What would have been necessary to stop this is a massive killing of the genocidal Hutus. This would have itself been called genocide, just as the measures necessary to prevent 9/11 would have been called racism.
See, if an atrocity doesn't take place because you do what is necessary to prevent it, then you never know what was really prevented and the pre-emptive action can be portrayed as unjustified.
Exactly... if even the US or UK had taken over the Rwandan government when their leader was assassinated to prevent anarchy, the US and UK would have been accused of having him killed in the first place, would have been accused of arranging a coup of an 'democratically elected leader' and would have been called imperialist scum, and so on, by the likes of Ramsey Clark and ANSWER...
That's what always happens.
And those who complained about inaction in Rwanda are often the very same people who complain about US action elsewhere.