We will be judge by are inaction in Darfur it is something we are all guilty of.
Well, let's look at this with a microscope for a bit. You tap into something far more devious and depraved than just Darfur. We ignored the slaughter campaign in Sudan and Rwanda in the '90s also (....as you noted). Many people don't know that if the UN declares a genocide, it is legally obligated to act and since Truman's Police Act, in which the UN fully endorsed, America is singled out as an obligated force from the rest. But the true mission of the UN isn't to help anybody. It's to prevent wars no matter the cost and no matter how many suffer under the status quo (keep in mind that plenty of people tie their morality to this garbage). But hold on......
While the savagery and mayhem of the '90s in Africa was winding down and we silently thanked the UN for its apathy and desires to stay out of it, a genocide erupted in Europe. America jumped on the boats and planes and crossed the oceans. President Clinton was smart enough to kick the UN out of the mission in Bosnia (after a UN force stood by and watched hundreds lined up and slaughtered) and Kosovo and pull in NATO to force Europe to help handle its own mess. But even this saw an American effort with little effort from those who live on the continent. Europe was worthy, but Africa was not?
Fast forward....when Bush and Blair was calling on the UN to deal with Darfur, the UN eventually conceded that "further investigation" was needed and sent a team to decide what everyone had already known for years. And once the slaughter and massive danger subsided, the UN flexed a puny muscle and was more than happy to shed crocodile tears for dead. But an accusation of genocide and an international arrest warrant towards Bashir has the UN players worried about "stability" and what justice for the dead and the living may cause. As always, the UN proves it is more interested in it's "prime directive" over justice and moral strength.
Yet.....people tie their morality to this organization. An organization full of dictators with oversight from nations like Russia (once the Soviet Union) and China. And the other half of the organization is made up free nations who prefer apathy to rolling up their sleeves and secretly breathes a sigh of relief everytime the selfish dictate the theme or can hold up an anchient international law to hide behind. And with the West being the large, if not only, part of the humanitarian or military force to stand up....it's safe to state that the West appreciates it when the lazy, depraved part of the UN demands that it merely "investigate" until the crisis dissolves on its own.
Think about it. See any dictator nations, or Russia, or China in Somalia, Gulf War, etc.? How many during the Indonesian tsunami? Always just the West. Yet people insist that a post Cold War world be handcuffed to a Cold War organization as the decider of the world's future. We may as well have held on to the League of Nations as the answer to the post World War II era.