If you are debating intervention in Syria, and not war-related human rights in Congo, or apartheid in Israel, or civil rights in Saudi Arabia, or the fact that the US-backed military regime in Egypt has just overthrown the leader of a new democracy and is as we speak killing the democratically-elected leader's supporters, then you are a passive agent of the US Corporate State. Discuss. I don't necessarily endorse that view myself, but our reality has a curious logic. In the USA, UK and so on, it's an interesting fact that the media seem to stress certain events at the expense of others, endorse and support a certain types of cause, but ignore lots of other similar ones for no immediately apparent reason. The BBC are currently pumping out lots of propaganda / documentaries on atrocities in Syria, just as they did about Iraq close to the lead up to the overthrow of Saddam. Yet I don't remember similar propaganda efforts in the lead up to Rwanda, or the Congo civil conflict, or so on. The BBC are of course serving the political establishment of which they are, unknowingly and knowingly, a part. As your media would have it, the world of international politics is basically a kind of goodies-versus-baddies super realist version of Holywood where modern history is a series of spontaneous reactions by selfless Western elites to moral crises as they occur throughout the world. But if you think about it, that makes it hard to explain the reactions of Obama et al to a comparatively puny crisis of Syria (where a recent alleged death toll of 1000 odd compares so unfavourably to tolls that happen with many multiples in Africa but don't even get reported). And if you are slavishly following the corporate media's lead by focusing on such a moral crisis at the expense of others, whose agenda do you serve? When we see the Borg on Star Trek, or Daleks on Dr Who, do we just see dark reflections of ourselves? Soul-lessly or unknowlingly fighting against the human spirit when parroting to ourselves the 'greater good' nonsense bucketed down by our masters? Assad's downfall would indeed weaken the anti-American block in the middle east but almost certainly lead to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. Yes you can probably keep the price of oil lower as a result, but is it worth it, even from an entirely self-interested US or UK stance? Not just those deaths, but the hatred towards your children that will follow? Assad was always a baddie for the West, but only the 2008 economic crisis and its effects gave him enemies strong enough to invite overt US/Nation aggression like we are currently seeing. So the US wants to take its chance, that's understandable. But do you feel comfortable signing the death warrants of so many thousands of people to serve the interests of the US elite? Surely if you want to save lives and so on, you need to focus on something you can actually understand. Surely its better to campaign for road safety, better regulation of the drugs industry, and so forth? No?