4
- Forums > News & Politics > Interventionism vs isolationism
6/20/2008 3:47 PM Interventionism vs isolationism (48 Comments)
- Emil
- 23, Ecuador
Interventionism vs isolationism
Putting much of the present failed conflicts aside, is it morally right for a country with superior firepower and military to come to the aid a country that is devastated by tyranny and oppression and/or protect the stability in the case of an internal conflict? Or should all countries assume an isolationist role and “mind their own business” sort of speak?
There are several points to consider:
1) No country has the right to coercively pressure another into his ways yet,
2) Not all countries follow an objectively correct right path, and this often leaves to the pain and suffering of the peoples living in it, but..
3) Wars that have sought to change the current status of an authoritarian nation have also inflicted an equal or arguably greater amount of suffering on the locals, and even affecting the internal stability of the invaders.
4) War is horrible, but the purpose of it is so that the postwar state is overall better than it was before the war, an example that has been seen in past conflicts.
5) Whatever evil should come to a country, it is because they have in some way brought it into themselves, and other nations should look after their own well being rather than meddling in the affairs of others. However,
6) If evil is allowed to grow, it may eventually get to us and by then it may be unstoppable.
I’m sure there are several other factors to consider either pro or against interventionism, are there any you can share? Do you have a different perspective on this? Please share your thoughts.
There are several points to consider:
1) No country has the right to coercively pressure another into his ways yet,
2) Not all countries follow an objectively correct right path, and this often leaves to the pain and suffering of the peoples living in it, but..
3) Wars that have sought to change the current status of an authoritarian nation have also inflicted an equal or arguably greater amount of suffering on the locals, and even affecting the internal stability of the invaders.
4) War is horrible, but the purpose of it is so that the postwar state is overall better than it was before the war, an example that has been seen in past conflicts.
5) Whatever evil should come to a country, it is because they have in some way brought it into themselves, and other nations should look after their own well being rather than meddling in the affairs of others. However,
6) If evil is allowed to grow, it may eventually get to us and by then it may be unstoppable.
I’m sure there are several other factors to consider either pro or against interventionism, are there any you can share? Do you have a different perspective on this? Please share your thoughts.
6/20/2008 8:36 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
I am completely pro, as long as the reasons given seem justifiable :/ That's a bit contradicting...but you know lol.
If the country, or people in power within that country, cause a major threat to other countries or the rest of the world, then i don't understand why anyone would think that sitting back and watching them go on a path of destruction would be the best thing to do.
If the country, or people in power within that country, cause a major threat to other countries or the rest of the world, then i don't understand why anyone would think that sitting back and watching them go on a path of destruction would be the best thing to do.
6/21/2008 11:42 AMRe: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
When a dictator takes control and the nation turns into a facist establishment. When they cause a major threat to the world...
And i think it'd be pretty damn impossible to invade the states anyway. Unless almost every single country in the world agreed and took action. But you know :/
And i think it'd be pretty damn impossible to invade the states anyway. Unless almost every single country in the world agreed and took action. But you know :/
6/20/2008 9:27 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
PJ 19, California, United States
I'm all for isolationism. I don't get why people say it won't work. We are blessed to have vast resources in this country, we've got the talent and the industrial capability to produce and consume everything we need right here. At this point, it may take a while to gear up our industrial engine, it's been sitting around rusting for a while, but I have faith in us. If we were to close down the borders, not intervene in world affairs, I think that with the threat of our nuclear arsenal, the world would have little choice but to leave us alone.
6/21/2008 2:57 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
6/21/2008 3:31 AMRe: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
I think I agree with you here Haylei, but I'm tired, and we don't agree often, so I could be wrong lol
6/21/2008 3:14 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
Long 106, Yangon, Myanmar
If i see man hit a girl I wud kick his ass hard. if i see some1 powerful hurt ppl i wud try 2 help. shud interpersonal lvl be dffrnt from international? I tink ppl have obligation to help the weak & oppressed
Sumtimes it fails but if ppl r in a position to help suffering ppl but they dun do nething they r not much better than oppressors
BUT it needs 2 be planned well frm the start not like dum shi* in iraq.
Sumtimes it fails but if ppl r in a position to help suffering ppl but they dun do nething they r not much better than oppressors
BUT it needs 2 be planned well frm the start not like dum shi* in iraq.
