I think you have a very naive and juvenile understanding of the situation in Syria, which is partly due to the fact that you watch disinformation vectors like VICE, which tells some truth, but omits others. Also, the Western media constantly rails when there is a supposed Syrian government bombing of civilians.
Take the recent example of when the
US media reported that Syrian government shelling killed 36 people in Damascus. However, what was left out was that this was retaliation for "rebel" shelling that killed 13 as the Iranian foreign minister was there. That's what happens when you have war, you have tit-for-tat strikes, and in an urban war like this, civilian casualties are inevitable. You, like the so-called West, blame entirely Assad, but you fail to understand that any leader or State, will fight to preserve its power. If the U.S. was in the same predicament it would do the same thing, especially when this so-called "civil war" is largely fueled by external forces.
Recently, Turkey and the U.S. announced a proposed
"no-fly zone" over certain parts of Syria. Given history, military interventions always precede with a no-fly zone - whether in Iraq, Libya, or Yugoslavia in the 90s. This portends a possible intervention in the fall 2015.
However, Turkey has used the current cover of bombing ISIS,
as an excuse to bomb the Kurds, with whom it has long standing tensions.
This is largely due to the fact that the Kurds have been increasingly successful against the ISIS militants. As
Turkey is one of the only points of entry for Islamist fighters and weapons support (the other is Jordan, and to a lesser extent Iraq), if the Kurds succeeded in closing off the border with Turkey, that would be a significant blow to the continued support of ISIS, which is the secrete proxy army of "the West."
Moreover, the likely intervention would be in keeping with U.S. policy as outlined by the establishment mouthpiece, the Brookings Institution as far back as 2012 with an aptly Orwellian titled piece titled, "
Saving Syria: Assessing Options for Regime Change."
Syria is where there is a convergence of interests from a variety of parties both for purposes of energy control of the future and
lebensraum for
"Greater Israel" as outlined back in the 80s by Oded Yinon. NATO and the Gulf States support regime change for the pipeline politics involving the
Qatar-Turkey pipeline vs.
Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline.
What is the likelihood that this may spiral out of control into a general Middle East war? What about a larger world war?