jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (10 posts)

Why didn't the U.S. send troops to help Rwanda, Darfur or Bosnia?

  1. cooldad profile image59
    cooldadposted 6 years ago

    We have been fighting in the Middle East for years now.  We sent troops to Iraq and Afghanistan in the hopes of doing what?  Why didn't we send our troops to help Rwanda, Darfur or Bosnia?  Because those countries didn't have any resources we wanted, that's why. 

    What am I missing here?  Why does the U.S. care so much about freeing the Iraqi people and forcing democracy on them?  Why can't we just leave other countries alone and focus on our problems at home?

    1. recommend1 profile image69
      recommend1posted 6 years agoin reply to this

      Totally agree - but it goes back much farther than that - I am touring the lovely country of Vietnam as I write (from Na Trangh) and on the bus trip down we constantly pass 'war' cemetries and museums of war relics and atrocities etc - and have to wonder what the hell was the US here for in the first place ??

      I think the answer lies in the numbers - the US people purchased and dropped nearly 2 million metric tonnes of bombs on the tiny country of Laos, almost as much as the total used in WWII by both sides !  the only people who actually gained anything from the near 6 million people the US killed or helped kill are the US arms dealers

  2. Evan G Rogers profile image76
    Evan G Rogersposted 6 years ago

    Because we're poor and we have nothing to gain from helping people.

    (We ain't in these countries cuz we're nice, y'know).

  3. Eaglekiwi profile image78
    Eaglekiwiposted 6 years ago

    Because there's no oil there.

  4. kephrira profile image59
    kephriraposted 6 years ago

    You didn't need to send troops to Bosnia. The British did, and there was a UN mission.

  5. Ralph Deeds profile image66
    Ralph Deedsposted 6 years ago

    Good question. I suggest you write your congressman suggesting that the service draft be re-implemented. Then get in line.

    1. Evan G Rogers profile image76
      Evan G Rogersposted 6 years agoin reply to this


  6. profile image0
    Emile Rposted 6 years ago

    I watched an interview with Donald Rumsfeld several years ago. They asked him that very question. He said there wouldn't be any gain that  the American people would have supported. I was shocked, but maybe the polls supported that belief.

    1. I am DB Cooper profile image59
      I am DB Cooperposted 6 years agoin reply to this

      It's interesting that he would admit it's basically a PR game trying to convince the American people to go to war. A lot of people with political influence make a lot of money from wars. Reinstating the draft and regulating the lobbyists (do Americans realize how much better the government works in countries that limit or ban the influence of lobbies?) would go a long way toward preventing expensive fiascoes like the Iraq war.

  7. VENUGOPAL SIVAGNA profile image59
    VENUGOPAL SIVAGNAposted 6 years ago

    US did not send troops to Bosnia because it was an ethnic or religious  fight. They may have thought it better not to get entangled in the vicious circle. Already there were refugees in their own country without proper food and sanitation. US troops would have added to the confusion if they got in there.

    Rwanda and Darfur-- the people were dying without food water and sanitation facilities. Instead of sending troops, they may have sent essentials through red-cross and avoided loss of human lives. Had they sent troops, mass killings and genocide may have been prevented. They may have thought those countries worthless for even a single pie.