6/21/2008 5:23 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
aNgRYl0gik 107, Antarctica
@emil, can any country now days truly afford to enforce an isolationist policy?
7/7/2008 5:24 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
I think after World War Two, with the US's containment policy, when the US government misconstrued Stalin's actions, and developed the irrational prejudice (based on ignorance and suspicion), against Communist nations, the US lost any chance of attaining amiable relations with Eastern Europe.
I think foreign intervention is good with full understanding and knowledge of the country you are intervening with. It's all very well to say "Ok, so this is a war about religion, with this group believing this, and this group believing this", but that's about as straight as Elton John. There are grey areas in between, not to mention hundreds, of not thousands of years of history, political, social, and economic change to consider.
I think foreign intervention is good with full understanding and knowledge of the country you are intervening with. It's all very well to say "Ok, so this is a war about religion, with this group believing this, and this group believing this", but that's about as straight as Elton John. There are grey areas in between, not to mention hundreds, of not thousands of years of history, political, social, and economic change to consider.
6/20/2008 4:03 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
I'm vehemently pro. What swings it for me is if 'evil' in one form or another rises in another country...it might not pose a direct threat at the time of rise. However in the future it might, and therefore action in the present time is a safeguard for the invading nation in the future.
6/20/2008 8:32 PMRe: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
:( oiiii! *pokes*
PM :'(
also, i agree. Look at you "vehemently" ;P but yes, agree 100%. As you know, i'm all with you on the pro-Iraq shizz.
All these people who claim "countries can deal with their own problems", really do not seem to grasp that certain nations cause a massive threat to the rest of the world *sighs and rolls eyes*
c'mon mister, get giving me attention ;) haha xXx
PM :'(
also, i agree. Look at you "vehemently" ;P but yes, agree 100%. As you know, i'm all with you on the pro-Iraq shizz.
All these people who claim "countries can deal with their own problems", really do not seem to grasp that certain nations cause a massive threat to the rest of the world *sighs and rolls eyes*
c'mon mister, get giving me attention ;) haha xXx
6/20/2008 4:10 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
I'm pro isolationism.
Why? Because of point 1.
I believe that every country can handle their own problems.
They can ask for intervention only if they can't handle it anymore.
Our country is still going through colonialism and i'm hating it.
Why? Because of point 1.
I believe that every country can handle their own problems.
They can ask for intervention only if they can't handle it anymore.
Our country is still going through colonialism and i'm hating it.
6/20/2008 4:38 PMRe: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
P.S I didn't vote down, cause the topic itself is not offensive.
6/20/2008 5:22 PMRe: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
Emil 23, Guayaquil, Ecuador
Well, I sure the Dutch influence in your country has contributed greatly to the cultural development of your countrymen, so I don't think it can be all that bad, Though I feel colonialism is a greater extend of interventionism, but not intrinsically related to it.
ps. I know you didn't, you are better than that =)
ps. I know you didn't, you are better than that =)
6/20/2008 5:39 PMRe: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
Well, now that you talk about it...we have to thank them for many things like the European passport etc.. lol
The only thing i don't like about them is that some of them think that we are still slaves and dumb.
At least most of them are nice though.
The only thing i don't like about them is that some of them think that we are still slaves and dumb.
At least most of them are nice though.
6/20/2008 7:17 PMRe: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
6/20/2008 7:41 PMRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
haha..They are so ignorant. Well, maybe it's because those big countries always think they can do better than us.
They should travel more so they can see with their own eyes.
They should travel more so they can see with their own eyes.
6/21/2008 6:22 AMRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
phigjam 20, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
the thing about the big countries vs the smaller ones is its very simlilar to the country vs the city, in australia at least from my experience.
Cos city people rarely go to the country or know anything about nature or living in small towns - But people from the small towns have the advantage of knowledge and skills country life gives, as well as the same technologies city folk have, as well as the probability of visiting cities fairly often. So they end up with a much better perspective on things.
Cos city people rarely go to the country or know anything about nature or living in small towns - But people from the small towns have the advantage of knowledge and skills country life gives, as well as the same technologies city folk have, as well as the probability of visiting cities fairly often. So they end up with a much better perspective on things.
