2006-09-27 05:53:29 · 7 answers · asked by Gypsophila 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
REALLY GOOD QUESTION! The other question that has to be asked is "If we step in, will we make the situation better or worse?"
Your question is something that shouldn't be taken lightly. Legally it is none of our affair if what is going on stays entirely within the country affected. It is the responsibility of the citizens of that country to correct the situation since they allowed it to develop in the first place.
Morally, we find it hard to ignore what's going on in Dharfor. People being wiped out because they belong to the wrong ethnic group. If we stand by, we give our consent to genocide.
If we go in, we can possibly save some of those lives, but when we leave it's very likely to happen again. And again. And again. It seems the only solution would be to develop a permanent presence in that region and possibly split off the affected area from it's host country. We may be looking at the first state created by the United Nations.
Now Iraq is a totally different story. Yes, Saddam committed genocide. Yes, the people of Iraq wanted justice. BUT we now know that the only thing keeping Iraq together and out of civil war was Saddam's iron fist. By removing that fist, we have set the stage for a situation far worse. Because Saddam's removal left a power vacuum, we are stuck there until we either divide the country along ethnic lines or set up a puppet government as strong as Saddam's.
Why didn't Bush Sr finish the job in the 1990s? This is why.
Fortunately, there's no question of stepping in in Thailand. The military accomplished a bloodless takeover which apparently has the consent of the citizens. A few people have been detained but even now no shots have been fired. The citizens have effectively voted for this temporary change in government by not taking action. We should applaud them.
2006-09-27 06:15:50 · answer #1 · answered by loryntoo 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on the degree of immorality and the number of people who would suffer as a consequence.
If you are referring to Iraq, we were first told that we should invade because of weapons of mass destruction, which were not there. Then it was implied that the invasion was proper vengeance for 9/11, even though Iraq not not involved in 9/11. Then we were told we were liberating the poor Iraqis from a murdering dictator.
Even if I agreed to the 3rd story (which I don't because I think our sons are too valuable to waste on Iraq), I do not like being lied to with the first 2 stories..... and the invasion would never, never have taken place without the first 2 stories.
2006-09-27 06:01:50 · answer #2 · answered by KALEL 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends...
If these immoral acts are of political nature and are not affecting the people, then it should be left alon and be dealt with internally.
However, per example, a country is going through what Rewanda went through, then no, it's not our place, it's everyones place to get involved. Morally, it is our obligation. When you say our, I am assuming you are taking about U.S.... I m from Canada and I am glad and happy of our Global position.
U.S. appears to be more involved because they are concidered the Super Power and at this point, it's somewhat expected from them to get involved.
2006-09-27 06:12:46 · answer #3 · answered by Jojo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In one way I think it is kind of our business to try and help. Just like you would if you new that your neighbor was beating his child.
But I also think that if you try to help and its not wanted, then stop interfering. Now I dont mean not wanted by the abusor, but by the abusee.
Its a really touchy subject and its hard to know when you are doing the right thing and the wrong thing.
2006-09-27 06:03:31 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on what is happening. If it is an internal dispute, I think we should let them sort it out. If people are being killed unjustly, then I think the world at large should intervene and try to find a peaceful solution to save lives.
2006-09-27 05:58:39 · answer #5 · answered by Wesely S 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends mostly on whether the events affect U.S. interests. The war in Iraq is a good example. But we have been slow to respond to the genocide in Darfur, because we have no interests there.
2006-09-27 06:02:38 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
that's why they make superman for.
but seriously is the rest of the world duty to stop it.
not only OUR place.
2006-09-27 06:07:09 · answer #7 · answered by J.C. 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