• Only if they ask for our help.

    Yes, but only if they ask us for help. It is not up to us to decide what sort of leaders or governments a country can have and, as we should have learned in Iraq and indeed in Vietnam, is that we cannot police the world. If a nation threatens us, or our allies, or if the people of a nation ask for our help, then yes we should help. Even then, military action on our part should only be used as a last resort.

  • A big no

    Firstly we should always try to bring peace and maintain harmony in this world. So if we try to intervene in some other world there would be of course the prevalence of hostility between the two parties. We should of course look for a world without wars and conflicts. So let people live as they are living. There's really no point intervening in the Arab world. Its not a question about intervening, but probably its the question about the after effects of the intervention. So yes, be happy with staying in your own world

  • The West should not intervene in the Arab world.

    Throughout history men have intervened in other men's worlds, in the name of "making a better life" for the inhabitants of those other worlds. The definition of "better" is a very subjective idea, held only by those doing the intervening. For the specific case of the West, intervention would be remotely justified if a clear and imminent threat were forthcoming from the Arab world against members of the Western world. Aside from that one instance, no justification exists.

  • No real benefits

    The west should only intervene in the Arab world, only if, they are posing a threat to multiple countries, or treating it's citizens unjustly. The west have many of their own problems to solve, so not intervening in the Arab world would provide more money for the west to use, since it isn't being invested in military operations.

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