Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate significant external conflicts?

Answer 1

That is the Job of the UN! We are not the worlds police force!

We have a moral obligation to support our elderly, children and disabled, not blow money on things not concerning us, just like George Washington said in his farewell speech!

Answer 2

Says who? With so many hungry and homeless in our own country, don't give me a bunch of moral high-ground crap. Tell that to the people of the gulf coast and see how they fell about the issue. These are Americans and they have been hung out to dry by our government and big insurance. Tell me again about a moral responsibility to the rest of the world when we don't take care of our own. You can also see Walter Reed Medical Center for more insight.

Answer 3

Morality has nothing to do with it. We just do the right thing and help. We get screamed at when we do help and when we don't.

Answer 4

The Bush Doctrine is a bunch of BS.

Answer 5

Nope.

And based upon whose moral code?

And how many of our soldiers have to die before it becomes a bad idea?

Answer 6

bored stiff is ideal, and we are actually not A democracy, yet a republic. i in my opinion have faith we've a ethical criminal duty to not. I even have stable concerns for many underdeveloped international locations. lots of them have a inhabitants previous what their land can help. If we enable them to in, they could as we communicate replace them. what's worse is that people who're right here could deliver funds domicile and inspire an outstanding extra advantageous advance fee. till they stablize their inhabitants, we would desire to continuously not enable mass immigration right here. i'm unable to discern a thank you to regulate their inhabitants different than with the aid of harsh skill. preparation seems to not artwork , particularly from memories I heard from India. I do have faith in allowing a elect team to attend our college in hopes that they could return and alter the disasterous course a number of those international locations are venture. to those that states this is area of their way of life to have many babies and we would desire to continuously not tell them the thank you to stay their lives, I agree, yet permitting them to immigrate out is likewise changing their way of life and we would desire to continuously not would desire to help a manner of life exterior our own. I do would desire to confess that we would desire to compromise and enable in a symbolic few, for Political reason. I additionally been heard of pointing out that we would desire to continuously not enable unlawful immigrants in, because of the fact one million/2 of them are Mexicans, and if we are to enable human beings in, we would desire to continuously provide the spot to those much less fortunate like India or Nigeria. I purely state this on the venture that if compassion is a reason to permit human beings in this united states, we would desire to continuously provide selection to those maximum mandatory, to not those geographically closer. As to Political Assylum, i've got faith ws would desire to locate a place for them to flee, yet to not provide them citizenship. I also have a situation with Asylum seekers, in that they arrive from a united states that lack an understand-how of what's a stable government.

Answer 7

I'd say no. We need to stop doing this. We get criticized when we help, and criticized when we don't. At least if we don't we haven't put ourselves at risk.

Answer 8

the united states should mind its own affairs.

Answer 9

That seems to be the consensus, unfortunately. I say we start at home.

Answer 10

Manifest density?

(yes, I spelled it right)