syria on August 21,” a State Department official said. 
 
 At the State Department, Kerry said, “Make no mistake: President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people. Nothing today is more serious, and nothing is receiving more serious scrutiny.” 
 
 He and other officials drew a sharp distinction between U.S. action related to a violation of international law by what they called Assad’s “massive” use of chemical weapons and any direct military involvement in the Syrian conflict, which is in its third year. 
 
 “What we are talking about here is a potential response . . . to this specific violation of international norms,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said. “While it is part of this ongoing Syrian conflict in which we have an interest and in which we have a clearly stated position, it is distinct in that regard.” 
 
 Obama and other officials have said repeatedly that no U.S. troops would be sent to Syria. But despite Obama’s year-old threat of an unspecified U.S. response if Assad crossed a “red line” by using chemical weapons, even a limited military engagement seemed unlikely before Wednesday’s attack near Damascus. 
 
 “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences,” Kerry said. 
 
 The options under consideration are neither new nor open-ended, officials said. The use of “limited stand-off strikes” has long been among the options the Pentagon has provided Obama. “Potential targets include high-value regime air defense, air, ground, missile, and naval forces as well as the supporting military facilities and command nodes,” Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said in a June letter to Congress. “Stand-off air and missile systems could be used to strike hundreds of targets at a tempo of our choosing.” 
 
 Although Dempsey, who has questioned the wisdom of direct military involvement in Syria, said that such an operation would require “hundreds” of ships and aircraft and potentially cost “in the billions,” the action that is being contemplated would be far smaller and designed more to send a message than to cripple Assad’s military and change the balance of forces on the ground. Syrian chemical weapons storage areas, which are numerous and widely dispersed, are seen as unlikely targets. 
 
 The language of international criminality has clearly resonated among U.S. allies and lawmakers. 
 
 “We will have to act,” said Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence who has long opposed any U.S. intervention, including the administration’s decision this summer to send light arms to Syrian opposition forces. “I don’t think we can allow repeated use of chemical weapons now, an escalated use of chemical weapons, to stand.” 
 
 Sen. Bob Corker (Tenn.), the senior Republican on the Foreign Relations Committee, emphasized that a U.S. strike should not be directed at altering the dynamic of Syria’s larger civil war. 
 
 “I think it should be surgical. It should be proportional. It should be in response to what’s happened with the chemicals,” Corker said in an NBC interview. “But the fact is, I don’t want us to get involved in such a way that we change that dynamic on the ground.” The senator said he thought the administration’s response to the attack was “imminent.” 
 
 House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) said he had been in touch with the White House. In a statement, Boehner echoed concerns expressed by lawmakers from both parties that the administration further consult Congress before taking action. 
 
 The administration has said that it will follow international law in shaping its response. Authorization for the use of force against another nation normally comes only from the U.N. Security Council — where Russia and China have vetoed previous resolutions against Assad — or in a NATO operation similar to the one launched in the former Yugoslavia in 1999, without a U.N. mandate. 
 
 But much of international law is untested, and administration lawyers are also examining possible legal justifications based on a violation of international prohibitions on chemical weapons use, or on an appeal for assistance from a neighboring nation such as Turkey. 
 
 Britain, France and Turkey have said that they would support action if the use of chemical weapons was confirmed, but a clear-cut case is also likely to make approval easier for allies such as Germany, which disagreed with NATO’s 2011 operation in Libya despite the existence of a U.N. resolution. 
 
 “The use of chemical weapons would be a crime against civilization,” German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle said Monday. “The international community must act should the use of such weapons be confirmed.” 
 
 Consultations on Syria have been ongoing at the ambassadorial level at NATO headquarters in Brussels, where a meeting is scheduled for Wednesday. The Arab League, which approved the Libya operation, is also due to meet this week to discuss Syria. 
 
 Ed O’Keefe contributed to this report. ||||| MC1(AW) Nathanael Miller / U.S. Navy The destroyer USS Barry, currently steaming in the Mediterranean Sea awaiting possible orders to attack Syria with Tomahawk cruise missiles, launches one against Libya on Mar. 19, 2011. 
 
 Taking out Syria’s chemical-weapons stockpile isn’t easy – and is fraught with perils, including creating plumes of deadly vapors that could kill civilians downwind of such attacks. 
 
 That’s why Pentagon officials suggest that any U.S. and allied military strike against Syria will tilt toward military, and command and control, targets —including artillery and missile units that could be used to launch chemical weapons — instead of the bunkers believed to contain them. 
 
