I like the song.

I don't feel comfortable with the concept of "civil war", being something that others should not be involved with. I think the images of the English, and the American Civil Wars have something to do with this, as both can be seen as roughly equal groups of armed soldiers, fighting traditionally staged battles that can be re-enacted. When a group claiming to be the rightful government oppresses part of the population of "it's" territory, and that population, even if less effectively armed, turns and fights back, is that the same thing? When there are massacres and torture, that is not a concept of civil war that should be ignored. No government has the right to dig non-combatants into mass graves. It doesn't really have the right (though it may argue that it has the duty) to put combatants there, either. Using the words "civil war", like "private fight" can be an excuse for non-involvement. But going in as we are, bombing who knows who, and almost certainly not those responsible, is not going to solve anything, either. Hitler bombing London didn't lower morale, and remove support from the British government. Just the opposite. Why should people think that the other side is different? It's like old films, where the hero and the villain are fighting. The hero is wounded, and it only adds to his determination and strength. The villain is wounded, and the sight of his own blood weakens him, muddles him, angers him, and causes him to lose. Not like life. I don't know what the solution is. Trying to communicate with the people of the country concerned, past the watchers, and showing them the truth, whatever it may be, might help. How?