Constant mentions of Libya just prove to me that most nations (especially China and Russia) really don't understand American mentality at all. To the average American and Americans in leadership positions there is a vast difference between Assad and Qaddafi and between Syria and Libya. We weren't even seriously considering launching attacks on Syria.

"We weren't even seriously considering launching attacks on Syria."

Exactly how do you know this? I would say (as one of those 'average Americans') that the US and NATO were completely disingenuous about Libya and China and Russia got burned over it. They learned their lesson: that they need to actively work to block US expansionism because just sitting back and letting the US run roughshod over the mideast will screw them militarily and economically.

I absolutely do NOT believe you when you say that we would not launch an attack against Syria, and neither does most of the world. Hell, you have Wesley Clark admitting that this has been on the drawing board for years, as had Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LTdx1nPu3k

So given this what would you expect Russia and China to do? The real shame is that NATO effectively gutted the concept of R2P in this process, and civilizians will die because of it. You can expect Russia and China to try and back the US into the exact same corner when Bahrain (or some other US ally) flairs up again. If that had gone to the UNSC, what would we have done? Look at all of the resolutions we are vetoing on behalf of Israel despite 14-1 vote counts. At least Russia had China with it...

There is no political will for intervening militarily in Syria, that's why you should believe him. I don't suppose you've heard of how the public is getting sick of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Intervening in Libya was the right call, and yet even then it was difficult enough trying to muster the political will to make it happen, because the public was wary of getting involved in another conflict (and rightly so).

Should we intervene in Syria? For now the answer seems to be no. Assad isn't stupid enough to do anything that would decisively rally world opinion against him. But we should be increasing diplomatic pressure on Assad's regime all the same, and that's where Russia and China are derelict in their responsibilities as permanent UNSC members.

In re. to Base: I said the 'average American' for a reason. Based on everything I've seen written in American newspapers, mentioned by regular Americans (of both liberal and conservative variety), heard in speeches by Americans to Americans, political actions made by American leaders at home and at the U.N and in claims made by candidates for the presidential elections I think it is very safe to say that an attack by the U.S or even NATO was not on the table.
It was probably considered, but only so that if there was suddenly a need to attack we would have the plans already established. It's the same reason why we have plans for what would happen if North Korea launched a full scale attack on South Korea or if we suddenly needed to have direct talks with Hamas. So that in worst-case situations we have some idea of what should be done in a very short amount of time.

In re. to Delta22: The problem is that to the Russian and Chinese governments, the action that best serves their interests is to bet that Assad and his government will ultimately win. Russia has more vested in this than China but nether nation really wants him to fall and both would be more than happy to see the opposition destroyed. They are in no way inclined to focus on what would be best for the nation of Syria. If you really want evidence look at China's policy on South Sudan in the 1990s and on Darfur now.

Grant -

Since when is the 'average American' even a consideration in DC? The 'Average American' was not consulted before invading Libya. Even Congress wasn't consulted before invading Libya (a bit of a stretch, maybe, but in this case Ron Paul is right that 1) this was an act of war, and 2) this was in violation of US Law). In the case of Libya the US was able to skirt the issue by just using air power and calling it a kinetic action. We in the US love it when we get to drop bombs on arabs, so we had no issue with it. We spent a billion dollars and called it a success because Kadaffi got a knife shoved up his ass. It is looking more and more like Turkey will invade using R2P as an excuse despite the fact that they, along with NATO, are pumping in arms and fighters from Libya and calling this a 'revolution'. Total bullshit.

I read the papers and watch the news like all other 'average americans' and all I see is endless faux-outrage at Syria on every news outlet; with uncorroborated casualty numbers tossed out left and right. The problem is that this is essentially mythology. The numbers are supplied by the 'rebel' forces that we have created.

Delta22 -
So when you say
"But we should be increasing diplomatic pressure on Assad's regime all the same, and that's where Russia and China are derelict in their responsibilities as permanent UNSC members.'

Did you happen to also comment that WE were derelict in OUR duties when actual Bahraini civilians were being slaughtered by that government? Or when Palestinians are being slaughtered by Israel and we protect them in the UNSC? If so then Kudos to you. If not, then where's the outrage at our dereliction of duty at the UN??