[ReptileMan]

On the other hand interventions turned 2 Islamic countries from otherwise stable entities into total disasters. Syria, Lybia are failed states. If Gaddafi and Assad were allowed to deal with the crisis it would have been all over by now with less death toll.

Egypt escaped their fate narrowly just because the military took control.

[yyyk]

What happened in Syria was precisely the result of allowing Assad to 'deal with the crisis'.

[ReptileMan]

Not at all. It was to prevent bloodbath of rebels and regime change as a side dish. But then Assad turned out stronger and with better allies and the quagmire was born.

[yyyk]

The West never ever wanted regime change in Syria, as corroborated by Ford and others. The entire purpose was to keep the rebels in leash, and the bloodbath was the expected result.

[Ericson2314]

You may not like Morsi but he was not running a failed state.

Ugh, can we not be against both wanton foreign intervention and backing military juntas?

[ReptileMan]

Egypt was going downhill.

You can be against whatever you wish. Real world takes precedence.

Once you cry havoc and unleash the dogs of war all bets are off.

The us has had successful state building with Germany Japan and South Korea and totally failed with Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran.

And the whole Latin America is... complicated.

In hindsight the proper solutions are aplenty, but so far how to intervene or whether is a cointoss for the outcome.