I hear you. But I just want to add one more perspective, when there is an intervention, the intervening party (US in this case) technically aligns with someone from the conflict. That might be a political oppositional force, it might be a national majority, it might be a region which is or is not a part of a country. Usually there is already some kind of conflict going on. I don't have any data, but from my own experience, a lot of people are not with either side, and they suffer greatly. It might be because of the sheer despair of the situation or the "oppressing" or "opposing" force. And don't be led to think that the force supported by the US plays nicely without war crimes, offence and with pure motives. Sometimes the party supported by the US has it's own agenda which aligns with the US and it is just beneficial to be supported. I guess that it makes sense and the great US wouldn't be the US without that kind of strategy.
This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.
This went political, and the topic was ecology. As this wasn't bad enough, this all goes with a huge ecological toll which impacts a broader number of people than those involved in conflict.