SOURCE: Across Egypt, piles of ash where church pews once stood (+video) – CSMonitor.com.
While we are meddling in the various civil wars in the Middle East, and aren’t almost all of them in one form of war or another, how do we choose which side we are one? It seems in Syria and Egypt the “rebels” are the extremists who are burning churches that are not muslim whenever they come across them. How do we choose where to inject a few billion dollars to affect the outcome.
Mr. Obama is trying to make the case to drop bombs and cruise missiles on Syria to “punish” Assad for apparently using chemical weapons. But in the process he also wants to help the rebels get an advantage. But as I, and many others see it, by doing that he is actually choosing one extremist over another. What good does that do.
All of this choosing sides between bad or worse reminds me of my younger days when Mr. Reagan decided to help El Salvador and take down Nicaragua or maybe it was the other way around? I know we spent millions both above and below the table on those wars. Ollie North who broke so many laws doing it was still considered a hero by many of my conservative friends. Of course today both countries are considered our friends, that is if we really have any friends in that part of the world.
Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what would happen if we didn’t intervene in the affairs of another country and just let things happen. I know to all those who are so fearful of everything in the world that seems an impossibility.
But I’m just a simple guy so what do I know….
RJ's Corner 
The sources on the ground warned of such things- in both Egypt and Syria. Unfortunately, military liaisons are not listened to in this administration – Rep or Democrat.
LikeLike
I don’t really know how much the military liasons are listened to but I am firmly convinced that President Obama’s 180 in military matters are because he listens too much to some of his military experts….
LikeLike
Military experts are often those too high up in the military or civilian worlds do not listen to those on the ground. Military liaisons are mid range officers who solely live on the ground and listen.
LikeLike
I see our military power being the tool to be used when we’re attacked or our “national interest” is being directly threatened. Since these issues in Syria and Egypt are internal and have existed for hundreds of years, why not try to use our “power” (aka money, influence etc.) to help the people in that region find and build bridges among themselves while perhaps trying to help the everyday person on the street with things like improving access to clean water, access to medical care, etc. Aren’t these the things that people there are interested in to try and live a “normal” life? Isn’t this what Hezbollah has been doing with great success and showing themselves as a truer friend of the people? If we think out of our box of automatically defaulting to a military solution, we could perhaps come up with ideas to help the people in those areas help themselves find and build bridges to build a society of their own making (whether we would consider it “democratic” or not) but one that is more peaceful for themselves. And then we could use our military power to protect them from bullies or others in those regions that may have stakes at destabilizing this kind of environment. We can and should use our “great power” status as a way to “help” but perhaps not have to “solve” all of these issues.
LikeLike
I am all for helping people who are struggling for existence. That is what God in almost every religion tells us to do. But sometimes we just need to keep our noses out of others affairs…. 😉
LikeLike
I would like to see us use our resources to first take care of our own struggling people, infrastructure, crime, healthcare, etc. THEN, give assistance where it’s needed for humanitarian purposes…not for special interests or military interests. It seems to me that priorities are set by powers beyond the control or influence of the vast majority of Americans. We merely supply the funds for their adventures. The countries in the Middle East have been fighting for centuries and they’ve had centuries to build their own countries…why is it our duty to intervene and “save” them all? If the tables were turned do you think any of these people would rush in to save the American people? Not a chance.
LikeLike
I couldn’t have, nor did I say it better Jane….
LikeLike
The issue is the use of chemicals for killing innocent people. That is the issue. We as members of the world do not accept that type of killing. Therefore, rather than ignore that reality, we are showing our concern by our reaction. Keep it simple, straight, and that is our national reaction.
LikeLike
Yes, Mary chemical weapons were the primary subject of the matter but that quickly got diluted with other things. Instead of instantly thinking more killing via our bombs is the answer I am glad that we got pushed into another venue. Instead of going it alone (or practically alone) we should have tried to bring world wide condemnation of that act.
I simply believe that since we have more military and weapons than the rest of the world combined we most often think that is the solution to all problems. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
We claim to be a Christian so I wish we would follow Jesus in this area. The only time violence was taken in his name he quickly admonished it and even put the ear back on the Roman soldier…..
LikeLike
Very noble sentiments, Mary….and niave. Do you really think all this is a simple straight response to use of chemical weapons? It is far more complicated than we can comprehend…we’re being used by rebel factions, pushed by Israel, threatened by Iran, pushed by our own “hawks” in Congress, hated by everyone, milked for all the billions they can get from us. It is far from simple and straight forward.
I’m all for diplomacy…against more violence…but not willing to “rebuild” countries destroyed by their own warring factions.
LikeLike
Hmmm. Let me rethink my thoughts that I expressed earlier. I tend to be simple and naive. The latest “deal” that was agreed by Russia and our own country is to remove the chemical weapons from Syria. That solution I like.
LikeLike
I love it when the commentors at RJs Corner can discuss things among themselves and not end up yelling and ranting at each other. I think I have some of the best readers in the world… Thanks to all of you who comment and the many others who follow along silently.
LikeLike
Kudo’s to you, RJ, for raising these topics and then gently guiding the exchanges so that we are better able to listen to each other’s ideas and hopefully build greater understanding with those that may not agree with us. Who knows, if we can do this here, perhaps someday we can do more of that as a country with others around the world!
LikeLike
Wow Mike, you certainly do have lofty expectations! Thanks for the compliments and I hope you are right in all of us getting greater understanding of the world around us. We certainly could use a strong dose of that…
LikeLike