doesn't it just seem to create more of a mess? Would it not just be better to leave other countries to their own determination?
2006-07-22 01:17:10 · 4 answers · asked by rachel_waves 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yes, I agree with you
2006-07-22 01:21:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Should we not help other countries when they face a disaster like the 2004 tsunami?
Why are we standing by and letting Sudan kill all those people in Darfur?
Should we allow local bullies to pick on their smaller neighbors?
Can't we help a country torn by internal strife to reach a peaceful agreement?
It boils down to what is the purpose of the interference and the methodology of that interference.
2006-07-22 02:08:59 · answer #2 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That's a bit of an overgenralization.
Take after World War 2- the US occupied Germany a country which had one 15 year experiment with democracy which failed and put the Nazis in power. In Japan, we were dealing with a people who thought their Emperor was a god. I would argue that today, we might have another Nazi Germany and another Imperialistic Japan if we had just been hands off after WW2. Instead we have two democracies which are strong.
2006-07-22 01:29:30 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. I agree with you, but maybe America's government doesn't.
2006-07-22 01:21:59 · answer #4 · answered by Jill 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