Reply #22: Well, I'm sorry, I don't understand your analysis [View All]

Why would the soldiers not be sent to a place like Rwanda if they had no immunity? Do you mean that they wouldn't be sent as a punishment to the UN? Or for some other reason? By documentation I mean specific examples of policies or historical documents that have led you to this conclusion. I mean, your analysis comes from putting some pieces together, right? I am curious as to what those pieces are. To the best of my knowledge the non-intervention in Rwanda had nothing to do with the immunity (which US had at the time and still didn't go) so I don't see how having or not having immunity would influence policy when it came to deployment of forces for actual humanitarian missions, like they should have done in Liberia, I don't mean like "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
I guess I just don't understand your argument. The US did not send forces to Rwanda, and they had immunity at the time. You are saying that we have to make sure immunity is preserved so that the next time something like Rwanda happens, US soldiers can be deployed, even though immunity did not seem to factor at all in the Rwanda scenario, or the Liberia scenario last year. So unless you mean that now the US won't send soldiers out of spite to the UN (not unlikely with this administration), rather than not sending them for other reasons, like "no profit" and "bad PR" I don't follow.
But I'm interested in understanding it, so if you can explain how you came to this conclusion, I'd like to hear.