6/21/2008 4:23 AMRe: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
Well, that's another problem.
6/20/2008 8:42 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
Emil... when the massacre in Rwanda happened during the mid 90s and the West stood by in apathy, Bill Clinton made a speech in which he said, quote: "United States does not have any friends, it has only interests". If we decide to "help" another countries this is because we have economical or financial interests in there. No American soldier would like to go to a country and help others and even worse be killed to help them... just my humble opinion :)
6/21/2008 12:05 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
When a country chooses to intervene or ignore another country's problems, I most highly doubt it has anything to do with morals - it all seems to be about that country's interest or lack thereof.
I guess morality in this context can only be spoken hypothetically.
I used to be pro-interventionism. However, I have come to learn how both intrusion and apathy can have catastrophic effects. I guess one has to choose the lesser evil.
Right now, I'm just bitter about both and hold no sound opinion as to which I support. Maybe in a case-by-case manner, I could possibly choose... however, that again, is hypothetically speaking. Realistically, one's decision makes such immense impacts on a population's lives that it is terrifying to even begin. :-/
Maybe one day, I shall know what I believe in. :-)
I guess morality in this context can only be spoken hypothetically.
I used to be pro-interventionism. However, I have come to learn how both intrusion and apathy can have catastrophic effects. I guess one has to choose the lesser evil.
Right now, I'm just bitter about both and hold no sound opinion as to which I support. Maybe in a case-by-case manner, I could possibly choose... however, that again, is hypothetically speaking. Realistically, one's decision makes such immense impacts on a population's lives that it is terrifying to even begin. :-/
Maybe one day, I shall know what I believe in. :-)
6/21/2008 12:28 AMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
FedUp 16, Vanuatu
i don't believe in the concept of countries (altho i don't exactly see an alternative right now)
anyway most countries are artificial, conceived sometime in the 18th or 19th century by colonial powers or bourgeois revolutions
i think we have to moral obligation to fight the evils overcoming our fellow man but the problem is, and always has been, the populus' consience is blured by propaganda of some sort
anyway most countries are artificial, conceived sometime in the 18th or 19th century by colonial powers or bourgeois revolutions
i think we have to moral obligation to fight the evils overcoming our fellow man but the problem is, and always has been, the populus' consience is blured by propaganda of some sort
6/21/2008 5:59 AMRe: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
phigjam 20, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
you cant seriously believe that. The roman empire was built on interventionism. So was the hunnic empire.
and many situations in history where nations have come to the aid of those being victim to interventionism or tyranny, have done a lot of good.
There are no generalisations to be made in this matter.
and many situations in history where nations have come to the aid of those being victim to interventionism or tyranny, have done a lot of good.
There are no generalisations to be made in this matter.
6/21/2008 12:08 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism
lew 64, Grand Haven, Michigan, United States
Since ancient times, city states, countries or some concept of sovereign entity has existed and formed alliances to defend against threats from other groups or states. The global nature of commerce and behavior by these entities now can be measured
and anticipated. The reason for intervention should arise from the threatened entity or people.The intervention should be shared by interested states and entities, (ASEAN, NATO, UNITED NATIONS) and no one country should have the authority to intervene unless it finds that it's own sovereignty or welfare is at stake.
and anticipated. The reason for intervention should arise from the threatened entity or people.The intervention should be shared by interested states and entities, (ASEAN, NATO, UNITED NATIONS) and no one country should have the authority to intervene unless it finds that it's own sovereignty or welfare is at stake.
6/23/2008 3:39 PMRe: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
6/23/2008 8:57 PMRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
Brian 33, Fairbanks, Alaska, United States
"agreed, countries like the US and Australia has gained to much from mass immigration" the us and australia was made from imigration. if we are strong it is because of imgaration. it is written that give us your tired your pour. can any other nation say that.
6/24/2008 2:15 AMRe: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Interventionism vs isolationism
phigjam 20, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
mass immigration helps everyone, not just the nation being immigrated to. Australia has a refugee scheme which takes people rendered homeless from civil wars (such as ethiopia and sudan) and pays the cost to bring them over here and set them up for a decent lifestyle - education, security, employment prospects, health etc.
6/20/2008 4:18 PMRe: Interventionism vs isolationism