When powerfull goverment learn not to interfere other countries' issues and cricis?

Question

Shoul people of every country decide for themselves in difficult situations or goverment of some countries likeU.S.A should interfere?

Answer 1

I cannot think of any good coming from US foreign policy at all

Answer 2

It's better if the U.S.A decides for you in the long run. (I'm British and am not a big fan of America at all) but as stupid and arrogant as American's and America come across , they also live an idealistic fairytale world.

But then, where in the world chooses their own government? Not so many. Until a government is democratic and more importantly SEEN to be democratic then they will always be second class citizens in the world.

Westerners (I think) can't understand why oppressed people haven't sorted out their countries yet.

Why is it up to us (with all due respect) sort out your crappy, failed countries?

Do you think we want this chore?

And thus Iraqi's aren't really treated as people (nothing much has changed there then).

But then we just stealing oil, aren't we? Iraq doesn't sell at World price, does it? America gets occupational discount, doesn't it?

I'm British and 80 years ago we'd have just invaded you country with NO pretext of human rights etc, merely "you have oil, we want it". America stopped that. Of all the American idealistic rubbish they band around, at least they did this.

Compare American "victories"
Japan.
S.Korea.

vs American defeats
Vietnam
Somalia

American's are generally quite stupid, and idealistic. But they mean well. And as much as I (and the rest of the world) dislike America - let's give credit where credit is due. They will come good.

Answer 3

Maybe powerful governments should try to limit their intereferences into other states' problems to areas of humanitarian intervention. Had the US decided to invade Iraq on humanitarian grounds (as opposed to ficticious reasonings) then it would have been a more popular war. But I guess there are so many places where the powerful could interfere on humanitarian grounds (Chechnya, Sudan, etc) that it makes more sense to big countries to pick and choose the places with most strategic importance to interfere with first. If the big countries could reform the UN so that it became an affective decision-making body, then it would be possible to see interventions based on popular will and justice, as opposed to strategic necessity.

Answer 4

When other countries issues and crises stop spilling over into their neighbours yard, that's when.

Perhaps if the countries that are in a state of civil unrest would sort themselves out there would be no need for outside interference, however some countries have bloodthirsty leaders who don't care who they hurt in the pursuit of power.

Would you rather that the UN not get involved in the break-up of Yugoslavia when Serbs were murdering Croats in the name of ethnic cleansing? Or that the allies had stayed out of world war II and Hitler and the Japanese had taken over Europe and Asia?
Perhaps you would have liked the Allies to stay out of Kuwait, even though Saudi Arabia asked us to help out as did Kuwait.

See my point? Sometimes countries cannot or will not govern themselves and behave in a civilised manner, and for the sake of ALL citizens, sometimes another government has to get involved.

Answer 5

I believe that countries need to interfere in certain situations. . When the problems of one country affect the entire world or threaten another countries way of life, then yes.
As far as the people of Iraq making the difficult decisions, let me ask you a question. If you as a civilian, were in a country such as Iraq under the rule of a tyrant like Saddam, would you be willing to put your entire family on the "chopping block" in an effort to change the way you were forced to live? Would you be willing to mastermind a plan to throw him from power? If it were me, I would bite my tongue before i let some CRUEL and Horrible guy gas my children or pull them limb from limb. I do not agree with my American government giving false reasons to the world for invading Iraq, but those people needed to be freed from that awful regime.
Same goes for Africa. The African governent is not controlling the AIDS over there and as a result it keeps spreading there and in other countries. They NEED help. My government has pumped in tons of dollars to help those people and the world, as this is an international problem. So yes, sometimes, another governments should intervene. It is the responsibility of every country to make sure the world keeps spinning... Peacefully.
Just remember, that not all Americans are ignorant as Paul E above me stated. We realize that our leader has, and contines to screw up. Just because the world hates our government, it shouldn't mean we who were born here, and are stuck here, are ignorant. This is a great country with great people and unfortunately we are being led by a messed up government that I believe needs its own rebuilding process. Remember that we are all people, all entitled to his or her own opinions. You just got a serving of mine!! Have a peachy day and dont hate me because of where I live..

Answer 6

I think in some cases it is justified. I would not have respected England had they not stopped the Nazis from killing Jewish people/mentally ill people/homosexuals etc. However, I think sometimes we take things too far. It is estimated that the war declared on Iraq (supposedly to get rid of Saddam Hussein) has actually killed more people that Saddam ever did. This is appalling and should never have happened. I think if Blair and Bush had put their minds to it, they could have used our intelligence services and had Saddam and his henchmen assassinated. This would have took relatively few innocent lives and got rid of the problem without all of this hallabaloo

Answer 7

in my opinion a lot of times interfering makes things a lot worse but what i don`t understand is if they must interfere why don`t they do it where it`s obvious that someone should, like Darfur it would be hard for any one to make things worse for those poor people

Answer 8

so you agree with apartheid,genocide in rwanda ,starvation in africa and the policies of the third reich.The strong must always protect the weak ,humanity dictates it.