Hey, the truth is never that one-sided. In Syria, like in Libya, and especially in Iraq, there are atrocities on both sides; that's the very nature of "civil wars", friend. Always. It is the rule; not the exception; and it should surprise no one.
This is simply another victory for the neocons, who have never had the slightest interest in "humanitarian" wars to protect civilians' lives.
The major US news media outlets are frantically selling yet another war to an amazingly pliant and gullible American public which apparently doesn't have the ability to rationally interpret fresh propaganda in the light of even a very recent precedent.
US involvement in the civil wars of other countries never works out well. It is always a bad idea.
Well, regardless, we have to be on one side of the Syrian war or the other, right? You're "for or agin' us", right? Bashar al-Assad (like Muammar Gaddafi) is all bad; therefore the rebels who overthrew him are all good, right? Sez who? That's the classic logical fallacy of a false dilemma.
Now, you tell me, when is it a good idea for the U.S. to take sides in another country's civil war? What's the correct answer?
This thing is only beginning ... it will be not be over when the government of Syria is overthrown by rebels, just like the Libyan war wasn't "all over" with Gaddafi's deposition from power in exactly the same way that Iraq was far from over when Saddam Hussein was taken down. And it will not be "all over" in exactly the same sense that the Afghanistan mission ended with the death of Osama bin Laden.
C'mon, you knew when this thing started it was going to last a lot longer than American leaders said it would. You knew it then, or you damned sure should have known it.
Of course, if you bought Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and now Syria, chances are, you'll buy the next one, too. Most Americans will.