The argument you bring seems similar to what people say about the Crimea-Crisis (that 'the west' isn't allowed to complain because of Bosnia). Just because 'the west' interfered illegally in Bosnia, doesn't give Russia a free pass to do so as well.
Not really. The particular concern about limiting future expansion of European colonialism at its center (inasfar as the part of it that might justify US action is concerned) hasn't really been a concern really since the early 20th Century, though the name was dusted off by some (misleadingly) in the Cold War for applications of the Kennedy Doctrine within the Western Hemisphere, and the doctrine was explicitly described as being dead by Secretary of State John Kerry last year.
> It allows for the invasion of foreign country's when the us feels threatened right?
Not as actually articulated by Monroe (in fact, if the country was in Europe, its specifically negated some justifications for involvement).
The problem with Syria is that the government is in the right. Or at least, it's less wrong. The rebels want to do religious cleansing of the country and the government wants to survive, and it's own ethnic group to survive. Of course Iran, equally being the target of the sunni muslim religious cleansing, supports their not-quite-brothers. Erdogan wants to "help" the rebels because he's on the side that wants to do ethnic and religious cleansing in Syria, and presumably because it would distract from his local problems. The problem in Iraq is the same basic thing. The good thing is that sunni muslim attacks in Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan are mostly their actions out of western nations.
But please don't be so stupid as to think they're ok with the US and generally the rest of the world just because they don't want to turn a 5-front war into a 100-front one. And also don't make the mistake of assuming they don't have support in America or don't have massive support in Europe. Both from local muslims living there, and from the governments that are afraid of these mad attacks.
As for Turkey, what do you really expect the leader of a sunni muslim religious party to do, except declare himself caliph and behave like he owns the world ? What exactly do you think he means when he says that "some" parts of sharia should be introduced ? You think he means to stop at "some" ? Really ? Religious freedom ? Sadly there are hundreds of millions of people who believe doing this is the answer to all the world's problems.
Please keep in mind that before Kemal Ataturk, Turkey, then the Ottoman empire, effectively the state of sunni islam that so many muslims are trying to recreate, had waged a 1500-year long war against the Europe, Asia and Africa. Then in WWI allah's caliph was overthrown, all but declared illegal (you wouldn't believe the number of imams killed and threatened in the 1918 - today period), and the war stopped, to be replaced with the cold war. The nightmare scenario is that this original war resumes.
[1] http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/19/turkeys-abru...
Pearl Harbor? What are you smoking?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_Dossier
By late 2003 it was already clear.