Social Question

Demosthenes's avatar

When should the US intervene in other countries’ conflicts and when shouldn’t it?

Asked by Demosthenes (12738points) 3 weeks ago from iPhone

Failed “regime change” efforts are one thing, but should we sit by and let a genocide happen, as in 1994 in Rwanda? What’s the line? What if the people are begging for US intervention?

I’m critical of much of the US’s involvement in other nations’ conflicts, but are there times when we should get involved and be the “world police”? In what circumstances?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

14 Answers

kritiper's avatar

When the UN suggests it. (Along with other countries.) No genocides should ever occur.

Kropotkin's avatar

I think intervention can be justified.

The problem for the US is is that it has no moral standing. The US already supports most of the world’s dictatorships. It already sells arms to countries that actively oppress and murder in large numbers.

When it does intervene or invade somewhere, for whatever reason, the trained murderers in its military invariably kill and maim countless civilians. Just days ago most of a family were murdered by the US state via a drone strike—and then they wonder why they lost, and are hated.

The US isn’t capable of being a force for good, or to police the world, because it’s run by deranged psychopaths who don’t value human life, who send armed killers to countries they scarcely understand or even care to understand.

elbanditoroso's avatar

There isn’t one set of rules. It’s an art, not a science, and it depends on factors like (a) threats to the US, (b) foreign policy objectives, (c) commitments to other countries, (d) treaty obligations, and so on.

The US between 2016–2020 (thanks Donald!) didn’t help our stature or moreal authority, because Trump screwed over all of our allies. So the moral pressure we had previously no longer exists.

If there were a simple answer, there would already be world peace. The problem is that nations (and there are 200 of them??) don’t always agree with each other and sometimes a third party like the US (or Russia, or China) needs to step in.

flutherother's avatar

I think the United States should only get involved when it is part of a military alliance such as NATO and the peace and security of one of the signatory countries is threatened. Otherwise, it should leave things to the United Nations.

Zaku's avatar

I think the US military should invade Brazil to protect what’s left of the Amazon from corrupt exploitation or irreplaceable rain forest. (Should have done that about 35 years ago.)

elbanditoroso's avatar

@Zaku Whose sons and daughters would you choose to die in a war in Brazil?

Nomore_lockout's avatar

In the words and writings of Major General Smedley D.Butler, USMC retired, War is a Racket..He wrote a tome to that effect in the 1930s.

kritiper's avatar

@Nomore_lockout He should have mentioned that, for the most part, war is inevitable.

Nomore_lockout's avatar

Butler was a two time Medal of Honor recipient and a veteran of combat in China, the Philliopines, Haiti and Nicaragua. After retirement he championed veterans rights and was appalled by what he saw in Veterans hospitals, and how ravaged by World War One many vets had become, not only physically but psychologically and emotionally.
He advocated that ground forces should be restricted to defending our own shores from invasion, and that air and sea units be restricted to operations within 500 miles of our coastline. His view was that war only benefited Big Money interests and was a life wrecker for most others.

kritiper's avatar

Gee, if he had been around for the start of WWII, he would have had reason think differently. (Isolationism doesn’t work.)

Nomore_lockout's avatar

@kritiper I’ve often wondered about that myself. He passed on in 1941 and before we entered the war. He did have the opinion however, that the Roosevelt Administration was deliberately trying to urge Japan to go to war against us. Interesting man at any rate, and very good point on your part. If I was into woo stuff and knew an inexpensive diviner, I’d like to do a seyance and summon his spirit to get his views on that. : )

Zaku's avatar

@elbanditoroso Anyone who wants to fight for an actual worthy cause, like saving the planet as we know it? All volunteer army.

gorillapaws's avatar

1. Self-defense from an invading foreign nation.
2. Full UN support.
3. Prevent genocide (proven, not theoretical).

rebbel's avatar

”...and be the “world police”....”
Taking in account the reputation (some of) the police corps in America have, I’d rather we call the UN the” world’s police” and designate the members who are willing to step in, the tools.
Also, don’t step into situations without consulting and/or permission of other states, or the UN (or make the suggestion that you will).
You are not the world’s police, or the superpower that you once (thought you) were.
It’s not (solely) up to you to decide what is democracy, or where you think it needs to be brought.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther