• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

U.S. Moral Obligation to other countries

H

HTColeman

Resolved: The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts.
True or False?

Moral obligation: should morally feel compelled, to the point of action, to help as much as they can

Mitigate: to lessen the conflict

Things to keep in mind,

Great power comes great responsibility

Does our effort to mitigate truly lessen the conflict, or worsen it?


*Be creative!* :)
 

Isocrates

New member
Joined
Jul 10, 2005
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The United States' meddling in foreign affairs may mean well, but it does make the rest of the world somewhat irate. While great responsibility comes with great power, the United States may not be the strongest military presence in the world in the years to come. Emerging superpowers like China could rival the US in the future.

The effects of US efforts to mitigate foreign conflict are mixed. One view, militarily, notices the high success rate of the currently powerful US peacekeeping capability.

The other view, politically and economically, sees US efforts as a drain on society, albeit well-intentioned.

Don't forget the turmoil and chaos left in Iraq before a real government could be stabilized. But those are simply the teething of a new nation, and such pains are to be expected from positive growth.

The question is really how much such efforts are worth. Yes, the UN is not the most effective peacekeeping force right now, due to the obvious inconviences and restrictions, but meddling in foreign affairs could harm the United State's international diplomatic positions.

Future administration will have the hand of past good decisions and mistakes to play. Will they take the best hand?
 
H

HTColeman

Peter Singer had scenario that would go well with this,

As you are walking to class one day you pass a pond and you see someone drowning, you are morally obligated to save them if you can, i.e. if you can swim. The cost, your new shoes are ruined and you miss the class (possibly fail).

For the U.S. the drowning person is a country that needs help, the new shoes are the millions, billions of dollars spent, and the missed class are other costs such as popularity, blah, blah, blah.

However, can the U.S. "swim"? It seems to me that in trying to help a country such as Iraq form a gov't we in turn "westernize their culture" or try to. This will complicate the mitigation attempts and probably make the situation worse. So, I don't think we have the obligation to help.
 

DeMaxx

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
This is a good thread.

The U.S. in the years before WWII stood on a position of neutrality with world situations. Once the U.S. was drawn into WWII and the allies won. The U.S. took the position as the worlds baby sitter. Maybe with good intentions, but many times what may be going on wasn't our business and maybe should have been left alone.

I remember when the U.S.S.R. invaded Afghanistan, and now the U.S has basically invaded Iraq. I know our intentions were much more moral than the former U.S.S.R. 's was. We were not asked by the Iraqi people to come in, and to say the least our reasons for going to war in Iraq were strained and stretched.

I am a firm believer that the U.S. should take care of its self first. if we can't take care of our selves we won't be able to help others. DeMaxx
 

mikhail

blond bombshell
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
4,729
Reaction score
763
Location
uk
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Well i think the is always a moral obligation to help but this doesn't necessarily mean through tanks and guns.

I mean look at the famine right now in Niger surely there is a moral obligation for all western countries to do something but even then just giving stupid money for aid can just be as shortsighted as using tanks and guns to help.

You have to be sensitive to each situation.
 
H

HTColeman

But the problem is, our current administration isn't all that sensitive...
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
HTColeman said:
Peter Singer had scenario that would go well with this,

As you are walking to class one day you pass a pond and you see someone drowning, you are morally obligated to save them if you can, i.e. if you can swim. The cost, your new shoes are ruined and you miss the class (possibly fail).

For the U.S. the drowning person is a country that needs help, the new shoes are the millions, billions of dollars spent, and the missed class are other costs such as popularity, blah, blah, blah.
But it seems the US wouldn't just save the swimmer but make him pay for the shoes and then throw him back in the water if he refuses to follow US policies.
i.e. US supported Iraq during Iraq-Iran War (saved them), but when Iraq didn't follow our policies (invading Kuwait, etc) we throw them back only to "rescue" them again.
 

loverofpeace

Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2005
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Hey, wasn't this a high school debate topic a few years ago?
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say we just step back and let everyone take are of there own problems. It's a no win situation when we try to do something. So let the world work it's own kinks out. Many will crash and burn, but some will flourish. It's natures way, the strong will survive. This way everyone is happy, well not eh crash and burners but veryone else.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
galenrox said:
so you don't believe that it's the responsibility of the strong to protect the weak?
I believe that the more we try the more we get obliterated for it. that the US performs a needed function in the international theater. And that for its money and it's blood and effeort it is a punching bag. I think you can learn just how much you need something when you don't have it.
 
