My problem with "interference" by the West in the ruling regimes is that the motivation of our leaders is suspect.
OIL in Libya.
On the surface - "fairness" in Syria.

I hate Syria because, as a teenager going around the world in 1963, I arrived in Damascus, checked into my cheap hotel (my budget was 50p a night), woke in the morning, threw open the shutters (it was on the main square) and - as I did so - three men dropped through a trapdoor, the crowd cheered and I saw three people die.

I checked out that day and flew out of Syria, never to return. In contrast I loved my next city - Tehran. And the Persian people.


But Iran deserves intervention - killing gays is a human rights breach I believe the West should stop.
However, many people would not agree, would shrug their shoulders and, like Mail readers, stay in the closet on that topic.

Our delusions of moral grandeur are on very sandy foundations. And I do basically feel, unless strongly provoked, we should NOT interfere in the government of other countries, however attractive the voices of protest may sound. They frequently become the next dictators and their crimes are often far worse than those they threw out.

The secret police of the Shah or the Murdering Mullahs? You choose.

JK2006 wrote:
But Iran deserves intervention - killing gays is a human rights breach I believe the West should stop.

... but slaughtering women and children in Syria does not ?