Should the United States have intervened in Rwanda? Darfur?

[quaoar]

President Clinton once apologized for not intervening with American military forces to stop the genocide that went on there.

With all the anti-war feeling there is here at DU, I wonder what people thought of Rwanda and whether it would have been appropriate to intervene there.

And -- assuming our military was not already tied down in Iraq, would it be appropriate to intervene today in Darfur? Congo?

[DireStrike]

1. The UN should help. We can join if we want.

It depends what exactly you mean by "intervention". The main goal should be to provide stability and mediate the discussion.

[quaoar]

4. By intervention

I mean sending in military forces.

What if the UN is unable to act -- as it was in Kosovo when the Russians were blocking action out of loyalty to the Serbs?

[secedeeconomically]

2. Rwanda has no natural recourses, so its

useless to the rest of the world, unlike Iraq which has oil. That is the sad state of our foreign policy.

[NNguyenMD]

3. I speak only for myself, but yes there absolutely should have been a US

military intervention in Rwanda. Of course had we stopped the genocide no one would have realized we would have saved 800,000 people from being hacked by machetes, and Clinton would have been skewered by the public and media for it, but if he would have intervened it would have been one of the greatest acts of humanitarianism in the last century.

[BigMcLargehuge]

8. I agree with you, in part

I think he should have pushed the security council and put about 10,000 US peacekeepers under General Dallair's command in Kigali, or forced the French and Belgians to split the Peacekeeping duties with us. As it stands there were loads of French and Belgian troops at the airport specifically to evacuate French and Belgian nationals. Clinton could have and should have pressured both of those governments to use those troops in a more responsible manner.

General Dallaire was left out to frickin dry by the UN. He had a chance to seize the Interhamwe weapons cache and was told to stand down before the massacres started.

The Rwandan genocide is a blemish on ALL of humanity.

[BOHICA06]

5. We (the US) are the masters of airlift ....

in the World. If asked I bet C5s, 17s, 141s, 130s would be at the ready. But the rest of the UN needs to stand up with the troops (thousands of troops) to do what they (the UN) think is right.

[quaoar]

9. Actually, other nations have stepped up recently

Although that has not always worked out well.

Nigeria sent peacekeeping troops to Liberia and they looted everything in sight.

France has intervened in Ivory Coast and that ain't working out so well at the moment. Kosovo has now been turned over to European forces. The UN is in charge of the peacekeeping mission in Haiti now. And we have significant allied help in Afghanistan.

[jayfish]

6. I Would Say Yes To Rwanda...

but I don't have a real definitive grasp on what is going on at Darfur. On it's surface I would say yes. BTW I'm the most leftist person that I know and I am not anti-war. I am, however, anti-slaughter based on lies. I am also anti-empire.

Jay

[babylonsister]

7. Yes, we should have.

But with all our 'resources' stretched so thin fighting this illegal and immoral war in Iraq, there's nothing left. It's just inhumane that these people aren't being helped by everyone. I think we need another raising of awareness globally similar to what Bob Geldorf coordinated years ago.

[madmom]

YES n/t

[Earth_First]

10. Absolutely

Secondly, by Iraq war standards, shouldn't we have already intervened?

[MSgt213]

11. Yes!!! Clinton and the american people were absolutely wrong for allowing

this to happen.

[Tagbrds43]

12. Un nedds to step it up!

[quaoar]

13. Welcome to DU

How should the UN step it up?