H

HTColeman

Calm2Chaos said:
I believe that the more we try the more we get obliterated for it. that the US performs a needed function in the international theater. And that for its money and it's blood and effeort it is a punching bag. I think you can learn just how much you need something when you don't have it.
I think we do have a responsibility to protect the weak, but an all out war should be the last resort. If possible, we should try to help without really taking a side. The problem with Iraq was that the reasons for going in were muddled and unclear. I, for one, still am not sure if it was for WMD's, spreading of democracy (bullsh**), taking down Saddam, or oil. In situations like Sudan, I think that we should be trying to help. You never know when the U.S. might end up in a bad situation, and need someone else to help.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HTColeman said:
I think we do have a responsibility to protect the weak, but an all out war should be the last resort. If possible, we should try to help without really taking a side. The problem with Iraq was that the reasons for going in were muddled and unclear. I, for one, still am not sure if it was for WMD's, spreading of democracy (bullsh**), taking down Saddam, or oil. In situations like Sudan, I think that we should be trying to help. You never know when the U.S. might end up in a bad situation, and need someone else to help.
I'm pretty confident we can handle pretty much anything that comes along to our shores. How about we leave the protecting to countries like france. We can sit back and tell them how wrong they are and do nothing.
 
H

HTColeman

Calm2Chaos said:
I'm pretty confident we can handle pretty much anything that comes along to our shores. How about we leave the protecting to countries like france. We can sit back and tell them how wrong they are and do nothing.
As fun as that sounds, many powerful countries and empires, Roman Empire, have suddenly failed for various reasons, and I don't count us as the exception. However, it would feel kind of good to kind of say, I told you it wasn't easy, but that would burn a lot of bridges.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
HTColeman said:
As fun as that sounds, many powerful countries and empires, Roman Empire, have suddenly failed for various reasons, and I don't count us as the exception. However, it would feel kind of good to kind of say, I told you it wasn't easy, but that would burn a lot of bridges.

AWWW DAMMMM... Just a little ..... :cool:

"comon mister french guy your doing it wrong, the bullet comes out the other end. And stop trying to give your weapon away"

:rofl
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
I say we just step back and let everyone take are of there own problems. It's a no win situation when we try to do something. So let the world work it's own kinks out. Many will crash and burn, but some will flourish. It's natures way, the strong will survive. This way everyone is happy, well not eh crash and burners but veryone else.
Go to yahoo and look at the pictures of the starving in Niger. See if you can picture yourself telling them they may have to just "crash and burn." Thats just sick and sad. Sorry for giving a damn about other people. I'll survive, but I sure won't feel happy about it.
 

jakurus

Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2005
Messages
90
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I love these wide-open and general questions.

Why not ask "Is good good" or even better, "Yes or No."?

Also reminds me of high school cx debate topics. "Should do something good?" was what they all boiled down to.
 

DeMaxx

New member
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
30
Reaction score
0
Location
North Carolina
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
rudy0908 said:
Go to yahoo and look at the pictures of the starving in Niger. See if you can picture yourself telling them they may have to just "crash and burn." Thats just sick and sad. Sorry for giving a damn about other people. I'll survive, but I sure won't feel happy about it.
There are two trains of thought here. Does the U.S. have the moral obligation to other countries, to engage with political and economic situations. and when I say economic I mean sending businesses and drafting trade agreements that are suppose to make their economy stronger. I say we don't have the moral obligation to step in those matters and should stay neutral in those matters.

