Bosnia, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, East Timor, Darfur-the list of mass atrocities since the 1990s is long. The systematic killing of thousands of civilians, the widespread displacement of many more civilians, sexual violence against women, and abduction and enslavement of children-these and other crimes against humanity are rampant in areas plagued by violent conflict. But the 1990s also saw another trend in reaction to the atrocities: a series of efforts by the international community to confront crimes against humanity and protect civilians from mass killings and targeted attacks in conflicts. These efforts included tackling such thorny issues as sovereignty-often equated with non-interference in the internal affairs of a state-as well as developing new principles such as the "responsibility to protect." This doctrine asserts that sovereignty includes responsibilities as well as rights and that in extreme cases, external intervention to prevent or stop civilians from being brutalized and slaughtered may be justified. Despite these developments, ongoing crises in places such as Darfur in Western Sudan make many people question the will and capacity of governments, international organizations, and even non-governmental organizations to take effective action in the face of mass atrocities.
Americans were less willing to intervene in the affairs of other countries and had less trust in their leaders. Nova Net
The Americans were willing to intervene with European affairs by affirming their power. This raises lots of nationalism because it shows European countries that America is a respected nation that wasn't to be played with.
it gave full citizenship to african americans and gave the federal government the right to intervene in state affairs to protect them.
Congress was relying on the Legue of Nations to prevent another world war
great Britain accepted growing US influence in latin American countries
Americans were less willing to intervene in the affairs of the other countries and had less trust in their leaders
Americans were less willing to intervene in the affairs of other countries and had less trust in their leaders. Nova Net
Latin American Countries
military intervention in politics
Mexico and Germany
The Americans were willing to intervene with European affairs by affirming their power. This raises lots of nationalism because it shows European countries that America is a respected nation that wasn't to be played with.
PT Barnur was an American showman and a circus entrepreneur.
Intervene is spelled like this...Intervene
Because that heeded George Washington's advice to avoid involvement in European affairs.
Yes
it gave full citizenship to african americans and gave the federal government the right to intervene in state affairs to protect them.
Most likely the pleas from the French government during the battle of Dien Bien Phu, a french fort situated in the North of Vietnam, the Americans were asked to intervene as the fort was under heavy siege and would fall if there wasn't action taken immediately, the Americans didn't intervene due to there being no other country who would also intervene aswell, that was the first issue that the Americans dealt with in Southeast Asia, this would then lead to the Second Indo-China war (Vietnam War) which had full US involvment.