Thanks for the ad hominem and for pasting wikipedia. I was not saying, that this is/was the only reason for these interventions. By the way I hope I am not tha

Thanks for the ad hominem and for pasting wikipedia. I was not saying, that this is/was the only reason for these interventions. By the way I hope I am not that "naive" to believe in easy answers in a complex world. Not doing so and realizing easy answers being thrown around was the reason I did comment in the first place. Do you really believe the world is cut into black and white that straight? I do not. I am far to cynical for that. For example we in the west did not hear that much of Rwanda during that time. There was no press storm I can remember (compared to the situation in Bosnia during the same time). There was no public outcry so no politician felt that pressure - maybe. Just maybe that was one reason. If people believe interventions happen because (for example) of lobbying interests of the military complex Rwanda would have been a perfect PR opportunity to sell some more ammunition and to have western countries engage in a yearlong conflict. That not happening might be oversight within these lobby groups or it might show, that this way of thinking does (at least not always) not work that easily. So please - let's be civil. Sheathe your "ad hominem"-sword and let's "fight" with solid arguments.