PDA

View Full Version : Isolationism / interventionism


Gold warehouse
August 10th, 2011, 12:39 AM
Some say we should give aid to whoever needs it, whilst others argue that it's not anybody's duty to 'police the world'. Which do you think is the better policy? Why?

Or do you think it's okay for nations to get involved in some foreign situations and not others? The most obvious example being that many nations pick and choose which conflicts they involve themselves in.

Inspired by NATO's involvement in the Libyan civil war, whilst the problems caused by the Syrian uprising have been largely ignored; so you could bring that into the discussion as well if you wish.

Esper
August 10th, 2011, 07:38 AM
I like the idea of supporting the world: giving aid, helping build infrastructure, fighting diseases. You know, those kinds of things that lead to a better quality of life. People in need deserve help. If we could help bring the whole world out of poverty we'd have a much more stable and safe world.

I'm more ambiguous on involvement in conflicts. It's not always easy to see how involvement could improve people's conditions since you risk escalating and exacerbating the problem. I'd love, for instance, for someone to go into those diamond mines in Zimbabwe (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14377215) were people are raped and tortured, and take those thugs running it and throw them in prison. That would be the right thing to do, but it would also cause turmoil, possibly leading to a backlash or reprisals against even more innocent people.

I guess on principle I'm for involvement in the world, but in a practical sense I think it's very difficult in some cases to act appropriately and without causing further harm.

marz
August 11th, 2011, 01:46 PM
It's a tough choice, but I don't think I'd help anyone that needed my help. First of all, if I were to help one nation, I'd have no reason not to help any other nation. But, naturally I will be biased toward my own nation and will only help other nations if I know I can afford it. So naturally, to avoid all of this conflict, I would help no one. Or only a nation that has helped me in the past, as I would have an alibi for helping them.

I dunno, it may sound awful but, survival of the fittest was always nature's course. The same rules apply here, only on a much larger scale. :\ I'll help you if you help me, but if I help you for no reason then I'd have to help everyone who needed it, and I simply can't afford that.

Anders
August 11th, 2011, 02:22 PM
I'll help you if you help me, but if I help you for no reason then I'd have to help everyone who needed it, and I simply can't afford that.

You can help people for the specific reason of getting something out of it for yourself. There's no code of conduct or obligation to help every nation in need, what you're describing sounds similar to having to give everybody invitations to your birthday in grade school so nobody feels left out. It isn't practical or realistic to translate that to a national level.