Is the United States justified in intervening in the political processes of other countries to attempt to stop human rights abuses?

Asked by: Mythic-Dawn
  • Absolutely We Are

    We have to be realistic. We can't protect every human right or we'd be invading every country that executes homosexuals. That wouldn't work. But we can at least say "no genocide" and "no slavery" and invade any country involved in that. A line should be drawn and held to. We should make that commitment now. We should have helped Rwanda.

  • They are human too

    If some countries government is abusing it's power, than any country should feel justified by stepping in to protect the rights that each human being is entitled to, because they can say, "I am human" and that alone means they deserve, at the lowest level, dignity, respect, to be treated as a human.

    Posted by: Mino
  • The United States is fully justified in intervening in the political processes of other countries.

    Many governments, especially in the poorest parts of the world, cannot control human rights abuses or are the cause of the abuses themselves, which can be seen with Nazi Germany or the massacre in Rawanda. Other nations who are content to deal with their own problems are either reluctant to get involved, do not have the resources to intervene, or are not powerful enough to forcibly stop the offending nation. Since the United States is the last global superpower, it can even be argued that it is their responsibility to intervene in human rights crises.

  • United States Intervention

    The United States should intervene only when a country's freedom is at stake, or if they are being threatened, either directly or indirectly. The times the United States should not intervene in foreign policy is when it is politically straining. (e.G. Cuba during early 1960s) When you choose not to intervene, you allow an enemy (or potential one) to become stronger and allow people to be oppressed.

  • Yes intervention is justified

    In 1992 the United States ratified the Universal Declaration of Human rights. By doing this the US promised that they will value human rights over anything else when in conflict. Also the concept of globalization is important here. Things that happen in one country do not just effect things just within the borders of that nation

  • Human Dignity proves that we have the right

    Human Dignity is that every human being has certain rights that are required to everyone. Human rights is the access to certain and specific rights that are justified for every human being. For example the freedom of religion or freedom of speech are both basic human rights that the government does not have the justified right to abuse or take away. When these rights are abused or ignored is considered Human Rights Abuse. The us should not stand around and wait for Human Rights abuse to help themselves but instead act to improve them.

  • Yes we are.

    Because of moral rights I think that the United States is totally justified to intervene in the internal political processes of other countries to attempt to stop humans rights abuses. Let's start with there are four types of people involved in intervening with human rights abuses. The onlookers, potential or active interventionists, those being abused, and those doing the abusing

  • The world is Everyone's business.

    The US stays out, is yelled at for being selfish and standing by (Syria, Bosnian War.)

    The US gets involved, is yelled at to mind their business...
    (Korea, Vietnam.)

    The world is EVERYONE'S business. What happens in it effects everyone on a politic, diplomatic, economic, and social scale.

    No one sees that. What we don't do in the world, when we sit back and let the world move on it's own and things don't work, as they didn't in the Bosnian War when the EU was trusted with the life's of millions of Jews/Muslims/Slavs... What we let go wrong because we stayed out bite US in the back when we aren't looking.

  • It is and it is not.

    I am absolutely for the age old universal law of might makes right. If the United States under that law has the right to invade whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. If that reason just so happens to be human rights (which we all know it never is) then they are fully entitled to do just that.

  • I believe in protecting the weak and oppressed.

    As world leaders we should work with the UN in holding other state leaders accountable for following the human rights guidelines determined by the UN. I think we should encourage the UN to also require every country leader to provide every person transportation to areas where they can access clean water, nutritional food and birth control.

  • Mind your own business

    The fact that the supporters name certain things such as "slavery" and whatnot is the United States definition of "good" and not "evil".

    Other countries may not see it as such.

    It is not our job nor our right to intervene with ever other country in the world, no more so then everyone else intervening in our business.

    The government is failing at its job of taking care of its own citizens. Lets fix america first, then we can try to be some kind of global superhero.

  • More problems caused

    The United States intervening in the internal political processes of other countries would simply be an infringement on sovereignty. Who is the United States to say what is wrong and what is not? Besides this, it is the obligation of a government to protect their own citizens, so with that being said, the government of the country should fix their own problems and stay as their own, rather than the United States being the international police force and jumping in to stop it.

  • Mind your own business, being rich and powerful doesn't always grant the Godly wisdom

    Korea: Divided the country and its people. Forced 50% Koreans to live with international sanctions.
    Vietnam: Bombed, strafed and scorched the nation, just to prevent the Chinese and Russian influence? Thankfully the Vietnamese won.
    Afghanistan: Well, the Russians have left long back, the US and NATO still unable to hold ground. One severe spin-off was 9/11.
    Iraq: Managed to kill Saddam after two attempts over 10 years, caused emergence of ISIS. Dead bodies of innocents are still piling up.
    Libya: Killed Qaddafi, but does Libya exists in the world map any more? Has the peace, terrorism and tranquility, as promised established yet? But ISIS did find an easy way in.
    Syria: Lots of confusion still. Is US supporting anti-establishment rebels or ISIS? The international boundaries between Iraq and Syria has become irrelevant and in fact a highway for the terrorists and the ISIS. Thanks to Russia for showing strength.
    Surprisingly, none of the above nations had ever committed an anti-American act before. No American citizen (less the soldiers and the 9/11 victims) harmed by any Korean, Vietnamese, Afghan, Libyan of Iraqi on the US soil.
    The American idea of 'democracy, human rights, human dignity', etc, should not be imposed on others. Remember Aidid's officers told the captured US chopper pilot in the Hollywood movie "Black Hawk Down"? The US policies are fluid and erratic, they make only temporary friends to sell their wares and get oil, they do not believe in permanent friendship. Money and market too plays a vital role in order to provide the US citizen their daily bread.

  • its not our problem

    The U.S. Already has plenty of our own problems to deal with. Why should we go around to other countries to fix their problems when we can't even fix our own. We need to prioritize our problems, and the highest priority should be the american problems. Not problems of other countries.

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