Moral Issue of U.S. Involvement in Foreign Affairs

[Einherjar86]

In the debate last night Obama said something along the lines of "It would be morally wrong for this country to allow another Holocaust to happen." Now, I would never encourage another act of genocide such as that which took place in World War II. I don't condone any form of mass genocide. I'm only concerned with whether we agree with Obama (and McCain) on this issue or not. Does the United States have a moral responsibility to occupy/influence foreign countries that are experiencing events such as this? Personally, I could see the issue argued the other way (i.e. it would be morally wrong of us to occupy other countries, even in such a situation). I can see it as an issue of putting American lives at stake for something that isn't a large concern of ours. The issue of morality in this situation can be a red herring, I believe. I'm curious as to what others think.

I'm not making this a poll because it's a complicated issue with many deciding factors. Let's just try and navigate the issue. Can morality alone be the deciding factor in whether or not we occupy another country? And for that matter, should it be?

 

[Dak]

No, we have no moral obligation to another country, not militarily and certainly not involving regime changes.

Unfortunately none of the wars we have fought at the least since WWII have been to "Defend America". Thats a lot of bloodshed for nothing, whether the veterans of those wars/families of the deceased realize it or not. I'm definitely against nay more American lives being lost for someone else's "freedom". If they want it bad enough they will earn it themselves.

 

[viewerfromnihil]

In the debate last night Obama said something along the lines of "It would be morally wrong for this country to allow another Holocaust to happen." Now, I would never encourage another act of genocide such as that which took place in World War II. I don't condone any form of mass genocide. I'm only concerned with whether we agree with Obama (and McCain) on this issue or not. Does the United States have a moral responsibility to occupy/influence foreign countries that are experiencing events such as this? Personally, I could see the issue argued the other way (i.e. it would be morally wrong of us to occupy other countries, even in such a situation). I can see it as an issue of putting American lives at stake for something that isn't a large concern of ours. The issue of morality in this situation can be a red herring, I believe. I'm curious as to what others think.

I'm not making this a poll because it's a complicated issue with many deciding factors. Let's just try and navigate the issue. Can morality alone be the deciding factor in whether or not we occupy another country? And for that matter, should it be?

this is a great thing to discuss the purpose of going to iraq. Obama says he voted against it (not that he was even a senator then ) yet, saddam commiting genocide was one of the reasons for us going in along with WMD's and him being in league with al quaida

 

[AchrisK]

I guess it depends on what kind of world we want around us, and how important that is to us. I do believe there is such a thing as morality. That there is such a thing as evil and wrong. I am not sure what level of evil is the right amount to prompt a country like the US to get involved. I certainly think it was right to stop the Holocaust. I feel it would be good if we could help wherever one people group is attempting to eliminate another. But the world is complicated. So I don't know.

 

[entanglement]

No, we have no moral obligation to another country, not militarily and certainly not involving regime changes.

Unfortunately none of the wars we have fought at the least since WWII have been to "Defend America". Thats a lot of bloodshed for nothing, whether the veterans of those wars/families of the deceased realize it or not. I'm definitely against nay more American lives being lost for someone else's "freedom". If they want it bad enough they will earn it themselves.

Nobody fucking asked for help. The feeling of superiority blinds them and keeps them from having any idea of what that foreign tighter shoe feels like. The measuring tape is highly 'bling'ed in red blue and white to be taking proper measurements. Hiding behind 'morals' is easier than admitting actual agenda anyway.

"Bullshit is everywhere. Bullshit is rampant. Parents are full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law enforcement is full of shit. The entire country is full of shit- and always has been. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the “Star Spangled Banner,” it’s nothing more than one big, steaming pile of red white and blue, all-American bullshit."

 

[Cythraul]

No, we have no moral obligation to another country, not militarily and certainly not involving regime changes.

You cannot just categorically deny that we have any moral obligations to any other country. We no longer live in a world such that our choices do not affect others across national boundaries, nor a world such that our destiny is not bound up, at least in part, with the destinies of others. Those two considerations are enough to establish some degree of moral obligation. Regarding things such as the situation in Iraq, I would say that a claim to the effect that we have no moral obligation could have been defensible at some time in the past, but to say this is the case now is like saying it's ok for one to go to another person's house, break all their shit, and not pay them back for the damages.

 

[Dak]

We did not go into Iraq because of the genocide, or the "WMDs", it was mainly about controlling the region due to.....oil! There were some other economic issues but this one was the big one.
Iraq was the weaker out of the two (Iran/Iraq) and gave us better excuses to dupe the susceptable American flag-waving public than Iran did at the time.

Edit:

Regarding things such as the situation in Iraq, I would say that a claim to the effect that we have no moral obligation could have been defensible at some time in the past, but to say this is the case now is like saying it's ok for one to go to another person's house, break all their shit, and not pay them back for the damages.

Not disagreeing with that, but we shouldn't have been there to start with.Or in Korea...or Vietnam..or Kuwait...etc etc.

 

[Dak]

Nobody fucking asked for help. The feeling of superiority blinds them and keeps them from having any idea of what that foreign tighter shoe feels like. The measuring tape is highly 'bling'ed in red blue and white to be taking proper measurements. Hiding behind 'morals' is easier than admitting actual agenda anyway.

"Bullshit is everywhere. Bullshit is rampant. Parents are full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law enforcement is full of shit. The entire country is full of shit- and always has been. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the “Star Spangled Banner,” it’s nothing more than one big, steaming pile of red white and blue, all-American bullshit."