 Secretary of State John Kerry made clear Monday that military action is all but inevitable in the coming days. “We know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets,” he said. “President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people.” 
 
 But targeting the weapons themselves may not make the most military sense. 
 
 For starters, neither the U.S. nor its allies know where Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is keeping his cache of hundreds of tons of sarin, mustard gas and other chemical agents. That means that any military strike to take them out will surely leave some untouched. 
 
 (MORE: The Two Big Reasons Obama Might Strike Syria) 
 
 After more than two years of civil war, the Syrian military has distributed many of its chemical arms beyond the original 15 or so major storage sites where Western intelligence agencies believe they were housed when the conflict began. “Dispersing the stuff would make [attacking it] more difficult,” says Eliot Cohen, a former Pentagon official now at the Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies in Washington. Blowing up storage sites, he warns, also could “leave the facilities so shattered that people can come in and pick the stuff up that you don’t want them to pick up.” 
 
 Secondly, the Obama Administration and its allies aren’t considering deploying troops to seize and secure such weapons. The Pentagon has estimated that mission could take 75,000 troops. 
 
 Last month, Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, detailed for Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who chairs the armed services committee, the difficulties associated with using military force to seize control of Syria’s chemical stockpile. 
 
 “We do this by destroying portions of Syria’s massive stockpile, interdicting its movement and delivery, or by seizing and securing program components,” he said in his July 19 letter assessing U.S. military options in Syria. “At a minimum, this option would call for a no-fly zone as well as air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines, and other enablers. Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites.” 
 
 Neither the nation—nor President Obama—has any desire for U.S. combat boots on Syrian soil. So U.S. defense officials are weighing air strikes to punish Assad’s government for their suspected use of chemical weapons. But because the Pentagon doesn’t want to put primarily U.S. pilots at risk of being shot down and held hostage by Damascus, it’s leaning toward the use of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles—TLAMs—against Syrian targets. 
 
 (MORE: Assad Taunts U.S. Over Iraq, Vietnam) 
 
 Unfortunately for U.S. war planners, Tomahawk cruise missiles pack a relatively puny 1,000-pound warhead. That’s unlikely to punch through buried chemical-weapons bunkers and generate the intense, sustained heat needed to incinerate sarin or other chemical weapons inside. 
 
 “Doing this with Tomahawks is going to be a challenge,” says Amy Smithson, a chemical-weapons expert at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies in Washington. “You may get half of them with Tomahawks, but I have plume concerns—anybody in the neighborhood is going to be in big, bad trouble” if the poisonous agents drift their way. 
 
 Bulk chemicals not already loaded into individual shells are especially vulnerable to being spread by bombing. That’s why Smithson believes that Western governments should provide those near targeted chemical-storage sites with protective gear before launching any attacks. “Syrian civilians and rebel forces,” she says, “could benefit greatly from gas masks.” 
 
 Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, sketched out a likely U.S. military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons in that July letter to Levin. He termed it Conduct Limited Stand-off Strikes: 
 
 This option uses lethal force to strike targets that enable the regime to conduct military operations, proliferate advanced weapons, and defend itself. Potential targets include high-value regime air defense, air, ground, missile, and naval forces as well as the supporting military facilities and command nodes. Stand-off air and missile systems could be used to strike hundreds of targets at a tempo of our choosing. 
 
 Cohen is leery of a tit-for-tat strike that he fears the Obama Administration is considering. The apparent indiscriminate use of deadly agents against civilians, he argues, requires a disproportionate response by the U.S. to convince other states from doing the same. 
 
 “You want people to understand that, if you do this, you lose your war,” Cohen says. The Obama Administration should consider destroying Syria’s air force, its air defenses, and many of its airfields to retaliate if Syria’s use of chemical weapons is confirmed. “The objective,” he argues, “should be crippling the regime.” 
 
 MORE: Obama Can Strike Syria Unilaterally ||||| Obama orders release of report justifying Syria strike 
 
 The storied football team of Gallaudet, the nation's first university for the deaf 
 
 Storm chaser on rescuing typhoon victims: "You don't think about it, you just go" 
 
 (CBS News) President Barack Obama called his national security team together Saturday to talk about the next move in Syria. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper led off the three-hour White House meeting with detailed analysis of the evidence about the chemical weapons attack, the disposition of victims and what the administration now believes is a near air-tight circumstantial case that the Syrian regime was behind it. 
 
 Obama ordered a declassified report be prepared for public release before any military strike commences. That report, top advisers tell CBS News, is due to be released in a day or two. 
 