The other train thought is there are countries that need food. That need education, that need material to help make irrigation, and clean water. we have a human moral responsablity to help those. It has nothing to do with politics or with world wide trade. It is the right and moral thing to do. the other isn't. DeMaxx
 

nkgupta80

DP Veteran
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
1,720
Reaction score
59
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Moral obligations are hardly ever a significant priority in a nation's foreign policies. It is always about ulterior economic or military interests (things that are much more important to a country than moral obligation). No country acts on purely a moral standpoint.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rudy0908 said:
Go to yahoo and look at the pictures of the starving in Niger. See if you can picture yourself telling them they may have to just "crash and burn." Thats just sick and sad. Sorry for giving a damn about other people. I'll survive, but I sure won't feel happy about it.

Well everyone says we should stay out of other countries. Or is that just the countries that are chosen by a specif board or something . The point is you either want us in or out. When were in everyone hates us and if were out everyone hates us. So it's a no win situation for us.
 
Last edited:

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
Well everyone says we should stay out of other countries. Or is that just the countries that are chosen by a specif board or something . The point is you either want us in or out. When were in everyone hates us and if were out everyone hates us. So it's a no win situation for us.
I want us out miltarily unless we're asked for help. I want us out financially and aid-wise unless we're asked for help. Its the other nations jobs to determine if they need any help, not ours.
 

Calm2Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
3,967
Reaction score
7
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
rudy0908 said:
I want us out miltarily unless we're asked for help. I want us out financially and aid-wise unless we're asked for help. Its the other nations jobs to determine if they need any help, not ours.

So we are to stay out of all countries? What ever happens within there borders in of no concern to us?

Germany didn't ask for help and they were of no concern to us. Why was it ok to go into germany.

What if they are developing ICBM's or suitcase nukes to lob at us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

What if there planning attacks on us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

Or is it until the mushroom cloud covers a major city that we can start to consider going into the country. Or are we allowed even then?

What if they threaten our economy or our allies is it ok to go in then?

Are there any guidlines or is it back to strong survive theroy
 

Mikkel

Pragmatist
Joined
Jul 19, 2005
Messages
489
Reaction score
0
Location
Cleveland, OH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
So we are to stay out of all countries? What ever happens within there borders in of no concern to us?

Germany didn't ask for help and they were of no concern to us. Why was it ok to go into germany.

What if they are developing ICBM's or suitcase nukes to lob at us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

What if there planning attacks on us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

Or is it until the mushroom cloud covers a major city that we can start to consider going into the country. Or are we allowed even then?

What if they threaten our economy or our allies is it ok to go in then?

Are there any guidlines or is it back to strong survive theroy
Pfft. What a drama queen. I'm more worried about Bush doing these things than anyone else.
 
H

HTColeman

Calm2Chaos said:
So we are to stay out of all countries? What ever happens within there borders in of no concern to us?

Germany didn't ask for help and they were of no concern to us. Why was it ok to go into germany.

What if they are developing ICBM's or suitcase nukes to lob at us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

What if there planning attacks on us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

Or is it until the mushroom cloud covers a major city that we can start to consider going into the country. Or are we allowed even then?

What if they threaten our economy or our allies is it ok to go in then?

Are there any guidlines or is it back to strong survive theroy
Great comment but if it involves us, then we have no choice but to mitigate, actually resolve, the problem, because it is our problem. But if Country A tries to take over Country B, or Country C is experiencing a genocide, shouldo feel like the responsibility is on us to prevent it from escalading, or is that someone like the UN's job?
 

rudy0908

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2005
Messages
286
Reaction score
0
Location
st. louis
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Calm2Chaos said:
So we are to stay out of all countries? What ever happens within there borders in of no concern to us?

Germany didn't ask for help and they were of no concern to us. Why was it ok to go into germany.

What if they are developing ICBM's or suitcase nukes to lob at us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

What if there planning attacks on us or our allies. Is it ok then to go into the country.

Or is it until the mushroom cloud covers a major city that we can start to consider going into the country. Or are we allowed even then?

What if they threaten our economy or our allies is it ok to go in then?

Are there any guidlines or is it back to strong survive theroy
These would fall under "moral obligations to ourselves". Every one of these scenarios involves the US's security and/or its allies. My point was relating to scenarios involving two other nations separate from the US. Obviously, if it relates to our security, we must act accordingly.
 
Top Bottom