[YankeeDoodleBoy]

I would submit that as brutal and tragic and horrible as this was, the well-being, security, and future of the United States did not hang in the balance, and that the only obligation of the US was to the safety and security of her citizens in Rwanda. If we had stepped into that mess, we WOULD have another Vietnam on our hands.

As fas as what the UN did or did not do, said or did not say, who cares? We, the US, should have nothing to do with the UN, and what they do or say should not affect us. They can do what they want, just don't expect us to come running.

Leave it to Slick Willie, though. His response here was, I think, appropriate, yet he gladly intervened - under the auspices of the UN, no less - in the Balkans. Horribly inconsistent, consistently horrible foreign policy.

[O.C. - Old Cracker]

The only reason that people keep ignorantly referring to our involvement in Vietnam in the negative is because we did not win the war. Why? Because we were incapable of winning? Hardly. It is because our leaders were yellow and a handful of snot-nosed anti-war protesters who should have been jailed or killed were given more media coverage than our soldiers.

Our soldiers, U.S. soldiers, killed exponentially more NVA and VC than was ever reported. We could have stacked their corpses like cordwood from Saigon to Hanoi. And we would have won if our leaders would have lead from conviction instead of polling data. Clinton didn't go into Rwanda for one simple reason. There was no mandate to do so.

If a similar situation arose in Great Britain, would you be content to fold your arms and watch from this side of the Atlantic? Do you think that stopping the Holocaust would have been enough of a reason to invade Germany?