 There was no debate at the Saturday meeting that a military response is necessary. Obama ordered up legal justifications for a military strike, should he order one, outside of the United Nations Security Council. That process is well underway, and particular emphasis is being placed on alleged violations of the Geneva Convention and the Chemical Weapons Convention. 
 
 Watch: Kerry says Syria's chemical weapons "should shock the conscience of the world." 
 
 Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday the evidence "is screaming at us" that chemical weapons were used in Syria, and he said President Obama believes "there must be accountability" -- the latest sign that the administration is getting ready for a possible military strike against the Assad regime. 
 
 Kerry said he had looked again at the pictures we all saw last week of the victims of the attack -- many of them children -- and can't get them out of his head. 
 
 "What we saw in Syria last week should shock the conscience of the world," Kerry said. "It defies any code of morality. Let me be clear: The indiscriminate slaughter of civilians, the killing of women and children and innocent bystanders by chemical weapons is a moral obscenity. By any standard, it is inexcusable and -- despite the excuses and equivocations that some have manufactured -- it is undeniable." 
 
 The words Kerry used and the force with which he delivered them left little doubt the U.S. will soon strike Syria. 
 
 "President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who used the world's most heinous weapons against the world's most vulnerable people," he said. 
 
 Four U.S. Navy warships are already in position in the eastern Mediterranean, ready to launch cruise missiles within hours of receiving the order from Obama. A British submarine is also reported to be in position. 
 
 Watch: Kerry leaves little doubt U.S. will strike Syria, David Martin reports. 
 
 They would almost certainly fire their weapons in the middle of the night, the time when the U.S. military prefers to strike and when most civilians would be off the streets and less likely to be injured. 
 
 An attack limited to cruise missiles would fall well short of the shock and awe campaign on the opening night of the Iraq War, but officials said it would be large enough to damage the Syrian military's ability to launch future chemical weapons attacks. 
 
 The U.S. has huge military advantage, so there is little doubt cruise missiles could destroy targets ranging from command centers to launchers used to fire chemical weapons. 
 
 Obama wants to send a message about the consequences of using chemical weapons, but the Syrian regime is playing for much bigger stakes: it is fighting for its life. ||||| Damascus, Syria (CNN) -- Saying "there is no doubt who is responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons attack in Syria: the Syrian regime," Vice President Joe Biden signaled Tuesday that the United States -- with its allies -- was ready to act. 
 
 "Those who use chemical weapons against defenseless men, women and children should and must be held accountable," Biden said in a speech to the American Legion. 
 
 The vice president's remarks echo those made by other U.S. officials in recent days, as well as many of the nation's foremost allies. 
 
 French President Francois Hollande said his administration was "ready to punish those who made the decision to gas these innocent people," adding that "everything leads us to believe" that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's forces are responsible. 
 
 British Prime Minister David Cameron -- who talked Tuesday with U.S. President Barack Obama -- called lawmakers back from their summer vacations to consider a response to Syria, as the UK military prepares contingency plans. 
 
 And U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel told the BBC on Tuesday that U.S. forces are "ready to go" if ordered to strike Syria by President Barack Obama. 
 
 "The options are there. The United States Department of Defense is ready to carry out those options," Hagel said. 
 
 Western leaders were reacting to a growing consensus that the Syrian regime was responsible for an August 21 attack that killed more than 1,300 people, most of them dying from exposure to toxic gases, according to rebel officials. The opposition -- which has said it's been targeted by chemical weapons attacks in the past as well -- backed up its latest allegations with gruesome video of rows of dead bodies, including women and children, with no visible wounds. 
 
 Opinion: For U.S., Syria is truly a problem from hell 
 
 Syrian officials, though, have steadfastly denied using chemical weapons in this or other cases. 
 
 Foreign Minister Walid Moallem said Tuesday that his government would never use such munitions against its own people, daring those who disagree to present evidence publicly. 
 
 He said rebel forces were to blame for security concerns near the suspected chemical sites, arguing that Western leaders are using the claims as an excuse to go after al-Assad's regime. 
 
 "We all hear the drums of war," Moallem said. "They want to attack Syria. I believe to use chemical weapons as a pretext is not a right." 
 
 And if foreign powers do strike the Middle Eastern nation, its foreign minister said the government and its forces will fight back. 
 
 "Syria is not easy to swallow," said Moallem. "We have the materials to defend ourselves. We will surprise others." 
 
