It seems like everything happening in Syria is what Nato went to war with Libya for possibly maybe happening at some point in the future.

chemical weapons - which syria has very large amounts of. who knows what assad would do if it seemed like the end of the road. or trying to secure it all once the regime fell. that would require troops on the ground and even better intelligence than is likely had to secure all of it.


russia - assad and putin are butt buddies

Because it's none of their business.

My honest opinion, don't really care if someone dislikes me for it.

How was Libya their buisness?

I'm not argueign they SHOULD invade.  I'm argueing that the conditions are the same as Libya.  When NATO argued we had to go for Morale reasons.

As Obama put it.... "The US can't afford to let such immoral slaughter happened, I won't ever allow it."

Simple. Libya was a very weak target, Syria isn't.

It wasn't, difference is that Libya != Syria, Libya was under attack from several fronts and really could only defend against the terrorists (Rebels), whilst Syria is still in a decent position to cause American "casualties" if they decide to interfere.

I won't comment on Obama calling it "Immoral slaughter" because he's not in a position to talk about morals IMO.

I think part of it's geographic, too. It was very clear-cut in Libya where in the country the good guys were and the bad guys were (East and West, respectively), whereas loyalty and revolt in Syria is more dispersed, and the rebellion is nowhere near as strong or organized as in Libya. Syria thus would likely require boots on the ground, which is something no-one wants to try.

What Mr Bubbles said applies too.

Syria is an Iranian puppet state, no? (That's the impression I get).

Intervening in Syria could cause action from Iran... then again, with all these hawks in office, you'd think that would go in the "pro" column for intervening in Syria.

Not at all. Syria and Iran have had good relations in the past (both sponsor or have sponsored Hezbollah, for one), but Iran and Syria have core ideological differences, namely that Syria tries to be more secular-Arab (similar to Egypt or Hussein's Iraq), while Iran is full-tilt theocratic, and Iran is Shiite Muslim while the Syrian regime is Alawite-Muslim (the difference being the majority of Iranians are Shiite, but the majority of Syrians are Sunni, so Syria's Alawite regime can't afford to be too religious)

Iran has backed Syria in this, largely to spite the West, but depending on the nature of the Syrian opposition, Iran might not be completely opposed to an overthrow of Assad (but the opposition in Syria's case, like Libya's, would be indebted to the West, so likely would be bad for the Iranian position in the short run). Russia more sternly supports them because Syria is a bulwark against both radical islam and the West, which is exactly where Russia stands, so they see it more in their interest than protecting the Iranians.

Nobody was really strongly opposed to intervention in Libya. Russia is VERY strongly opposed to even a condemnation of Bashar al-Assad, let alone a full-on military invasion.

On top of that, the majority of Libyans live in a narrow strip along the coast. Syria has a more evenly spread population, so a no-fly zone isn't really a possibility.

And finally, there's only so many times you can intervene before you just get sick and tired of spending your money and having everybody hate you.