intr.v. in•ter•vened, in•ter•ven•ing, in•ter•venes. 1. To come, appear, or lie between two things:

response (rɪˈspɒns)—

1. the act of responding; reply or reaction

As you can see the words are somewhat similar – however my point is not to debate semantics.

According to you, “An intervention occurs when an outside force positions itself between opposing participants.”

This is incorrect, as it only represents 1 dynamic of the word. I can have an intervention with my child who I have concluded is behaving in a manner that is unacceptable; yet I am intervening - but I am not an opposing participant in the relations b/n my son and I.

On a national level - a national mediator could intervene between a labor union and an empoyer. This mediator is Responding/Intervening to the crisis and can even possibly be a (hopefully) nonbiased national outsider or insider.

Nonetheless, Plese note…I made the distinction – “What kind of intervention is best to solve the problem…?

Is domestic and or international military interventions warranted?”
Note the distinction in the question I posed in regards of “domestic and or international military intervention.”

I have no reason to defend the President of Uganda, and nowhere in my reply was any suggestion that I did. I simply asked a question based on the topic at hand. My questions were posed to see if individuals have better solutions – ones that could be reasoned out in a rational way.

We as a people are Reactionary – and not Proactive. The question begs to be asked – would your topic of discussion have even been raised if not for the deployment of troops from Amerika into Uganda? Would there be a discussion regarding the challenges faced by Ugandans if it was not framed in a shared contempt of Amerikan foreign policies?