If its impossible to say, then why intervene? If you can't prove that bombing will have net positive effects then why do it?

Is omniscience a prerequisite to reacting? Nothing would ever get done then.

We're talking about killing people in a country on the other side of the world.

If not omniscience at least clear evidence that there is no other course of action and that this is absolutely required (spoiler, it wasn't). Reacting irrationally is just what animals do.

The intervention was to implement a UN resolution to force a cease fire: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Counci...

Not even Russia or China voted against it at the time so apparently most of the world agreed it was a good idea.

I hope that you understand that bombing Lybia, supplying rebels with weapons and then making them kill Gaddafi is a direct opposite of a cease fire?

Or do you believe that a cease fire is when the other side ceases firing so you can get a good shot yourself?

No it’s when both sides agree to stop

So it's not OK for you watching how Gaddafi vanquishes rebels, but it is totally OK for you to watch rebels getting rid of Gaddafi, and aiding them to do so.

Shows the involvement clearly.

It could have been a trap

Iraq and Libya invasions, without recovery plan, made the west too morally bankrupt too succeed in Syria

A more strategic target to Russia

One reason is because they didn't intervene in Rwanda, and got widely criticised for that. I believe it was decided that genocide demands intervention.

The bottom line seems to be that the West is criticized by some people no matter what they do, or even what they don't do.

I guess that's why we now get the piecemeal support for Ukraine. No real intervention, but we've got to do something, but not too much, but not too little either.

Sending your military personnel to enter a missile flight plan is hardly “something”. Next step is launching said missiles from NATO airspace.

Not sure what you're trying to say here. Surely getting your own military personal involved is not entirely nothing? Also, launching missiles from NATO airspace does not have to be the next step.

Two things that sound to me like obvious next steps is sending NATO air defense with NATO personel into Ukraine to provide better cover from Russian missiles. And after that, a no-fly zone. Actual combat support is probably too much to ask.

> what they do, or even what they don't do

That's part of it. Because the West usually does these things for purely self-interest, but likes to play the "world police" card to justify things, then gets frustrated when people say "well, if you're the world police, why are you not stopping the genocide in Rwanda?" and the West shrugs, but the answer is generally obvious, "because there's no benefit we can glean from it".

This is not exactly a fair comment. It's the same reasoning when you attempt to justify /any/ action. You can't do it for a guaranteed outcome (because no such states can be guaranteed) but that doesn't mean you can't try to achieve a desired outcome.