[YZF]

I disagree with this logic and morality. There is a moral obligation to intervene when failing to intervene results in more harm. Naturally the type of intervention needs to be reasonable for the circumstances. But standing by and letting Assad and Putin drop barrel bombs on the population of Syria is clearly not the moral path.

By your logic if Japan hadn't attacked the US then the US should have just stood aside and let the Germans take Europe in WW-II.

[skellington]

WWII was an invasion into Europe, not a civil war.

Every time we've intervened in civil wars, the outcome has been bad, with one exception -- Korea.

The problems with your thinking are:

#1 It's how the neo-cons think and is the justification for all of the US terrorism in the past 40+ years.

#2 Who are you to say what the best outcome for another people are? Which people? What group in Syria will have this great outcome now that it's controlled by Isis?

#3 How many people did you get to kill to experiment with nation building? Do you really understand the internal power dynamics of countries like Syria, Iraq? Or are you practicing a form of Imperialism?