We are not talking about Tutsis facing genocide here. And hell, if in that case we can insist, on principle, against intervention, so what if they all die, we don't need to go sensitive here!
.................
I can't make heads or tails of this giddy sentence which, like your drunk Uncle at a Christmas party, spills the precariously stacked contents of its plate all over the place.
Re: intervention...
Ravi, do you know why serious people oppose "humanitarian intervention"? It's not because the US is, in some vague way, *bad* and therefore everything it does must be bad.
There are tactical, logistical and operational objections too.
It's because these helping hand missions almost always turn out like Afghanistan - lots of 'precision' bombing which manages to collaterally blast wedding parties and other non combatants to atoms, endless guerrilla war and no solution to the original issue.
You tend to use the tools you have at hand. If you're Sweden, you're probably talking to all involved parties to reach a peaceful resolution. If you're the United States you're launching BGM-109 Tomahawks at satellite identified targets and completing your 'bad guy' sanitizing campaign with BLU-82 thermobarics.
Next, the Marines come to call for a nice, high caliber chat.
Such methods, broadly used on friends, foes and the indifferent alike, brutally squeeze the "humanitarian" out of "humanitarian intervention".
.d.