• In most cases, intervention adds complexity to problems that could solve themselves.

    We should only intervene when we have a serious vested outcome in the event. For example, when our child is being beaten up, we have a right and an obligation to intervene and protect our child. When a criminal breaks into a neighbor's house, we have an obligation to call the police and warn a neighbor that's about to walk in. We do not have the right to intervene in every other nation's political affairs. When we do, we cause the winner to not be trusted by his own people, when compromise or even a civil war would have settled the issue. Tell two people who are arguing that they must separate, or accept a third-party referee, denies them their right to private discussion, and can cause one side to be unfairly disadvantaged because the referee prefers them. Injustices occur around the world, but one nation will quickly lose its people and resources, when trying to fight for justice. At an extreme, playing nanny for the world leaves the homeland vulnerable to attack, while ill will is built up from the interference abroad.

    Posted by: Pir4And
  • We would be better off staying in our country.

    If we stayed out of other countries, we would be able to focus more on our issues here in the United States. Yes there are flaws, but aren't there problems with us intervening with other countries? If we keep what we have here, we can work out our national debt and we can become more of what we were in past years. We will go back to making our own goods and having better quality of items in homes.

  • Costly and ineffective

    Wars are costly. Take the combined Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan war. In total they combined a sum of over 3.7 trillion dollars, that could have been used more effectively. This money had been wasted and now we are in a deficit.

    The wars also do no good in relations with other nations. Since the end of the 20th century Middle Eastern relationship with the U.S have declined, while this was not the case in the earlier part of the 20th century. The reason is that the presence of a massive military power is not liked by anyone, it would be the same if an other nation had a big presence here in the United States.

  • Non-intervention is the less intrusive way of being involved in a situation, letting the main players have a chance to work things out.

    Many times, when people attempt to intervene in other people's business, they are not adequately informed to a level that would qualify them as experts. It is better to let the key people work things out among themselves, rather than to intervene and possibly make things worse.

    Posted by: NonchalantEnoch53
  • Non-intervention is superior to intervention, because even the best of intentions means getting your hands dirty.

    Non-intervention is usually a better choice than intervention. If you have a friend or family member who is headed down a bad path and making bad choices, getting involved in their business may mean some temporary relief for them, but could also enable them to go back to bad choices later with the knowledge you will save them again. You're not helping them. You're just exposing yourself to their trauma and mistakes. On a global level, national boundaries exist for a reason. Most countries would not dream of trying to invade America, and yet we violate the borders of other countries all the time. On some occasions, this is justified and provoked. But, when we are the instigators, we're only proving to their youngest citizens that we are imperialists. We might get what we want in the short term, but we're only inspiring the next generation of terrorists.

    Posted by: FlakyHerb64
  • Yes, because non-intervention is the staple of anti-imperialism.

    During the Cold War, both the U.S. and the USSR preferred to either directly intervene in internal affairs of other countries, in violation of Westphalian principles, or indirectly intervene through proxy wars. This, overall, made the world more chaotic and unstable. At the same time, a host of third-way movements emerged that rejected both extremes. These formed the non-aligned movement that refused to tamper with internal affairs, except perhaps in extreme circumstances, such as genocide. What the non-aligned powers showed was that the world did not have to regress into the imperial designs of the past, but could instead move forward with mutual respect for their sovereignty.

    Posted by: UpforPerc
  • It depends on the type of intervention, but I believe that generally, if intervention can be done to avoid harm, then it is better than inaction.

    In international terms, if intervention is done through diplomacy or persuasion, or other peaceful means, than it is better than doing nothing. From an individual human perspective, if you are able to intervene in someone's life to prevent them from being harmed or doing harm to others, it is my belief that you have a moral imperative to act.

    Posted by: laddieluck
  • Yes, non-intervention is much better than intervention.

    Iraq is the perfect example of the dangers of intervention. The cause was a lie, the cost exorbitant and mission creep has been the norm. Non-intervention is far less costly and can be much more effective; see Libya. Passive cultural pressures can positively effect countries and promote stability or change as the situation warrants without the massive costs involved with intervening.

    Posted by: R43Shep
  • Yes, Non-Intervention is a better domestic and foreign policy for a nation to take.

    Interventionism is a policy of arrogance. The founder's of the United States were highly against interventionism and partnering or interfering with other nation's business. Thomas Jefferson said "commerce with all nations, alliance with none" This basically meant we shouldn't entangle ourselves and have military alliances, as it breeds antagonism. Additionally, we should only invade a country in self defense, not preemptive attacks.

    Posted by: D Callahan
  • Yes, it is better for the US not to intervene in foreign affairs.

