Help Please!?

Question

Ok so in my current events class tomorrow (were doing a unit of genocide) my group has to present our case infront of a jury (selected classmates) (theres 3 other groups presenting a diffrent view) My group got United States Should Not Intervene In A Case Of Genocide. (i disagree with this or else i'd be able to do it no problem) I am the historian person in my group and need to use facts from past genocides to state why our case is best I look online and can only find that We should intervene and do something. Can you please help me out? What are some reasons why America should not intervene in a Genocide based on facts of past genocides? Any help is appreciated! Thanks!

Answer 1

First of all, ignore the bonehead who said to look it up and nobody was going to help you cheat. You already stated you looked it up to no avail and asking for help is not cheating. If I wrote your entire presentation - that would be cheating!

It is difficult to write about something you don't believe in, however, put your acting hat on and play the devil's advocate. It's not really how you feel and your classmates know that.

You could take the approach that intervening could have economic hardships on both economies, there would be more deaths (our army), cost of supplies, weapons, training, medicine and food.

Look up Rwanda and see what happens when we don't intervene. Take that info and put your "positive" spin on it to make it sound believable for your paper.

Answer 2

Because America, if one look at America's past foreign policy this contry usally intervenes when it is in its interest. For instance in the second world war America intervened because it was under attack (from Japan) otherwise it would not have intervened. When half a million people got slaughtered a few years ago in Rwanda the US did not intervene because saving peoples lives for the its own sake is not in the country's interest. On the other hand, humanitarian grounds can be handy when The US want to intervene abroad with a startegy in mind that will serve their interests: for instance the Middle East for the control of energy. The US is actually one of the few country on earth that commited a genocide. Its very existence is intrinsincly linked to the indian genocide. Otherwise the land would belong to the Indians and would have not been confiscated by the americans.
The moral reasons given for american troops intervention abroad are always an alibi to cover startegic justifications. The best example is the jenocide happening right now in Darfur (Sudan) is the US intervening? No, there is no strategic interest in the Darfur. I hope this is helping.

Answer 3

Well if you want a real answer go into the section with the religious stuff.

Usually the people who hang out in this section are kinda stupid.

Well if an American genocide seemed to happen it is assured that someone will intervene. But we should intervene even though it would turn against us at some time if it came to be a country smarter (e.g. Japan) So if we were not to intervene it would happen that they would either quit or think of the fact of american government would not always back us up unless it became MASS genocide then American government will intervene or try to do it peacefully (which I highly doubt). So unless we catch the people in the first act America is doomed

Answer 4

We intervened in Bosnia under bill clinton to stop genocide and that is a disaster they never talk about cause bill is a democrat. Try typing genocide and US intervention in a yahoo or google search engine or ask a librarian how you would go about the search.

Answer 5

Defenses for genocide...hard.
Maybe you could take the posistion that it would constitute an internal conflict between two groups, and that is not the U.S.'s job, or right, to police outside our borders. But that's a rather weak arguement, based on opinion and I can't think of any data that would be relevant.
It is always hard to be the Devil's Advocate, and it says many good things about you that you find this assignment hard. Good luck!

Answer 6

Your teacher must be a complete idiot to encourage students to even try to defend such a position! Here's a better question: What are some reasons why America DOES intervene and commits Genocide and calls it a holy war and thinks no one will realize it's horribly evil?

Answer 7

well, you could use the facts that we are as guilty as the rest of genocide, ie the indians. Also, we have involved ourselves in causes and crusades like this before, we have made things worse. Iraq is the most recent example, the taliban were supported by us, bin laden was too. I guess that for most of these causes we werent in it for the good of the people, but had our own interests in mind, which is probably gonna be the case most ofthe time.

Answer 8

Genocide is frowned upon of course because it is believed that every man and every woman should be given a fair chance at life. Hitler believed that human kind started out caucasian and from there impurities bred into it by evil and ignorant people. Hitler was not thinking evil thoughts, he was not wringing his hands in a dark room laughing at the death and destruction he was causing. He was sad about it, he thought he was doing the right thing for mankind. Its sad that we demonize him for what he did, but in reality he was doing what he believed was right, just like any of us should do. Now, I don't believe he was going about it right because I don't believe in killing innocent people, but I do believe he honestly had good intentions in mind. Now, with that information out of the way, you must wonder, when is it good to commit genocide on a race of people? Well, just think if that race of people evolved a genetic disorder, in which EVERYONE of that race developed a highly contagious disease that would kill all other races, and the disease were so advanced science wouldn't be able to administer any cure or treatment. Once a few million people (and growing) started to die quick painful deaths, then surely we would start killing that race on site. We would be sad to do it, but we would do it nonetheless. And as for reasons people should have been genocided in the past? Well, I personally believe anyone with disabling genetic disorders such as downs syndrome or severe mental defects that prevent a person from leading a fruitful life, should be destroyed and taken out of the gene pool. Since Human Kind has removed the "Survival of the fittest" equation of nature, we are rendering ourselves helpless against widespread genetic mental disorder traits. These people do nothing for our country or the people around them. We flock to them and love them and take care of and see them as precious, but this does nothing for society. In America this will never come to be due to democracy, but in another country, you could truly breed-out the impurities. Try that. Or you could start out with this. "Do you, fair people, love your America? Are you proud to be here and have the freedoms you have? Are you happy to be able to raise your family in such a stable and safe environment? Then please, thank your forefathers for the genocide they committed against the Native Americans. If not for their almost complete and utter destruction and slaughter, we would not have this great nation. These people are still oppressed into small tracts of land, sad little wisps of the great and proud people they once were, before we came here. That people, is a genocide to be proud of. A culture destroyed for our own good! Thank you, America, for the biggest genocidal atrocity in human history. And thats a fact". Theres a good point in there, friend. Let them debate that one.

Answer 9

America supported Papa Doc in Haiti and he commited worse genocide on his people than any other previous ruler.

America supported Pol Pot at first and look how that bit them

Answer 10

LOOK IT UP! No ones is going to help you cheat