What does it mean for the United States to take on direct military involvement in outside acts of genocide?

For a paper one of the possible topics is if the United States should or shouldn't take on directly military involvement in outside acts of genocide. What exactly does this mean?What does it mean for the United States to take on direct military involvement in outside acts of genocide?Do you mean if we assist in outside acts of genocide, like selling Saddam Hussein chemical weapons which he then used to gas the Kurds? The short answer, if you're thinking of that, is that it means we're not living up to our ideals. We do a lot of that.



Or do you mean stepping in to prevent (or reduce) outside acts of genocide, such as in Darfur? That's more complicated. Sometimes the president who ordered it is criticized for it (such as Clinton's bombings in Serbia). Other times we stick around too long as peacemakers and even those we're trying to protect get upset with us (since no one likes an occupier, even a well-meaning one). Other times we come in, take care of business, and make that part of the world a better place. An awful lot depends on what's happening in the area being discussed.What does it mean for the United States to take on direct military involvement in outside acts of genocide?Does your question mean

- That the US should if one foreign group is trying to kill all members of another group.



or

- The the US should kill all members of some group considered to be an enemy.



The question can be interpreted both ways. The answer obviously depends on the interpretation.