None the less, I do have some comments...
RE: "centuries of interference": Of course the interference of Western Imperial nations over centuries has had much to do with the creation of the current state of the ME. I don't think I said otherwise and I certainly did not mean otherwise. What I meant was that the PROXIMATE cause of the current Syrian conflict is the minority dictatorship of the Alawite over the majority Sunni population - an internal, structural cause - and not a plot or conspiracy on the part of the United States / CIA / Evil Western Imperialists to deliberately create conflict and instability. Which is what I believe has been suggested or implied in some of the posts I've seen on DU.
RE "Leave them alone": Stability and (hopefully) adoption of modern, western ideals of governance in the middle east is in our material self interest. ME oil is essential to the industrialized world; volatility and conflict in this region has, is and will cause us much harm. There isn't really any alternative to intervening given what is at stake.
That said, in this case our intervention has been aimed at keeping the conflict contained within Syria and with preventing it from becoming a true humanitarian disaster through the introduction of chemical weapons. This IS intervention, but it is as little as we can afford to do while letting them "work out" their problems.
RE "You can't bring democracy to another country with bombs": That's more or less true. Japan after WWII might be discussed as a counter-example. However, I don't think bringing democracy to Syria happens to be our objective. Who said that is was? I think it would be in our interest if the majority Sunnis were to establish a government that was legitimate in the eyes of the majority populace. This would, in a very small way, be a step towards democracy. But it wouldn't be anything like democracy as we know it, and it wouldn't be OUR bombs that brought it about.
= new reply since forum marked as read