[iamsohungry]

> It's debatable. Do you stand aside and look the other way and say, that's their lot in the world, or do you do something.

> It's not an was call. If you do nothing people die. If you try to do something people will die. The idea is to pave a better path to the future.

This was the propaganda used to excuse invading Iraq, but it's incredibly naive to believe it.

> Or even today, do we say, forget Syria. Seal it up, let them sort things out and condemn a whole country's population to great suffering?

That's exactly what we'd be doing if they weren't sitting in the way of fossil fuel transportation routes.

It's ridiculous to claim that we're doing this to reduce the suffering of people in Syria. The US has supplied Israel with bombs that have been used to kill Syrian civilians for more than half a century, yet suddenly we care about the suffering of Syrians now? Yeah, right.

[mc32]

So are you saying countries should retreat from Syria and let things fall where they may, or are you saying we should get more involved?

Of course countries act selfishly. It's crazy to think otherwise. Everyone will act selfishly. Europe the ME, etc. want stability in Syria selfishly, but coincidentally it's a good thing.

[iamsohungry]

> So are you saying countries should retreat from Syria and let things fall where they may, or are you saying we should get more involved?

I'm saying that our current involvement in Syria is worse than not being involved, and talking about Syria as if "helping" is even an option our leaders are considering is naive, and buying into the propaganda.

I can see a number of ways we could be involved positively in Syria, but we're not, and we're not going to be.