Can someone please tell me why the US didn't step in to save lives...?

Question

I recently found out I have very little time left in my life. With sure dearh I have found myself thinking of things that I am ashamed to say didn't catch my attention when it happened. So I'm hoping someone can please tell me why in the hell the strongest country in the world, the US, didn't step in a save many of the lives that were taken during the genocide in Rawanda. We certainly don't mind going into a country and blowing it up, killing many inncent people, women, and kids are under the pretense of keeping us free. So how could we have dropped the ball so badly during the genocide...can someone please explain this to me?

Answer 1

You already know the answer. The international goals of the US have very little to do with freedom or saving lives. It's always about politics and money.

Personally, the Rawanda stuff was none of our business and I have no problem that we stayed out of it. That said, however, Iraq is also none of our business and not a threat. Saddam Hussein did a better job keeping Iraq under control that we ever will, and with less loss of life.

Answer 2

There are a lot of terrible things happening in the world and the US isn't Santa Claus, they can't be everywhere at once. So the US has a policy of stepping in when it suits the national interest. Vietnam was a proxy war with the Soviets, better to meet them in a jungle then shoot missles into Moscow and Washington. Bosnia was a war on European soil, so there was a very strong UN mandate for peace. Afganistan harboured training for groups planning attacks against the US and Iraq had dictator who has a hate on for the US and is sitting on a pile of resources (oil) which could finance attacks against the US.

Rwanda wasn't high priority for the US because it was a civil war and there wasn't a big threat to the US as a result. And of course, the mission to Rwanda was a UN mandate, so presumably any US action would have to go through UN approval. The US was still suffering bad press from the incident in Somolia a year earlier (Black Hawk Down) so they weren't eager to volunteer.

A quick response to your "dropping the ball" comment. Why do you claim the US dropped the ball? Why does the US have a responsibility to the rest of the world to keep the peace? There were two groups on Rwanda who had a big hate on for one another, leaders from each side encouraging mistreatment of the other, and the UN which is the representative of the entire world who refused to take distinct action. I would point the finger at the people who committed the atrocities first, rather than a remote government for not intervening.

Answer 3

The hard fact is strife is a part of life. Man is constantly faced with decisions on how to handle famine and war. The US has done more than it's share to help the world and has not been recognized as doing its share. You forget how many countries we support through foreign aid and how the cost of defending the world against threats is borne by the American people more than any other nation. The Europeans have grown accustomed to our protecting them and yet they quickly criticize us. After we give Russia billions of dollars they repay us by giving weapons to our sworn enemies. China continues to thwart our efforts to control events in N. Korea and also blocks UN actions against Iran. The do gooders of the world need to look at reality. If people do not starve in many countries they only grow up to be abused in far worse ways. Perhaps God is measuring the endurance of the world to strife and keeping track of those who do good and others. Instead of attacking our government look at how little others are doing. The UN is not even able to take actions because of the splits between the security council members.

Answer 4

They do not have any oil. They are no threat to the US. Strategically, they have no bearing. They think this is a job for the UN. Now if there were terrorists being trained there, that would be an entirely story. Then we would intervene in the name of a humanitarian crisis. I am not trying to be cynical. It is just the way it is.

Answer 5

The USA is not the world's police.
That's supposed to be the United Nations.
Now ask what the United Nations was doing, and why it fumbled the ball so badly.

Answer 6

Penis Clinton and Mad Albright were too busy arming the fanatic Islamists in Bosnia-Herzegovina and planing a Jihad against the Serbs. In fact, according to the book "Hidden agenda-US/NATO in the Balkans", they were already (in 1994) busy bombing groups of moderate Muslims who rebelled against the Islamic regime of former SS troop Izetbegovic. So Penis Clinton and Mad Albright had no time for "nonsense" such as "the thing" in Rwanda.

Answer 7

it's not our job to save other countries from themselves.

the US only does things that benefit the US.

if you think we have soldiers in iraq (or anywhere else for that matter) for the benefit of anybody besides the american people, you're dead wrong.

i'm not saying this is GOOD, but merely the truth.

in the end, every man is responsible for his own actions.

Answer 8

Study the history and the stated goals of the neo-con movement. Rwanda has no value in the achievement of those goals.

.

Answer 9

Because it was basically a tribal war and the information didn't get out in a timely manner. We can't be all things to all people. The situation was not threatening to us so it did not require immediate aciton on our part. AND.....WHY should we be the ones to solve everyone elses problems?

Answer 10

Killing people is more profitable for the defense industry and other corporations.
There's no profit in saving lives.

I hope things go well for you and you find peace.