Submitted by Character-Rabbit-127 t3_102irhz in history
FormalOstriches t1_j2v9rit wrote
If you recall, Clinton later confessed his inaction was one of his biggest regrets? https://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/02/bill-clinton-regrets-rwanda-now-not-so-much-in-1994 Woulda-Coulda. I hope we learn from history with enough gusto to practice peace, with force if necessary.
[deleted] t1_j2wth9l wrote
America is damned if it does get involved in foreign countries, and damned if it doesn't. There will always be people criticizing American foreign policy. If we had intervened, we would have been the demonized World Police, the Western imperialists who can't mind their own business, the white saviors "saving" people who don't want to be saved, etc. etc.
arcumnequi t1_j2x5wck wrote
That is the cost of having the world's most powerful and expansive navy and air force.
A_Unique_User68801 t1_j2xbaye wrote
Or at least that's how it is continuously justified to our taxpayers.
kbad10 t1_j2xp7l0 wrote
False. US gets involved only when there are benefits for US corporates.
nachoolo t1_j2wgplw wrote
If I remember correctly, the inaction of the US/NATO during the Rwanda genocide is believed to be one of the reasons why Clinton decided to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo later on to stop the genocides of Bosnians and Kosovar Albanians by the Serbs.
ReferenceSufficient t1_j2xiinh wrote
Why is US responsible when it should be UN?
princeps_astra t1_j2w332k wrote
Except force doesn't necessarily stop anything. It can make things much worse. There have been multiple foreign interventions made to pacify and separate the two sides of African ethnic conflicts and that rarely ends up with great results. Last one was in the CAR between the Seleka and the Anti Balaka
Edit : typo,it's the CAR not the BAR
[deleted] t1_j2xg9ke wrote
[removed]
JeffFromSchool t1_j2wrlsp wrote
Isn't this around the time that the US started to take a bunch of shit for playing "world police" getting involved in foreign conflicts that had nothing to do with them?
Other than US merely having knowlwdge of the events and the capability to intercede, what reason did they have to?
Some would say merely those two things create an obligation to intercede, others would call it imperialism.
[deleted] t1_j2wckc0 wrote
[removed]
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments