Should the US intervene in foreign affairs?

Answer 1

The Answer is obvious NO. By interfering the American government has earned a bad name for its people and country. If it wants to last a little longer as a super power it must learn to respect other countries' sovereignty. Otherwise it will meet a fate similar to the Soviet Union.

Here is a quote from Thomas Jefferson to go along with this answer:

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations --- entangling alliances with none."

Most of the time when the US government intervenes in another countries affairs, it usually isn't in the best interest of the US public or the interest of the other country.

Traditionally, the answer to such a question is NO - all sovereign states should have complete control of their own citizenry, free from outside interference.

HOWEVER, that situation not longer exists in the modern world. The primary reason is that we now recognize that many problems are no longer constrained to the immediate area where they occur - problems in one area may have drastic effects in other areas. An ordinary example of this is that allowing you to have a bonfire in your backyard is also a concern to your neighbors, and they should be allowed to interfere if you are not properly controlling that fire, as it may spread to others (or, it may dump toxic fumes elsewhere, etc.)

The modern question now has become: "At what point do the effects of actions inside your country affect others so much that they now should have the right to interfere with how you handle your country?" And THAT is a much trickier question.

In the current world, the answer is now a qualified YES. The U.N. provides a framework for declaring legal the use of military force in various situations, and the international community has long recognized the right of nations to engage in diplomatic, economic, and political efforts to influence other countries' governments. Of course, the degree to which these influence efforts are made is a huge grey area; many countries consider certain actions forbidden (such as actively supporting a political candidate for some office), but overall, it is very fuzzy as to which actions should be considered acceptable.

_______________________________________________________________

To a lot of people, they are unaware of just how much interference goes on around the world and how most of it is NOT from the U.S. The U.S. gets the most publicity because honestly, the Soviet Union did a good job at perception management all over the globe and also because of some really ill-conceived decisions by the U.S. government.

But every nation interferes with other nations, usually in the form of trying to influence policy. And if you think other nations are not interfering with the U.S., who do you think all those lobbyists are? Who has heard of AIPAC? How about the Chinese money in U.S. political campaigns? And who is printing stories in our newspapers?

Don't be so quick to blame the U.S. for everything. Every nation does it...some better than others.

AnswerThere is no rights involved here, the US can meddle in any other countries domestic affairs if they have the power to. If that country can't stop them, it is there own fault for being weak.

Having a right to do something is either given, understood or taken by force. The question is flawed and loaded to begin with. A republican form of government dictates that elected officials run the country for the rest of it's citizens and they are charged with protecting the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Should Americans have messed with German domestic issues in the 40's? Pearl Harbor wasn't attacked by Germans. How about bombing campaigns in Kosovo during ethnic cleansing? Or perhaps security measures and aid in Haiti was no business of the U.S. Maybe, since the domestic course of one country can impact another, we should take things one at a time. The government needs to look at everyone's well being not just a few people's opinion of right and wrong, good or bad. Does Japan have a right to outlaw American products to increase the sale of domestic products in Japan? Can Iran call for the destruction of Israel and then continue a nuclear arms program? Ultimately the answer to the question is yes, not only does the United States have the right to interfere with the domestic affairs of other countries, it has been done in the past, it is being done now and will continue to in the future.

Answer 2

If we hadn't become involved with Iraq, Hussein could have established a much stronger link with al Qaeda, went on to create the weapons of mass destruction and use them against us, or he could have continued using the ones he had on his own people. We eliminated a potential, future threat, and that was the actual intent of goint to war. The President also had to make a quick decision given limited information. The benefits in the long run far outweighed the costs. As long as the US wishes to import and export products and services, to permit tourists to visit the US and US citizens to visit other countries, to receive legal immigrants, to exchange postal mail and email with other parts of the world, etc., then the US will have foreign relations. The management of those foreign relations is the process of foreign affairs. As long as the US has strong economic and cultural interests in other parts of the world, the US will need to participate in the affairs of those parts of the world. The only question is how to participate, since cutting all ties with the rest of the world would result in economic disaster for the US, and probably in wide-spread privation, if not starvation within the US.

Answer 3

American interventionism post-WWII was better than isolationism post-WWI

If a country could choose peace or war, it would definitely choose peace. Since isolationism is usually associated with peace, it might seem to be the better policy for the U.S. However, post-WWI isolationism was futile since it eventually caused the U.S. to enter WWII; moreover, post-WWII interventionism is more beneficial because it helped contain Communism and improve reputation/relations through brinkmanship.

1. Containment helped combat Communism (mention Domino Theory by Ike)-
2. • Truman Doctrine
   • Marshall Plan
   • Korea and Vietnam
   • Idea of getting as close to war as possible w/o getting into one
   • Good-in the end, someone has to back down in order to avert a full-scale conflict, the one that does so is shameful and lost
   • Cuban Missile Crisis under JFK---SU placed nuclear missiles in Cuba, JFK orders quarantine of Cuba until missiles removed, SU heading with more missiles and US prepares an invasion force-Khruschev offers a deal to remove missiles if JFK does not invade Cuba
   • • Better relations and White House and Kremlin hotline
3. Brinkmanship-Ike's Sec of State John Foster Dulles' policy
   • Neutrality Acts 1935 and 1937 prohibits travel on belligerent ships, no trading with belligerents, and no use of American ports by belligerents
   • Neutrality Act of 1939: European democracies may buy war materials on "cash and carry" basis---favors allies
   • Lend-Lease Act-allows US to supply any nation that is deemed vital to US interests ----favors allies
   • Although we tried to be "neutral"-couldn't because it was inevitable to become a part in the war, since we had allies in war and it was hard to stay neutral
4. Pre-WWII isolationism-did not make US neutral-always some kind of bias (more side with its allies Britain and France)

Answer 4

yes because if not resources would be very limited and for instance if this is what everybody thought this was a good idea hussien could have used wepons of massive destruction on the U.S killing thousand of citizens or dropped them on somebody else and set a bad example on the country

Answer 5

no