/agree

 

[cookiecutter]

I think in a perfect world we would and America would use its massive resources to help those suffering in the world. Unfortunately it's not that easy and I think the Darfur crisis is an example. What do we do, topple the Sudanese regime? Keep troops there forcibly separating the two groups forever? I don't know. I feel like each case needs to be analyzed separately and not only America but all the nations with the power to help should help if a viable solution can be found. An example where an analysis was done was the Rwanda genocide. The United States, among other nations, did not respond in the way the UN Commander on the ground requested and in fact often hurt the UN mission's ability to stop the genocide. President Clinton later said that had he sent 5,000 US peacekeepers perhaps 500,000 people could've been saved.

 

[Blind Guardian]

I think Bush's always been a secret fan of the christian milita in Darfur.

 

[Dak]

If anyone feels bad enough about people suffering in other countries I am completely supportive of that person(s) right to take their own resources over and to assit. However I would say the large majority of those clamouring for international assistance in places like Darfur would never put their own ass on the line for it.

 

[waif]

My feeling is that America as a nation does not.
However, I feel that human beings have a duty to defend their own. The obvious facilitator for the is the UN. An international body should exist for many reasons, but to me the two most important are the preservation of peace and intervention in a nation's domestic affairs when intervention is clearly necessary but intervention by another nation would not be appropriate.

Bad analogy time:
Let's say you have a band, and your guitarist is a drunk. A really bad drunk who's fucking himself up and isn't playing well anymore and it's a problem. It would not be appropriate for you to of your own initiative kick him out of the band. What needs to happen is you get together with the other members of the band, make an agreement, and then wake the guitarist up and put him on a bus back to LA (see what I did there?).

Come to think of it, that's not the worst analogy ever.

If anyone feels bad enough about people suffering in other countries I am completely supportive of that person(s) right to take their own resources over and to assit. However I would say the large majority of those clamouring for international assistance in places like Darfur would never put their own ass on the line for it.

Every time you buy a "Save Darfur" shirt another militia member realizes the errors of his ways.

 

[Dak]

Let's say you have a band, and your guitarist is a drunk. A really bad drunk who's fucking himself up and isn't playing well anymore and it's a problem. It would not be appropriate for you to of your own initiative kick him out of the band. What needs to happen is you get together with the other members of the band, make an agreement, and then wake the guitarist up and put him on a bus back to LA (see what I did there?).

Needs to be slightly adjusted. A better twist on that analogy is:TEAM AMERICA comes in and kills the drunk guitarist, and blows up your bus and shoots up your venue in the process, then pays to have it rebuilt like they want it and leaves guards around living in your new bus etc, waiting for someone in your band to do something they don't like.

That's the current SOP of US foreign policy imo.

 

[Blind Guardian]

Bad analogy time:
Let's say you have a band, and your guitarist is a drunk. A really bad drunk who's fucking himself up and isn't playing well anymore and it's a problem. It would not be appropriate for you to of your own initiative kick him out of the band. What needs to happen is you get together with the other members of the band, make an agreement, and then wake the guitarist up and put him on a bus back to LA (see what I did there?).

Jimmy Page lol.

 

[waif]

Needs to be slightly adjusted. A better twist on that analogy is:TEAM AMERICA comes in and kills the drunk guitarist, and blows up your bus and shoots up your venue in the process, then pays to have it rebuilt like they want it and leaves guards around living in your new bus etc, waiting for someone in your band to do something they don't like.

That's the current SOP of US foreign policy imo.

I know.
I was talking about what should happen.

Jimmy Page lol.

Not quite.

 

[Dak]

In the debate last night Obama said something along the lines of "It would be morally wrong for this country to allow another Holocaust to happen."

BTW, a statement like this should let everyone know that Obama will continue America's egomaniacal foreign policy with nearly the same gusto as McCain. He will just make sure to giftwrap it better.

 

[MasterOLightning]

The US does not operate in a vacuum. It's tough to balance what the best thing to do on a humanitarian level is versus economic concerns. Dollars have to be attached to lives. I'm not sure how to make those decisions, and I don't think anyone does.

 

[Matt]

Nobody fucking asked for help. The feeling of superiority blinds them and keeps them from having any idea of what that foreign tighter shoe feels like. The measuring tape is highly 'bling'ed in red blue and white to be taking proper measurements. Hiding behind 'morals' is easier than admitting actual agenda anyway.

"Bullshit is everywhere. Bullshit is rampant. Parents are full of shit, teachers are full of shit, clergymen are full of shit, and law enforcement is full of shit. The entire country is full of shit- and always has been. From the Declaration of Independence to the Constitution to the “Star Spangled Banner,” it’s nothing more than one big, steaming pile of red white and blue, all-American bullshit."

Fuck off.

If a huge genocide were to occur here, would we want help from other countries? I would say yes

 

[zabu of nΩd]

You cannot just categorically deny that we have any moral obligations to any other country.

Seeing as how Dakryn's entire debating strategy revolves around categorically denying things, that shouldn't come as a surprise.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

Can morality alone be the deciding factor in whether or not we occupy another country? And for that matter, should it be?

I don't think it's ever morally wrong to intervene in another country to stop systematic torture or killing. The problem is that it's largely infeasible for a single country to assume such a responsibility. Efforts to relieve widespread human rights abuses need to be multilateral, that way a single country doesn't end up in a situation like Iraq where it's committed to bleeding out trillions of dollars in order to avoid pulling out and creating a power vacuum in which millions suffer and die.

It would be nice if other countries besides the U.S. had more of a presence in Iraq, but I can't really blame them for not getting involved since the U.S. was so fucking domineering about the whole situation (probably due to a combination of Bush's personal vendetta against Saddam and the Administration's greed for Iraq's oil).