 U.N. inspectors in Syria, but what will they find? 
 
 The United Nations has sent inspectors to Syria to try to get to the bottom of the wildly conflicting accounts of chemical warfare. 
 
 The opposition says chemical payloads were among the ordnance fired into the rebel stronghold of Ghouta. The government, via state TV reports, claims that its forces came into contact with toxic gas Saturday in Jobar, on the edge of Damascus -- blaming this on "terrorists," the term it commonly uses for rebel fighters. 
 
 CNN could not independently confirm either account, including videos purported to show the aftermath of each. 
 
 Missile strikes on Syria likely response to chemical attack 
 
 On Monday, U.N. inspectors visited the town of Moadamiyet al-Sham, despite a close call with snipers that left one of their vehicles damaged and an explosion nearby. 
 
 The inspectors had been expected Tuesday to head to Ghouta, but that trip was pushed back a day "in order to improve preparedness and safety for the team." 
 
 Moallem blamed rebel forces for failing to guarantee the U.N. group's safety and denying that its forces have delayed inspections by continually shelling Ghouta. 
 
 Video posted Tuesday to YouTube purported to show the area being shelled, though CNN could not verify this video's authenticity. 
 
 Yet Biden reiterated the claim that Syrian forces were shelling the suspected chemical attack site. And U.S. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said it may be too late for a valid inspection of what happened -- saying "too much time has passed" and accusing al-Assad's government of using the U.N. investigation "as a stalling tactic or a charade to hide behind." 
 
 The United States, meanwhile, is conducting its own investigation: An intelligence report detailing evidence of the alleged attack could be released as early as Tuesday, a U.S. official told CNN. The report will include forensic evidence and intercepted communications among Syrian military commanders, according to the official. 
 
 The vice president said that beyond whatever inspectors do or do not find, common sense and the recent past point to one culprit. 
 
 "The Syrian regime are the only ones who have the weapons, have used chemical weapons multiple times in the past, have the means of delivering those weapons, have been determined to wipe out exactly the places that were attacked by chemical weapons," he said Tuesday. 
 
 Russia leads international charge against strikes 
 
 The calls for a military response were not without opposition. 
 
 Russia is leading the charge internationally, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov having said there is no proof yet Syria's government is behind last week's chemical attack. His office compares the Western allegations against Syria to claims Iraq was hoarding weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invasion in 2003 -- allegations that fell apart once American troops began searching for them. 
 
 Intervening in Middle East turmoil: Mission impossible? 
 
 And Tuesday, Russia's foreign ministry accused Washington of trying to "create artificial groundless excuses for military intervention." 
 
 Moscow bemoaned the U.S. postponement of a meeting that was scheduled for Wednesday in The Hague, where top diplomats from both countries had planned to discuss the war in Syria. 
 
 And Russia criticized the United States for, in its view, trying to bypass the U.N. Security Council to take action on the reported chemical attack. 
 
 Should anything be moved through the U.N. council, Russia -- which has a permanent seat on it -- could block it. 
 
 Still, that's what former British Foreign Secretary David Owen urged world leaders to do before unleashing missiles or warplanes on Syrian targets. 
 
 Omran al-Zoubi, Syria's information minister, on Tuesday challenged the United States to "present this proof to the rest of the world" -- claiming that they are asking for trouble if they do not. 
 
 "If they don't have proof or evidence, then how are they going to stand up to the American public opinion and to the world public opinion and explain why they are attacking Syria?" al-Zoubi told CNN from Damascus. 
 
 Some worldwide have expressed concern that intervening in Syria may provoke broader conflict in the Middle East or ensnare Western powers in another bloody conflict after years of warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
 
 Cameron said that he understands those concerns, vowing that any action would have to be "proportionate, ... legal (and) would have to be specifically about deterring the use of chemical weapons." 
 
 Still, he said it's critically important that action be taken to show the international taboo against chemical weapons will not be tolerated. 
 
 "This is not about wars in the Middle East; this is not even about the Syrian conflict," he said. "It's about use of chemical weapons and making sure, as a world, we deter their use and we deter the appalling scenes we've all seen on our television screens. 
 
 Syria diplomacy: Why Jordan wants military meeting to be hush-hush 
 
 CNN's Fred Pleitgen reported from Syria. CNN's Hamdi Alkhshali reported from Atlanta and Jomana Karadsheh from Jordan. Michael Pearson wrote and reported from Atlanta. CNN's Greg Botelho, Ben Brumfield, Boriana Milanova, Chris Lawrence, Jim Acosta, Josh Levs, Joe Sterling, Elise Labott, Jill Dougherty and Saskya Vandoorne also contributed to this report. ||||| Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption In a BBC interview, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says the military is "ready to go" in responding to Syria 
 
 American forces are "ready" to launch strikes on Syria if President Barack Obama chooses to order an attack, US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel says. 
 
