So you would intervene, providing you didn't have to travel too far.......
It's a crap metaphor.
If a kid's been attacked you step in and save him, easy peasy. A war isn't like that, armed intervention very rarely reduces the body count or doesn't lead to problems down the line. It just makes you feel better for having done something.
I object to spending british money and british lives on something that I don't think will have any real benefit in terms of improving lives, beyond make people feel good about the fact we were involved.
What would we do which would improve things? How would armed intervention help in any way?
We fought two world wars on the basis of guarantees we gave to allies, not for our own benefit. Both wars effectively cost us our place as the ultimate power, economically and militarily, on the planet. I think we deserve some credit for that....
We do. And if syria were an aggressive power attacking our allies and threatening to expand exponentially, we certainly should intervene.
But they're not, they're purely focused on internal enemies. And there's a reason we went to war with hitler but not stalin, because our policy is not to intervene for moral reasons but for strategic ones.
The aggressive expansive power, is the islamist rebels syria are gassing.