>>>If the US hadn't been so determinedly isolationist, my maternal grandfather might have lived a lot longer instead of being murdered at Auschwitz. We should be embarrassed about how long it took us to get into World War II.
>>>
>>>Tamar
>>
>>Millions died in Europe durring WW2. But You cannot blame US for not
>>jumping the gun right away. They went into the war after being attacked. Nothing to be ashamed of. More likely proud for what they have done back then.
>>
>
>No question that what the US did once we got in was good. But waiting until we were attacked wasn't one of our proudest moments.>

It was completely different back then. Europe/World political situation was
way more complex then today. Stakes/risks were much higher.
It was time of global socialist/communist revolutions. Hitler regime was
also form of populist revolution (with sick nationalist/antisemite twist) which could hv easily find common ground with expanding Soviet and other revolutions. If attacked right away by US, Hitler might hv restrain from attacking Russia and instead of that - *elevate* already existing mutual understanding with Stalin into something new...
Only God knows what wld hv been outcome of all that.
I don't believe that fate of Jewish and few other nationalities (like Serbs for instance) wld have been better, if Stalin & Hitler ended up on the same side of the fence.

>>Nowadays however, they do it without giving it second tought. Doubt to menu people will be proud of that 15 years from now.
>
>If we did it universally, helping oppressed people everywhere, it would be one thing. Somehow, though, we only seem to jump in where certain interests are at stake. While we helped create a civil war in Iraq, hundreds of thousands were dying in Darfur.

It is lot worse then that. By doing what they have done last 4-6 years,
US completely discredited otherwise credible idea of having globally established (agreed&supported) conflict/genocide prevention forces - held and run under UN auspices.
Yes they (UN) were unefficient and Yes they are not imune to corruption, but they are exactly result, or picture if you want - of world that they are representing.
But they DO represent whole world! No country in the world hv completely clean politics and institutions. But they are all (or mostly) legally ellected governments and parliaments representing their peoples.

Whom exactly Bush/Blair (buddies) driven coallition represents world wide ?
Which World/UN body gave them legal right to (linch)ride two sovereign countries ? Whom they gonna represent tmrw if they attack Iran ?
Not UN/SC, nor average Eropean, Russian or Chineese citisens.
Not me for sure.

Having respected, internationally ellected/recognised, and legally supreme
UN institutions (with steady finances, Army & Law enforcement) might be of better help to Darfur and other places, then allmighty USA firing bludgeon at will to fix ugly regimes hairstyles.
Moreover, IF tmrw UN/SC were able to prevent US from attacking Iran, Iran from attacking Israel [or Israel attacking Lebanon] then this wld have been defenetely something worthed global effort today.

To cut long story short;
It is not up to YOU (USA) to help Darfur, It is up to US as in entire world
to help them. But we, as world today don't exactly have means of doing it.

Peace