The Instigator
Smarty679
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
nabill
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

The USA Should Stay Out Other Countries.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/31/2015 Category: Politics
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 348 times Debate No: 84437
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (2)
Votes (0)

 

Smarty679

Pro

I believe that the U.S.A. should stay out of other country affairs because that can lead to terrorists, wars/ drama, etc. If this country would just STOP putting their noses into everything, then maybe we wouldn't have people bombing other people. We the people are the ones in charge. Why can't we just stop it ourselves, instead of the government being patient about it? All I'm trying to say is that I prefer that the government should probably think about isolationism.
nabill

Con

Firstly , I think that is not the main cause of terrorism , because we can find people bombing other people in every side in the world , and sometimes also in arabic and islamic countries .
The seconde point is , that is terrorism really defending muslim people , or is just a way for USA to stay on in these countries ?
Debate Round No. 1
Smarty679

Pro

Smarty679 forfeited this round.
nabill

Con

nabill forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2
2 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Posted by bobbyguleasch 1 year ago
bobbyguleasch
One of the most complicated dynamics in international relations is whether foreign powers should intervene when a government is creating a humanitarian crisis among its own people. David L. Phillips, a former a senior adviser to the United States Department of State and to the United Nations, has repeatedly dealt with this problem, and in his most recent book, "Liberating Kosovo: Coercive Diplomacy and U.S. Intervention," he suggests a criteria for when to intervene, based on the lessons learned during and after NATO"s military attack in the former Yugoslavia. Syria is a current conundrum of whether to use outside military force against a government that is attacking its own people.

Phillips, 53, is now the director of Columbia University"s Program on Peace-Building and Human Rights. He recently sat for an interview to discuss foreign interventions and the importance of increasing women"s involvement in conflict resolution.

PassBlue: What lesson can be learned from NATO"s intervention in the war in Kosovo in 1999, to the humanitarian crises today?

David Phillips: The only way you can mobilize international support for military action is by demonstrating that you have run the course of diplomatic options. Diplomacy backed by the threat of force is still diplomacy; you don"t want to be trigger-happy. The idea is to try to convince a repressive regime into changing its behavior and use military action as a last resort. The other major conclusion is really at the back end. You really don"t intervene unless you have an exit strategy, and the exit strategy requires a capable and committed local partner with the integrity to lead. If you don"t have a body or an individual who you can hand over power to, you can easily get stuck in an open-ended occupation and that"s not in the interest of the directly affected population.

PassBlue: From your experience, what has been more influential regarding US decisions to intervene " moral judgment or national interests?
Posted by bobbyguleasch 1 year ago
bobbyguleasch
What do the Libyan and Japanese crises have in common? In a word, both are national crises that have major (potential) global repercussions. One crucial question that these crises beg but that has not yet been asked, it seems, is this: does the international community really have a reasonable set of criteria to evaluate when "intervention" is warranted?

Since the beginning of 2011, the world has been rocked by several crises. While one could view them as separate, headline-grabbing events, these crises have important similarities that the international community should bear in mind when deciding how to (not) deal with them.

In January, revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt unleashed revolts in many Arab countries, including the (arguably) most dominant country in the Arab world, Saudi Arabia. This caused concern about spiking oil prices, as Saudi Arabia"s supply of oil could be drastically reduced if political instability were to deepen or the threat of a full-blown revolution to materialize.

In February, a proto civil war erupted in Libya, again causing concern about oil prices " although more indirect concern, given Libya"s smaller share of world production of crude oil. In March, the 9.0 earthquake that hit Japan was followed by a massive tsunami and led to the most severe nuclear crisis the world has known since Chernobyl in 1986. While Japan is not a large producer of raw material, it plays a key role in global supply chains and remains the third largest economy in the world. Therefore, a severe nuclear crisis in Japan would have a sizeable negative impact on the world economy.

To sum up, these crises can be viewed as national problems that have important global implications. Subprime lending in Las Vegas eventually, and through convoluted yet powerful financial and economic linkages, led to a financial meltdown and a global economic recession, hitting ordinary workers, pension funds and, eventually government fiscal accounts throughout the developed wor
No votes have been placed for this debate.