 |
|
|
|
| We Do Not Have A Moral Duty To Intervene In Foreign Tyrannies |
| There are many reasons why we should not follow a policy of humanitarian intervention. Firstly, intervention often has unforeseen consequences, making a bad situation worse. Secondly, humanitarian intervention is simply war by another name. Finally, freedom and democracy cannot be imposed by force, but involves the people of a country freeing themselves from tyranny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well we should fix our situations before we help others |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I don't believe we have a moral duty to do ANYTHING, let alone try to govern people that pay taxes
to a different government.
Why should we care what political philosophies other countries have? |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I can think of only two scenarios justifying a belief you have a moral need to intervene in a
foreign tyranny: 1) A league of countries agrees together something needs to be done, or 2) The
tyranny is happening right next door to your country and it's either upsetting cultures that overlap
into your borders or you're worried about your own national security should the tyranny attack you.
BUT, despite those two scenarios, pretty much nothing else justifies sending troops halfway across
the world to take on a dictator. The US absolutely DOES NOT have a moral obligation to take on
bullies around the world, and quite frankly, half the time it's the US which is the bully. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
The United States of America should NOT be in the business of "building" what they view as
democracies. The United States of America is (or rather WAS) a Republic and the founders of that
Republic would be outraged at the current agenda.
As a supporter of my nations Constitution and Bill of Rights, I am outraged at the governments
total...TOTAL...disregard for our foundational documents! |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, but the US has no immoral duty to intervene in foreign democracies and overthrow them,
or prevent democracies from coming into being. Here's an incomplete list of countries where the US
has interfered with or destroyed democracies:
Iran in 1953.
Cuba in the 1950s.
South Korea in the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s and 1980s.
Haiti in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
Nicaragua in the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s.
Chile in the 1970s and 1980s.
Indonesia in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s.
The Philippines from the 1910s until the 1990s.
Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s.
Greece in the 1970s.
Britain in the 1960s and the dirty tricks campaign.
Pakistan in the 1980s and 1990s.
Venzuela in the 2000s.
Bolivia in the 2000s.
Among other examples.
When the US "exports democracy", it removes it from the country it invades. |
| |
 K9  01 Oct 2008 18:38
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
It is far from so simple. But I do know this; direct intervention i.e a military response represents
a failure at every level. It represents a complete violation of sovereignty, the practical
consequences of which will be catastrophic at best. So the expected outcome must be weighed in a
very clear eyed fashion against the price. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Unfortunately the issue on the ground is hugely different and more complex than just ranting about
personal grievances, often the media tell us of intervention in another country as being bad,
because since the 1970's and peace protesting from the general public that has been deemed the most
popular thing to hear.
Formations such as the UN MUST!! Intervene in civil wars and "foreign (if that exsists anymore in
our Globalised world) tyrannys across the globe it is an absolute neccesity, without which the
suffering of people in such countries as Sudan (Where peace has been brought through a different
approach to intervening which is economic and political pressure) and the phillipines and iraq for
that matter would continue and we cannot stand by idolly and watch people being killed within a
country for ethnic and other social reasons.
The best example is the Balklands. This area was in the European sphere of influence and so it was
"easier" to intervene. (technically) but the eradication of the Muslims there was unacceptable and
response was swift because it was on the doorstep of the EEC, the crisis ended and needed ending,
now those countries are building their economies and moving towards joining the EU (if they can get
past the court for their antihuman rights acts)
The best way of countering foreign Tyrannys as Grenache puts it is to create an "alliance of the
surrounding countries" to counter the problem, think of that list which K9 quite learnedly produced,
most cases which ended in failure were due to the lack of localised support (in terms of local
countries) iraq has open borders where terrorists can enter and be supplied, Vietnam the greatest
failure (in my opinion and probably most peoples opinions in american history) was due to the lack
of support of surrounding countries such as laos (whos border villages were destroyed by napal and
artillery)
Fact is that the problem is far more complex than just saying we should not intervenue, the
liberties of people to live safely under the UN list of human rights (read up on it) in their own
country along with many other standards need uphold
(by the way i apologise for this dreadful response I'm not a political expert but its what i have
drawn from evidence... Not detailed evidence may i add>>) |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
If someone came in and started taking over our country wouldn't you want some help. I mean, over in
Iraq and all the other countries we're helping, the soldiers are thanked for being there. You may
not think us helping is changing anything, but over there, people are being saved. Our soldiers are
well trained and equipped of this knowledge when other's are not, they help out the citizens over
there to spare some lives from the barrage of bombs, gunfire, and all other random attacks of
violence. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is such a delicate issue and although in many cases I would agree with you Kirsty08, there are
just times when we have to step in; like when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 and it was clear that he
planned to take over Europe.
There are also cases (ie 'Nam and Iraq) where the West clearly shouldn't have got involved though. I
think we should think more carefully about our decisions in the future though, and decide whether we
desperately need to get involved or if it's just an excuse to shoot some more foreign people. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Your motion shows great ignorance in modern day democracy. I suggest you read Niccolo Machiavelli's
'Prince' before you propose a debate of this magnitude. There's quite an obvious lack of knowledge
in your motion Kirsty08. It seems you are way out of your depth on this subject. |
| |
 joe9 01 Oct 2008 17:07
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sign In
