Military Intervention in Syria?

It now seems like Bashar Assad's war crimes are equal to, if not greater than, those committed by Muammar Gadhafi. It is logical to ask, then, why is the world intervening in Libya but not in Syria. I heard one analyst say that the answer is that nobody knows who will win in Syria, while in Libya, it seemed clear that Gadhafi was a gonner. I'm not satisfied by that answer. After all, the Brotherly Leader is still holding on. Maybe the answer is oil? I just don't know.

There is one more factor that should be taken into consideration, and is probably on the minds of NATO leaders. If NATO attacks Syria, Assad could retaliate by attacking Israel. Hezbollah, which has reportedly sent thugs to help the Alawites suppress the demonstrations, could also launch missiles at Israel, hoping such an action would help secure the regime of one of their two patrons. After all, nothing can unite an Arab nation more than hatred for Israel.

For this admittedly self-centered reason, I oppose military intervention in Syria. I support other kinds of sanctions against the regime.