Welcome to Gaia! ::

Should a country intervene in another country's problems?

I am for intervention. 0.22222222222222 22.2% [ 4 ]
I am against intervention. 0.77777777777778 77.8% [ 14 ]
Total Votes:[ 18 ]
1 2 >
Euphoric XTC 's avatar

Beloved Kitten

7,650 Points
  • Cat Fancier 100
  • Noob wrangler 100
  • Risky Lifestyle 100
Example, US Intervening in Libya against Qadaffi government during the uprising, intervention in Iraq, etc.


Intervention costs money, kills people, divides some countries, etc.

At the same time, potential to gain money, saves people, improves relationships with other countries.


For the most part, do you think a country should intervene in another country's problems?

(This was discussed in another topic, but for example: US helping Uganda)

Things to consider: Should a country solve it's own problems first,

Is it dishonorable to not intervene,

what are the benefits of intervention,

what are the cons of intervention,

do negatives outweight the benefits and vice versa,

etc.

So what do you guys think?
Muraki the angel of lust's avatar

Interesting Vampire

3,850 Points
  • Team Edward 100
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Yes. We are all human. No one surpasses anyone else. Also someone needs to put them in their place.
I'm all for intervention. If we never intervened in WWII, the world would have been much more different now.
Admiral Dardanos's avatar

Hallowed Hunter

It's not a yes or no question.

It all depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.

For example:

WWII? Yes. The Nazi's had to be stopped. I don't think there's many people who will dispute that.

Iraq? I'd say no. While I do think we need to work at getting rid of these mass murdering dictoators, how the invasion of Iraq was handled and the reasons for doing it where not all that great.

Libya? Less clear cut. Personally I think I agree with helping the rebels talk down Gaddaffi tough.
Inzoreno's avatar

Man-Hungry Phantom

14,250 Points
  • Jack-pot 100
  • Battle: KO 200
  • Partygoer 500
I'd say most of the time, no, like in Syria, Iraq, etc. we should just leave them to their own devices. Something on the scale of WWII? Then yes as that had far-ranging consequences beyond just the theaters of war and without help to Britain and Russia the Nazis might never have been stopped.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Dardanos Immortalis
It's not a yes or no question.

It all depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.

For example:

WWII? Yes. The Nazi's had to be stopped. I don't think there's many people who will dispute that.

We didn't give a s**t about the Nazis for years until Germany declared war on us right after their ally bombed our territory. I think that if we'd stayed out of WWI (who needed to be stopped then?) that WWII would not have come about.
Admiral Dardanos's avatar

Hallowed Hunter

Ratttking
Dardanos Immortalis
It's not a yes or no question.

It all depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.

For example:

WWII? Yes. The Nazi's had to be stopped. I don't think there's many people who will dispute that.

I think that if we'd stayed out of WWI (who needed to be stopped then?) that WWII would not have come about.


Maybe so, but it didn't and, it did.
Tarako6's avatar

Blessed Lunatic

8,300 Points
  • Treasure Hunter 100
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Forum Regular 100
Ratttking
Dardanos Immortalis
It's not a yes or no question.

It all depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.

For example:

WWII? Yes. The Nazi's had to be stopped. I don't think there's many people who will dispute that.

We didn't give a s**t about the Nazis for years until Germany declared war on us right after their ally bombed our territory. I think that if we'd stayed out of WWI (who needed to be stopped then?) that WWII would not have come about.

Bush sold arms to the nazis. rofl Soo... did give more than s**t. But it was not the good kind of "giving a s**t"-it was the "I can make money off of this." kind of shiz. Arguably it's partially 'our' fault it was able to spread so far. Also, as a whole, aside from bush, there were armaments sold to both sides, just weren't directly involved until the situation you said. Some people were concerned before it, but nobody directly did anything constructive. Was that your point?
delicious pasta's avatar

Liberal Fairy

8,800 Points
  • Voter 100
  • Consumer 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
France usually knows where to draw the line.
Ratttking's avatar

Fuzzy Bunny

18,450 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Elocutionist 200
  • Cat Fancier 100
Tarako6
Ratttking
Dardanos Immortalis
It's not a yes or no question.

It all depends on the situation at hand. Sometimes it's necessary, sometimes it's not.

For example:

WWII? Yes. The Nazi's had to be stopped. I don't think there's many people who will dispute that.

We didn't give a s**t about the Nazis for years until Germany declared war on us right after their ally bombed our territory. I think that if we'd stayed out of WWI (who needed to be stopped then?) that WWII would not have come about.

Bush sold arms to the nazis. rofl Soo... did give more than s**t. But it was not the good kind of "giving a s**t"-it was the "I can make money off of this." kind of shiz. Arguably it's partially 'our' fault it was able to spread so far. Also, as a whole, aside from bush, there were armaments sold to both sides, just weren't directly involved until the situation you said. Some people were concerned before it, but nobody directly did anything constructive. Was that your point?
I have no problems with the legal sale of arms to either side. Yes, my point was that the US govt did not see fit to intervene in that war until its territory was attacked.
geminikitten's avatar

Conservative Lover

5,200 Points
  • Peoplewatcher 100
  • Forum Regular 100
  • Hygienic 200
That tends to be situational. If there are agreed covenants, I don't see the issue of stepping in when there are violations.
It's easier to answer this is the country actually seeks intervention as not to impinge on sovereignty. We do have some shared values worldwide that need action when it comes to it.
So verrryyy positive we didn't get too involved in WWII
until we got our asses bombed, or Zimmerman and crap like that.
As far as Libya goes, Quite a number of the people there want our help.
I hope I'm right.
TigerLilyChick's avatar

Invisible Businesswoman

15,800 Points
  • Timid 100
  • Perfect Attendance 400
  • Elocutionist 200
It really depends. I think America should stay out of other countries' business unless America is directly affected.
Well if the answer is yes, then who can we get to invade America?
if they don't ask you to be there, stay the ******** out. i'm in america, if any country tries to occupy here, i'll start shooting the ******** in their faces.

presently, were are kind of in a s**t hole, so we just keep to ourselves.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games