Reply #21: Then what criteria should we use for military intervention? [View All]

[razorman]

Would BushCo have been better off to stress the existence of Saddam's mass graves and torture chambers as an excuse to invade Iraq? Would we have accepted it then, rather than the phony WMD excuse? After all, Saddam made Milosivec look like Mr. Rogers.
Please don't get me wrong. I have no problem with helping people in places like Darfur out with aid and facilitating peace talks. But, we keep going in with military force to places where we have no national interest. More often than not, we seem to simply be saving one group of bad guys from another group of bad guys, and only wind up turning the table.
However, if we as a nation decide to intervene in the Sudan, it should only be with the full involvement of the U.N., with African nations taking the largest share of the role. Just as the Bosnian situation should have been Europe's job. Why is it always the U.S. that has to carry the load, and get the blame when it goes wrong?
I do not mean to sound contrary or disrespectful to the common opinions expressed on this site, but that's the way I feel. Actually, I think a good question for discussion might be "What official criteria would you like to see the U.S. adopt to justify military intervention anywhere in the world?" What factors should be present anywhere before we send in the troops?