> I disagree about your analogy. There is no analogy there.

I think I left out the important part. If the British were to have involved themselves in the US civil war, they would have been seen to have been a colonial force just as the US/UK is seen that way in the middle east. Viewed extreme suspicion.

>During the civil war, there was no genocide, abuse of human rights, or threat of wmd of any type which woud require the world to stand up and take notice.

This wasn't intended as part of analogy.

> Your analogy suggests that the UN should not send European peace keeping forces into any middle eastern country

In general, yes. In Afghanistan, the government and the people seem generally less concerned about peace keepers and peace makers. In this case European (plus Canada and the US) troops are acceptable.

> and if that is true, what about individual states in Africa as well?

I think the preferences, bias and prejudices of the local people should be respected. When possible of course. In some cases a strong country such as the UK or US could be the peace making force, then other nations can be phased in the occupying peace-keeping force.

This already happens. For instance in Africa, there will be a mistrust of Western forces and other African forces, so perhaps Indian or Pakistani troops are used.

> Do we allow abuses and genocide to continue so we don't hurt the sensibilities of the populace?

This is very good ethical and philosophical question. I don't have the answer. International law, generally seems to indicate that human rights abuses don't allow for foreign intervention, but genocide allows for foreign intervention. It seems to be a matter of scale.

> Would the populace prefer the genocide and human rights abuses to continue rather than have European troops on their soil? I would suggest that those individuals in countries suffering would disagree - I hear them asking all the time on the news and PBS specials for the UN (and sometimes the US specifically) to step in and provide security.

Sadly, the world is complicated, depending on their side, part of the population will be saying that the events are an internal affair, while the other side will plead for intervention.

With Iraq, the Kurds were protected effectively with the no-fly zone, but the Shia in the south couldn't been since the Sunni and Shia populations were more mixed.