• Yes, I believe the U.S. should have interfered in Egypt.

    When human rights violations are being committed and people are not being allowed civil liberties, it is the job of other countries to step in and help those citizens. The United States is large enough to help people throughout the world.

    Posted by: NoisyAlva89
  • No, The US should not have interfered in Egypt

    I think the US in general is a very impulsive and reflexive country. I don' think they should have gotten involved in matters regarding Egypt, but once again America feels some sort of intrinsic need to waste billions to get involved in other countries endless tirades when it should have never done so in the first place .

  • The US should not have interfered in Egypt because of its negative consequences.

    The situation in Egypt is more unstable now, and has led to a worse regime being in power. Countless people have lost their lives, and more people will suffer under the new regime. Interfering in Egypt has led to a destabilization of the region, and US interests in the region are now threatened and uncertain.

    Posted by: TorpidQuintin70
  • The U.S. should not interfere in Egypt or any other country unless it is directly in the national interest and absolutely necessary.

    The U.S. should never interfere with any country's internal affairs unless it is absolutely necessary. Most countries' citizens object to foreign interference and thus the results, even if done with the best intentions, are usually negative and the U.S. suffers blowback (unintended consequences). Thus the Arab revolutions must be left to the Arab people.

    Posted by: EminentBennett93
  • I oppose our interference in Egypt because we need to rein in our military spending and work on our budget in America.

    The United States of America can't continue to be the worlds' Police. We have hundreds and hundreds of military bases all over the world that cost a lot of money to maintain. We are also involved in conflicts in at least 3 nations and I believe our money is better spent at home on our budget issues.

    Posted by: AddictedGrover67
  • In general, we should not meddle in international affairs that do not involve us.

    We have been involved in too many foreign conflicts and we already have a bad reputation of meddling in other countries' affairs. If we do something like that, it has to be internationally done with the UN and must be a coordinated effort. Unilateral efforts have only proved disastrous for us lately.

    Posted by: TickoNest
  • We should worry about what happens more in this country, and less about what happens in other countries.

    We have so many issues in this country that deserve to be taken care of than to merely interfere in other countries' problems. We have poverty and an economic crisis in this country, and I feel that our resources should be diverted right here at home. How can we morally help other countries when we have an unemployment crisis in this country that is over 9%? Egypt has their own issues, and they should deal with them on their own.

    Posted by: SlipArnal
  • The United States did not need to interfere in Egypt, because their president stepped down.

    There was no reason for the United States to interfere in the Egyptian protests. Even if we didn't agree with them, they were not causing any major violence. In the end, the president stepped down peacefully, so any problems were averted. Had there been any violence, then the United States may have had to take action to calm the area down.

    Posted by: M0r3Interior
  • America should not have interfered in Egypt, because only the United Nations has a mandate to authorize actions against sovereign nations.

    America is not responsible for policing the world, although some of our actions in the past seem to contradict this fact. In the past, when America has interfered with internal matters of sovereign nations, it has been obvious that we have done so in order to protect our own "interests" in those nations, although this is rarely articulated. We generally couch our interference in terms of supporting freedom and liberty, or protecting human rights to make our actions more palatable to American citizens and to the world. There is a larger question here. Is the nature of a democratic system such that it can not be given to people, and it must instead be taken and/or earned by the people? We have a dismal record of "giving" people democracy (we STILL maintain a military presence in Japan). Iraq seems to be sliding back into a repressive tribal-centered society, in which the majority is limiting the rights of the minorities. Is this success? Perhaps America should learn to play better with others. Instead of usurping the power mandated to the United Nations and continually threatening to act unilaterally, let's support the United Nations, and let it do what it was set up to do.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • The US shouldn't be interfering in anyone else's civil affairs.

    The United States interfered in Afghanistan and in turn a horrible group of people rose to power and took over the Middle East, killing and stealing from people. Then we had to go back to the Middle East to clean up what we had caused in the first place. If we would have just dealt with our affairs instead of trying to solve everyone else's problems, it might not have gone that far.

    Posted by: G0dfrGurl
  • I don't feel the U.S. should interfere. We have enough problems to fix as it is.

    Our government should be paying more attention to what is going on here in our own country. We are no longer a role model for any other country. We have been getting in everyone else's business for too long and neglecting our own. It's time to take care of Americans. We have starving children, families going broke because of health care, discrimination by big business and immigration laws that have been violated for years.

    Posted by: elle4049

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