3 ms·

How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? Start killing Hutus? It is probable that intervention would have caused mo

How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? Start killing Hutus? It is probable that intervention would have caused more casualties (including to US forces). Kosovo is also disputed even in terms of actual casualties, let alone projected casualties, and is probably not a good case for intervention. I fully agree there is not a good answer either way (syria included)... Just pointing out that your examples don't really predict the past or future either. Prediction in any case seems like a waste of time. (Unless you're The Doctor that is.)

yummyfajitas 13y ago
How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? A group of armed Tutsi's is ultimately what ended the Rwandan genocide. So yes, that likely would have worked well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patriotic_Front_.28RPF.29_renewed_invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patrio...
- jessaustin 13y ago
  If you believe the judicious provision of weapons is a worthwhile humanitarian endeavor, then by all means create an NGO dedicated to the task. I can certainly envision donating to such a charity. Please don't involve the USA military-industrial complex in such a Faustian manner. Also it isn't so convincing to link to a wiki section that supposedly proves your point about reducing bloodshed, while the very next section on the page describes 5 million people killed in the same area in the following decade.
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Unless of course the support provided by a (Western) outsider had caused other tensions (warlords uniting or what have you), thus increasing the body count, which is one possible outcome out of many. Genocide tipping in exactly the opposite direction is another (obviously unintended) possibility. Oh yeah... The rest of the wiki you link talks about that... Oops! You can't predict a future that didn't happen. (Again unless you're The Doctor).

yummyfajitas 13y ago

How would intervening in Rawanda have saved lives exactly? Go in and arm the Tutsi's? A group of armed Tutsi's is ultimately what ended the Rwandan genocide. So yes, that likely would have worked well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patriotic_Front_.28RPF.29_renewed_invasion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide#Rwandan_Patrio...

jessaustin 13y ago
If you believe the judicious provision of weapons is a worthwhile humanitarian endeavor, then by all means create an NGO dedicated to the task. I can certainly envision donating to such a charity. Please don't involve the USA military-industrial complex in such a Faustian manner. Also it isn't so convincing to link to a wiki section that supposedly proves your point about reducing bloodshed, while the very next section on the page describes 5 million people killed in the same area in the following decade.
ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Unless of course the support provided by a (Western) outsider had caused other tensions (warlords uniting or what have you), thus increasing the body count, which is one possible outcome out of many. Genocide tipping in exactly the opposite direction is another (obviously unintended) possibility. Oh yeah... The rest of the wiki you link talks about that... Oops! You can't predict a future that didn't happen. (Again unless you're The Doctor).