Should the USA get involved in wars for humanitarian reasons?

Basically should we get involved in wars to help oppressed people? Should America help those in need, even if it doesn't effect us?

Some examples would be

-Iraq (before)
-North Korea
-Sudan
-Iran
-Possibly China


Should we get involved, or no?

 

I say no. I am not saying no because I believe that America should only defend its own interests. Neither am I saying no because I believe in the cliche "violence doesn't solve anything."

I'm just saying no due to matters of prioritization and opportunity cost. If one seeks to help other people, going to war is a terribly inefficient way to do so. If you're trying to do good, you ought to try to maximize good achieved per dollar (or life) spent . Anyone who says otherwise doesn't understand basic economics.

 

I believe we should. No one should have to live under the conditions in say, North Korea... I would want people to save me if i was in their situation as well. plus we should all pull together as one world

 

Let's concentrate on North Korea. How exactly would military intervention improve their situation? Using transposition, do you think that a country dropping bombs on you after being brainwashed by something analogous to the last Obama political campaign would convince you that Romney is the answer and that you should accept occupation? Of course not, you are a brainwashed Obamanot. You will fight to the death to support "some vague concept that changes daily" because your media says so.

 

military intervention could greatly improve their situation if it was successful, but it wouldnt do much for s korea which is why it doesnt happen. I voted yes but only with the un, which is the correct answer.

 

Your humanitarian spirit is admirable. But do you realize there are 1.2 billion people worldwide who live of less than a dollar a day? And most of them don't live in North Korea. If one seeks to help people who are suffering terrible hardships, there are methods other than war that can help far more people using far less money.

The Copenhagen Consensus is a Danish institution that gathers the world's finest economists together every four years in order to create a priority list for what to spend money on in order to help the world's most disadvantaged people. The latest recommendations were published in May 2012 and are available here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Projects/CC12/Outcome.aspx

 

Oh I do agree, many people are just poor not oppressed. however for the people who are oppressed and are being killed/enslaved/tortured by their own government. in places like sudan & NK. then i believe war is the only option

 

No the American people should not be forced to fight and pay for wars. You want to go fight for some oppressed people, my hats off to you.

 

No, we should not send our sons to die for people we do not know.

Iraq - So we deposed their "evil" dicatator, but did we do those people any favors by blowing the arms and legs off their children? Do you think they will grow up feeling grateful to the US for having "liberated" them?

This is how wars are fought. Obviously no one wins.
Better we put our own house in order. And we have a lot of "putting" to do.

Currently we are on the road to oppression. Do you want some other country to "liberate" us in this fashion? How do you feel about having your children blown to pieces?

 

Surely this should be in the Humour and Satire sub-forum? But I guess there has to be a first time for everything.

 

OK, but how would you help, say, North Korea in a more effective way than war? Right now, they're still a poverty stricken little Orwellian state that seems to be wasting the lives of its citizens. I've no doubt that many of them would be thrilled to see their government toppled.

 

Well, that's handy. As long as we don't "know" anyone else, we can avoid putting ourselves out on their behalf.

 

N Korea just shot a satellite into orbit. It is tumbling apparently out of control in orbit. They have developed long range strike capability and they have nukes. I say it's time for a 'humanitarian' war before the little sawed off son of a runt explodes a nuke in our atmosphere. (BTW, nobody knows anything about that satellite)

 

couldnt agree with you more

 

There is no more effective way to help North Koreans. I am making the assumption that we are interested in helping people in general rather than just people who live in totaltarian dictatorships.

 

If nobody knows anything about the satellite, how do you know it is tumbling out of control? You want to send others peoples sons and daughters to die because you are scared of something that might never happen? Preemptive war is not the way of a christian nation.

 

No. I would never wish that on anyone. The problem with humanitarian intervention is that it's always political and the more people involved in a war the more people die. This is especially true when the US is the one intervening. Don't make the bad guy a hero, war should always be a last resort.

Oh and going to war with China is literally the dumbest thing I've heard since legitimate rape.

 

I completely disagree. It would solve a lot of economic problems TBH

 

of course not. In Iraq and Afghanistan, US involvement was maiming and killing at a faster rate than the Taliban or Saddam... No war is humanitarian. Supporting a resistance movement that's in line with US interest, sure. Actually getting involved, no.

As for North Korea... forget about Nuclear weapons... last I heard there was over 160,000 artillery pieces between the two koreas aimed at each other... enough conventional firepower that should the Korean conflict ever erupt again, the two sides have assured mutual destruction.

Sudan, Iran? How about we find a way off the Petro-dollar, and then we don't have to devote our time to controlling countries in these regions anymore?

China? Seriously? What humanitarian reason can you come up with? Even the poor in the country are seeing an increase in livelihood. How would blowing them up help them?

 

I don't even know where to begin with how wrong that is.

China isn't our biggest import... More low wage, low skill manufacturing jobs goto Taiwan and Mexico than to China.
Spending on a Military conflict with china would be unimaginable in terms of financial cost. Not to mention that China's capability to fight back isn't like that of Iraq of Afghanistan. Both those countries were using 30-50 year old weapons. China's been catching up quickly in tech, with theirs about 10-20 years behind in various fields. Not a big enough gap to see through direct conflict with only token casualties. If there was an economic gain to be seen from destroying China, the positive effects of it would be clouded by the negative effects of conflict for 20-30 years at the least.

 

a lot of our debt would be free and we wouldnt be dependent on their imports.

 

You make no sense with the lets blow up the people who make us stuff argument. Why not Mexico or Taiwan, who we import more from than China?

http://useconomy.about.com/od/monetarypolicy/f/Who-Owns-US-National-Debt.htm

China owns 1/16 of our Debt, or about 6% ... You think we're going to absolve our debt problem by blowing up the owner of 6% of our debt?

 

I voted yes because the USA should provide humanitarian food aid & medical help to the women, children & elderly people affected by civil wars.

With military aid the USA does not seem to have a good track record though. Ever since pushing the soviets out of Afghanistan with the supply of Stinger missiles the USA only ends up getting radical Islamic terrorist governments as a result.

It is the decision of the USA government for the level of tariffs & imports from international agreements signed, no point blaming other nations.

 

I voted yes because the USA should provide humanitarian food aid & medical help to the women, children & elderly people affected by civil wars.

With military aid the USA does not seem to have a good track record though. Ever since pushing the soviets out of Afghanistan with the supply of Stinger missiles the USA only ends up getting radical Islamic terrorist governments as a result.

It is the decision of the USA government for the level of tariffs & imports from international agreements signed, no point blaming other nations.

 

LOL yeah if you think the existence of the US is an economic problem.