To what extent is the US government responsible to protect and promote human rights in foreign territory?

Question

...against foreign governments or economic systems.

Answer 1

Good question mate, but it seems there is no any standards to major it!!! We learned from the revolving American Governments, that it is left to each president and his men in the gov, to extend it as far as of moods and personal ego!!! History tels!!! review each country that USA'de poked its noisy nose that country on behalf of ( Human Rights ) and see the result!!! It has never been the genuine reason, there always was another reason behind what they do, weather it is a economical reason ( such as Iraq=Oil) or to extend its military bases in most strategic locations in the world ( such as it was the cold war).and so on...
You see they are not really the great HUMAN RIGHT defenders, they claim but they are great liars,,, take for example: The Arab Gulf Countries the greatest Oil producers in the world,,, they are USA's best friends although they are non-democratic regimes!!!

Answer 2

We should not interfere with other countries, no matter what brutality occurs. The people must solve their own problems. We can not and should not be the world police. The US strongly argues that China is a violator of human rights but fails to see their own mistakes with Kent State, Watts, Chicago and elsewhere. Even the UN should not intervene. I feel sorry for the victims but what happens if we do go in and stop the genocide...we will attempt to set up a shaky government that will collapse and the problem will reoccur. Should we have come to the aid of Ireland or England during their troubles. Should we have intervened with Sukarno in Indonesia, should we have stopped Marcos and his corruption? The long and the short of the matter is that many of these problems are the result of our support of shifty leaders such as Noriega and Saddam. The more we give these petty dictators, the worse they become through further corruption. We now have a sword of Damocles hanging over our head in Taiwan as we supported Chiang Kai Shek that was corrupt, buddy-buddy with Big-eared Tu of the Green Gang (a leading drug smuggler, murderer, extortionist etc) and brother-in-law to the richest man in the world at the time (T.V. Soong)...his wife was May-ling that squeezed about three billion dollars out of men like Everett Dirksen, Styles Bridges, and Worth Clark, and conned Henry Luce, etc to support their corruption. Sorry, let the leaves fall from the branches, but we have made too many mistakes that have come back to bite us in the ***. If you read Vietnam's history you will see that it might have been prevented back in the 1940s...Let's learn our lesson.

Answer 3

Bush only feels responsible to protect and promote human rights in foreign territories that have oil. Even then...he only pretends to care about the humans' rights.

Oh...right now...the US government doesn't even feel responsible to protect and promote human rights in the United States. I guess that, since Bush has trouble reading big words, he can't understand the Constitution. Since he can't read it, he thinks it's ok to ignore it.

Answer 4

I be live that as a moral obligation we should first PROMOTE the Idea of human rights around the world.
THEN,be responsible enough to protect what we promote with leading by example.

We do not have the right to extent ourselves and infringe upon other countries who cannot rule or live as we do. Just as they cannot tell us that we should all wear those Arabs hats.

Answer 5

We may not be responsible for the human rights of other countries legally, but don't get too isolationist. Our leaders do have a duty to keep us allied with other strong and morally compatible nations throughout the world. Though we may be the strongest of the supper powers, we are not a majority in the world. We need coalitions, and complex webs of support to keep us in tune with the world economy. Try playing Sid Myers Civilization on your computer, it starts to give you an idea of the kind of diplomatic skills involved.

Answer 6

U.S. Embassies protect the rights of all who serve there. Outside the embassy, everyone is subject to that country's law except to the extent of rights guaranteed to U.S. citizens by the parent country in which they reside.
Evidence is abundant pointing to political and military actions to bring foreign governments in line with democratic laws and rights.

Answer 7

The Unites States of America is responsible for the United States of America.

Answer 8

I feel the USA is not responsible for protecting human rights in othere countries unless we are asked to help by the leaders of that country.

The USA needs to have its first priority to protecting its own people first. There is enough hungry and homeless people in the USA that the governemnt seems to be neglecting.

Answer 9

I think DC has it right here. DC suggests that the main concern should be right here in America. Funny how the US tries to help in so many other countries when right here in America children are starving, drugs are on the street, homeless abound, yet gallivanting across the ocean billions are spent on reshaping Iraq. The Arabs know this to be true and consider the US as meddling in their affairs.

Answer 10

The US government feels justified in invading and occupying a foreign country whenever "national interests" are concerned...if a few civilians get killed along the way we call it "collateral damage"...a convenient term for murder (guess Bush and his Christian Coalition already broke one of the 10 Commandments!)