WHY SYRIA--BUT NOT RWANDA?

It doesn't take a genius mentality to decipher why this country (and England, and France, etc.) are laboriously considering and determining whether and how to respond to the horrible cruelty perpetrated by faction A (the Assad regime) and/or faction B (the rebels themselves) upon a thousand or more people--including many innocent men, women, and children--while truly WORSE factionalist nightmares, like Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, etc., etc., which resulted in MILLIONS of deaths, went on hardly noticed by the powers that be in our part of the world (save for a "Band-Aid" application of a few Blue Helmets in the case of Rwanda). 

Among the more obvious answers is the fact that the Middle East, with its oil-fueled atmosphere and economy, has long been of direct (as in development and investment) or at least indirect (as in the need to keep our machines and vehicles running) importance to many of the giant earners here and nearby.  I speak a lot about the evils of factionalism and harmful self-interest in numerous parts of my book, "World Unity."

While the ultimate ambition should naturally be the fostering and maintenance of peace and harmony among all of us--our leaders should decide upon necessary and sensible steps to deal with such wrongs as should occur, considering only scope and importance, without regard to the economic factors or interests pertaining to the particular place involved.