Non Intervention in Syria

« U.N.'s Syria death toll jumps dramatically to 60,000-plus » titled CNN on January 2013. The situation in Syria is getting worse since the beginning of the conflict in February 2011. At the beginning of the war, the international community is shocked and a lot of people all over the world are asking for a military intervention in Syria. The situation seems to be comparable to the conflict in Libya in 2011, ended with the intervention of western forces against Gaddafi. The Syrian people can logically expect the intervention of the UN in order to free them from Bashar al-Assad's deadly repression. Two years and 60000 dead later, the massacres are continuing.

If a foreign intervention was possible in Libya, why is it not the same for Syria?

On one hand, the two conflicts are quite similar and an intervention seems logical. On the other hand, hugh differences between both are leading to the non-intervention in Syria.

An intervention in Syria is asked by a lot of people. If it was necessary in Libya, it might be the same for Syria because the two conflicts are very similar. In both cases, a popular uprising broke out in one of the most highly repressive and brutal regime in the Middle-East, with a dictator ready to do all what he has to in order to keep the power and the clan stranglehold on the state, and brutally repressed the demonstrators. Who, as soon as the police apparatus and torture are no longer sufficient, seeks to restore the terror by giving tanks, heavy artillery and air power against the cities of his own country. In both cases, demonstrators are finally taking up arms, mostly rifles stolen from the regular army or sent from the outside in order to continue their fight. The revolution turned into an armed conflict, when the regime shouts at international conspiracy, accusing the Mossad, al-Qaeda, Americans, Qatar of trying to destabilize the country.