[cinquemb]

Not necessarily (because the conflict is not black and white), just that "the west" (if you include Qatar, Saudi Arabia[0], Israel, etc…) and "the east" all have interests in the region and have manipulated the conflict on multiple levels regardless of environment before Syria went "hot". Just like everywhere else in the world where someone is trying to make a buck…

Some of those interests have been well stated by the CFR[1] and RAND years…

Besides, "the west" didn't step into Iraq until the beginning of the 90's (and even then didn't dispose him until the 00's) while Saddam who was being bankrolled by the west was doing their bidding as well as torturing and murdering tens of thousands of people in the 80's… and even now, thousands more continue to die in northern Iraq and I don't hear people parroting that around, so lets not try to evoke the knee jerk emotions and remember all "sides" have blood on their hands in pursuit of their self interests…

[0] http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/31/us-syria-crisis-sa... [1] http://www.cfr.org/qatar/tiny-qatars-big-plans-may-change-mi...

[bayesianhorse]

There is no such thing as "no intervention". Any action or inaction will shape events. In democracies it is inevitable to have an opinion of these things and to voice them. Otherwise leaders like Putin or Assad step all over you, and then demand "deescalation".

Also, Assad left any shred of legitimacy when he started decimating his population with artillery, and I don't how care how many "legitimate targets" where among the hundreds of thousands of civilians that were targeted.

For me, the only tolerance a democracy can have towards the governments in Syria, North Korea and some other countries, is that nobody can or wants to depose them. Nothing more, nothing less. That does not mean regime change works all the time, it just means there cannot be any apologetics for mass these murderers any more.