My point was more along the lines that the Economist raised those same points about Iraq back then. The Economist itself didn't focus so much on the Iraqi Shi'ites, but the editors of the magazine pointed out that what was happening to the Kurds at the time under Saddam most certainly amounted to genocide, to which they used the same argument that the world was ignoring the Kurds and/or only using them when it was politically expedient. Their point about Iraq back then was just as strong as their point relating to Syria now. Again, what the Economist is fond of doing is outlining a strong rationale for a certain course of action, and then, if that course is taken for whatever reason, they'll do a follow-up article which basically says" What! You listened to us? Here's why our original article was full of crap..." It's like the Economist's signature move.