 "We have moved assets in place to be able to fulfil and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take," Mr Hagel told the BBC. 
 
 The White House said the US would release intelligence on last week's suspected attack in the next few days. 
 
 The UK Parliament is to be recalled on Thursday to discuss possible responses. 
 
 Prime Minister David Cameron said the world could "not stand idly by" after seeing "appalling scenes of death and suffering" caused by suspected chemical weapons attacks. 
 
 At the scene A good number of Syrians, in particular those supporting the regime, believe the visit of the UN chemical weapons investigation team is nothing but a move to justify a military attack on Syria. The opposition, however, thinks that these visits will lead to some evidence being unearthed, proving that chemical weapons have been used against civilians by the Syrian regime. Above all, fear and discomfort are palpable among those living in the capital. People are haunted by the possibility of a Western military strike on Syria, discussion of which is dominating the headlines of satellite channels. "I don't want Syria to become another Iraq... Enough bloodshed," cried one Syrian woman. "We, and thousands like us across Syria, will face any country that tries to attack us," threatened a young man, pointing at his weapon, which he uses to protect his neighbourhood. "These are Syria's problems and it is up to us, Syrians, to solve them." 
 
 The crisis follows last Wednesday's suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital, Damascus, which reportedly killed more than 300 people. 
 
 US Vice President Joe Biden said there was "no doubt who was responsible for this heinous use of chemical weapons in Syria: The Syrian regime". 
 
 In a speech to a veterans' group in Houston, Mr Biden said that "those who use chemical weapons against defenceless men, women, and children... must be held accountable". 
 
 French President Francois Hollande said France was "ready to punish" whoever was behind the attack, and had decided to increase military support for Syria's main opposition. 
 
 BBC diplomatic correspondent James Robbins says the US, UK and France will now have the larger task of building as wide a coalition as possible to support limited military action. 
 
 Meanwhile the Arab League said it held Syrian President Bashar al-Assad responsible for the attacks and called for UN action. 
 
 Syrian opposition sources have said they have been told to expect a Western intervention in the conflict imminently. 
 
 "There is no precise timing... but one can speak of an imminent international intervention against the regime. It's a question of days and not weeks," AFP news agency quoted Syrian National Coalition official Ahmad Ramadan as saying. 
 
 "There have been meetings between the Coalition, the [rebel] Free Syrian Army and allied countries during which possible targets have been discussed." 
 
 Mr Kerry is of course right that most people will think as he does, simply from watching the TV pictures. Some, however, will demand much stronger proof, particularly in the wake of the faulty intelligence that was used as a reason to go to war against Iraq 
 
 Russia and China, allies of the Syrian government, have stepped up their warnings against military intervention, with Moscow saying any such action would have "catastrophic consequences" for the region. 
 
 Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem has said he rejects "utterly and completely" claims that Syrian forces used chemical weapons, and his government has blamed rebel fighters. 
 
 On Monday, United Nations weapons inspectors were fired on while investigating one of the five alleged chemical weapons attack sites around Damascus. 
 
 'We are prepared' 
 
 Mr Hagel said the US Department of Defense had provided President Obama with "all options for all contingencies". 
 
 Image caption The head of the UN chemical inspectors team, Ake Sellstrom, and the UN's disarmament chief, Angela Kane, left their hotel in Damascus on Tuesday. Image caption UN chemical weapons inspectors spent nearly three hours in the suburb of Muadhamiya in western Damascus on Monday. Image caption The inspectors visited two hospitals and interviewed survivors, eyewitnesses and doctors over last week's suspected chemical attack near the Syrian capital. Image caption The inspectors were seen speaking to residents of Muadhamiya. previous slide next slide 
 
 "He has seen them, we are prepared," he told the BBC's Jon Sopel, adding: "We are ready to go." 
 
 Media playback is unsupported on your device Media caption Jay Carney says the US is weighing an "appropriate response" to the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria 
 
 Mr Hagel said that intelligence currently being gathered by the UN inspectors would confirm that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack last week. 
 
 "I think it's pretty clear that chemical weapons were used against people in Syria," he said. 
 
