This is, of course, a matter of opinion. I will present arguments for each side and let you pick which argument you feel is more persuasive.
On the one hand, we can say that the US should definitely get involved in humanitarian intervention. The United States is clearly the most powerful country in the world and is also one of the richest. We have the ability to intervene in many places where people need help. ...
This is, of course, a matter of opinion. I will present arguments for each side and let you pick which argument you feel is more persuasive.
On the one hand, we can say that the US should definitely get involved in humanitarian intervention. The United States is clearly the most powerful country in the world and is also one of the richest. We have the ability to intervene in many places where people need help. When people and countries are able to help the less fortunate, they should do so. In addition, we have seen terrible things happen in the past in part because we did not intervene. The genocide in Rwanda is the most recent example of a terrible tragedy that might have been avoided if we had intervened. Finally, intervention could improve our standing in the world. If we help other people, foreigners might think better of us as a country. This might, for example, lead to less anti-US terrorism as people think of us as a friendly country that does good things around the world. Thus, humanitarian intervention is in our best interests, is the moral thing to do, and is something we are easily capable of doing. This means that we should intervene when humanitarian crises arise around the world.
On the other hand, we can also clearly argue that the US should not get involved. First, while we are rich and powerful, we do not have unlimited wealth and power. When we try to intervene all over the world, we end up impoverishing ourselves. While we have a massive national debt and many places where our military power is needed, we should not be spending resources trying to fix every humanitarian problem in the world. Second, just because we could stop bad things from happening doesn’t mean that we should do so. If my next door neighbor has a drug problem, there is no reason I should have to pay for his rehabilitation. Similarly, there is no reason that we should have to run around the world fixing problems for other people. Finally, humanitarian intervention does not really help us. People in countries where we give help do not seem particularly grateful. For example, the link below shows that we gave over $1 billion in humanitarian aid to Pakistan in the years from 2009 to 2014. Even so, Pakistanis remain strongly anti-American. When we give aid, it does not actually help our image around the world.
Which of these arguments makes more sense to you?
No comments:
Post a Comment