    The United States gets involved in too much around the world, much of it that has absolutely nothing to do with our own security or best interest. Subsequently, the entire rest of the world hates the United States. It would be a good idea for the US to just "try" for a while to not intervene anymore.

    Posted by: 5c4ryOgdon
  • Rwanda is just as important as Iraq in foreign policy.

    Iraq is a classic example of how intervention can fail in three ways: 1. Giving a dictator weapons to kill innocent civilians (a dictator has no respect to human rights), 2. imposing cruel sanctions on the country (some estimates say 500,000 children died), 3. invading and then having to occupy the country (a bulk of all the casualties were suffered after the invasion and during the occupation). Those three steps CAN BE AVOIDED: no sanctions, no invasion + occupation and no sale of weapons to a dictator. And let's not forget the abuse of human rights by Blackwater company in Iraq and the exploitation of Iraq's oil by Halliburton. All these mistakes can be avoided if people were SERIOUS about it. Intervention can ONLY succeed if previous mistakes can be AVOIDED. And if anyone thinks non-intervention is the best option, then have a look at Rwanda and see how perfect the strategy worked (not!). My final though is that if top politicians should intervene then they need to send themselves to the International Criminal Court after they finish their political career as a GUARANTEE that they took steps to respect human rights. Thank you.

  • There are too many times when non-intervention has unexpected negative results.

    The increasing unpopularity of war has led to a resurgence of interest in isolationism and non-interventionism. However, this is just as dangerous as assuming that war is the only solution to international conflicts. History is rife with incidents where a policy of non-intervention exacerbated a problem. For instance, had President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who tried to stay out of World War II as long as possible, not waited until the attack on Pearl Harbor to do so, several lives could have been saved, and perhaps the Nazi Holocaust could have been prevented.

    Posted by: ErvinAnime
  • I think intervention is always better than non-intervention, because nothing is achieved by doing nothing.

    I can think of no conflict that was made better by doing nothing. Whether you're talking about murderous despots, or the many instances of genocide that have plagued the human race, it is always better to go in and try to stop it before it gets worse. Non-intervention is an abdication of responsibility. If we follow a policy of doing nothing, the people who survive despotic, oppressive regimes will one day ask us why we did nothing, when we could have helped. What would be our answer?

    Posted by: PhysicalBen
  • Intervention is necessary, because we should not allow abuses of human rights to go unchecked.

    Whenever we have the ability to step in to stop something that should not be happening, we should do it. This is something that applies on both a small and a large level. If you see your neighbor abusing their children, you step in, and you intervene to save the child. If you see that a nation, or a group of people within a nation, is being abused, then you should intervene to stop it, if you have the ability to do so.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • No, because interventions are more reliable to help a person through addiction than non-intervention.

    An intervention can show someone how much the people around them care, and how their addiction is not only affecting their life, but others as well. In an intervention, one can truly discover their meaning behind why they do it, and can ask a counselor who is available for help.

    Posted by: E Castaneda
  • I do not agree that non-intervention is better than intervention because some circumstances require change.

    I do not agree that in all cases non-intervention is better than intervention, just as I do not agree that in all cases intervention is better than non-intervention. Sometimes circumstances need to be changed - for example, the end of slavery in the US allowed many talented African-Americans to use their talents to better the world, and thus intervention was beneficial in that case.

    Posted by: tahdoton
  • Intervention is a positive way to reinforce someone who is suffering from an addiction problem.

    An intervention that supplies the user with rehabilitation options have proven to be constructive if those who are intervening refrain from any enabling habits.

    Posted by: tabefra
  • Limited intervention based on a clear and credible threat is the most reasonable policy.

    Complete non-interventionism goes too far, because it doesn't allow us to intervene in situations where there actually is a clear and present danger to the United States (construed strictly as a danger to the homeland, not just US economic interests or overseas material interests). For instance, when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, that posed a clear and present danger to the US, so intervening in World War II was completely justified after that. Same thing with 9/11 and Afghanistan. On the other hand, not so true with Iraq or Bosnia.

    Posted by: 54uIIan
  • I believe if there is a problem one should step forward.

    If there is a problem and one has the ability to step in and make aware of the faults, and more important how to stop and improve, then one should. If someone has a problem, its your responsibility to help them and get them on the right path. For without help from you they may never get it.

    Posted by: ChuckGenius
  • Non-intervention is not better than intervention, because sometimes a person really needs outside help for something they may not recognize.

    It is easy to be blind to an issue or answer when you are in the midst of whatever you are going through. Family and friends have an obligation by simply caring for a person to intervene when this happens. The person going through those issues may not want outside help, but again it is the responsibility of anyone caring for that person to intervene when they aren't seeing the whole picture.

    Posted by: Z Frye

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.