 Our correspondent says Mr Hagel left little doubt that he believed the Assad government was responsible, and was ready to execute the orders of his commander-in-chief. 
 
 Models for possible intervention Iraq 1991: US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait 
 
 US-led global military coalition, anchored in international law; explicit mandate from UN Security Council to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait Balkans 1990s: US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures" 
 
 US arms supplied to anti-Serb resistance in Croatia and Bosnia in defiance of UN-mandated embargo; later US-led air campaign against Serb paramilitaries. In 1999, US jets provided bulk of 38,000 Nato sorties against Serbia to prevent massacres in Kosovo - legally controversial with UN Security Council resolutions linked to "enforcement measures" Somalia 1992-93: UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out 
 
 UN Security Council authorised creation of international force with aim of facilitating humanitarian supplies as Somali state failed. Gradual US military involvement without clear objective culminated in Black Hawk Down disaster in 1993. US troops pulled out Libya 2011: France and UK sought UN Security Council authorisation for humanitarian operation in Benghazi in 2011. Russia and China abstained but did not veto resolution. Air offensive continued until fall of Gaddafi Syria crisis: Western military options Models for possible intervention Press apprehension as Syria tension builds Syria crisis: Where key countries stand 
 
 White House spokesman Jay Carney later said that a separate report on chemical weapons use being compiled by the US intelligence community would be published this week. 
 
 Mr Carney said that Mr Obama had a variety of options and was not limited to the use of force, adding that it was not Washington's intention to remove Mr Assad. 
 
 "The options we are considering are not about regime change," he said. 
 
 Meanwhile, warnings have been issued on sites linked to Islamist militants fighting for the rebels in Syria, saying that their leaders and training camps might also be targeted by a possible US-led attack, says BBC Arab affairs editor Sebastian Usher. 
 
 Several online sites linked to the Nusra Front and similar groups have advised militants not to hold meetings or gather in large numbers, and to change routines and locations, he says. 
 
 Western powers have made clear their distrust and dislike of groups like the Nusra Front, which have spearheaded rebel victories, although there has been no indication from the US or anyone else that jihadists would be targeted, he adds. 
 
 The UN says more than 100,000 people have been killed since the uprising against President Assad began more than two years ago. The conflict has produced more than 1.7 million registered refugees. 
 
 Image caption Syrian and Russian media said a cargo plane arrived in Latakia to evacuate Russian citizens 
 
 Earlier on Tuesday, a Russian transport plane landed in the Syrian city of Latakia with a cargo of humanitarian aid. 
 
 The aircraft later left with dozens of Russian citizens on board, an official spokeswoman for the Russian Emergencies Ministry, Irina Rossius, told Russian news agencies. 
 
 The flight was intended to evacuate Russians who wanted to leave Syria, she added.
– With John Kerry blasting the "screaming" evidence of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, the Obama administration is moving closer to launching a military strike on the country. On Saturday, President Obama held a three-hour meeting with his national security team on the issue, and CBS News last night shared three notable details by way of sources: There was absolutely no questioning the use of force, Obama wants the public to see a declassified report backing a potential military move before that force is used (CBS says it could be out today or tomorrow), and the president has ordered the presentation of legal justifications for a strike. Chuck Hagel, for his part, tells the BBC that the military is "ready to go" and prepped to "comply with whatever option the president wishes to take." A US strike would likely last two days at the most; Washington would likely use cruise missiles or long-range bombers aimed at military targets—though not ones directly linked to chemical weapons, the Washington Post reports. (Time reports that US officials have suggested they'll likely aim for artillery, missile launchers, and other weapons with the potential to launch chemical agents.) Four warships, as well as a British submarine, are said to be at the ready in the Mediterranean, CBS notes, adding that an attack would probably occur at night, minimizing civilian casualties. Meanwhile: The regime says claims it used chemical weapons are "utterly and completely" off the mark, and is calling on the US to reveal evidence to the contrary, the Guardian notes in a liveblog. "There is no country in the world that uses a weapon of ultimate destruction against its own people," says Syria's foreign minister, per the BBC. The UK is also considering possible military action, and British lawmakers have been called back from vacation to address the situation, CNN notes. Tweets David Cameron: "Speaker agrees my request to recall Parliament on Thurs. There'll be a clear Govt motion & vote on UK response to chemical weapons attacks." Russia and China are warning against any military strike by the US and allies, the BBC reports. Such a move would bring "new suffering in Syria and catastrophic consequences for other countries of the Middle East and North Africa," says a rep for Moscow's foreign ministry.