Makes you wonder, if everything had gone to the original plan in syria already, nat gas pipelines would be headed to europe by now and the IMF wouldn't bother with the gazprom bill to russia…

Also interesting how there has been very little action about the blackouts from the State Dept talking heads (beyond the toothless shaming), if this had been a country not doing the bidding of tptb we would probably hear of sanctions against turkish corps in the us.

Are you suggesting that a "western conspiracy" was responsible for the turmoil in Syria? That their people did not have serious grievances with a regime that tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people for political reasons even before the current conflict started?

>Are you suggesting that a "western conspiracy" was responsible for the turmoil in Syria?

Who are you quoting? And is "conspiracy" just a pejorative word for 'intervention' or 'decision?'

>That their people did not have serious grievances with a regime that tortured and murdered tens of thousands of people for political reasons even before the current conflict started?

Are you suggesting that your first statement and your second statement are equivalent? That people did have serious grievances before the current conflict would lead me to ask 'why now?'

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...

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.