This is terrible...

Mark - I know we go into other countries - but look at our reasoning.

Thirteen years AFTER nerve gas was used on the populace we used that as one reason to enter Iraq. 13 years! Yet it was discussed as if it were a new atrocity. We use the excuses when they suit our purposes...and we aren't the only country to do that.

History has shown the futility of trying to shape up Afghanistan - Russia couldn't do it 9 years - and we haven't done it in 10. We had reason to go there but I doubt much was changed permanently.

In both cases, it was not response to a country's civil war....but our own agenda that motivated us.

Those films were from three years ago - the Tamil Tigers have been defeated, so they say. Today, similar atrocities are going on the Sudan - same lack of action by others.

For most nations (all?) self interest of its own citizens comes first. That's the point of the government of any democratic country. That is not to say we don't help - there are food and medical supplies in the billions sent by many countries to many other areas of the world.

Also consider any military intervention puts the lives of military form other countries at risk. Not many citizens are willing to risk lives to interfere in a small country's civil war that has been ongoing year after year.

What I'm saying is when we see something horrendous, it's natural to want to "do something". When you consider the potential consequences, doing something doesn't always make sense.

There's an interesting timeline at BBC News - Sri Lanka profile - Timeline

There's much more to it than a civil war with atrocities in 2009. Not sure what the U.N. could do as it was said at the time that atrocities were committed by both sides. It points out the difficulty of outside countries stopping a civil war.

The only comparison to the U.S. would be in the beginning - our actions against the native Indians here. Atrocities on both sides and a kill or be killed mentality that gradually acquired a veneer of civilized society.