How much should we intervene?

[Jeslek]

OK I have been thinking about a few things (I love philosophy, economics, political science, and sociology, and how they relate to each other).

How much should we, the members of the G8 countries, intervene in third-world countries?

This question is more complicated than it looks, so I'm going to put down a few pointers. I'm not going to give my opinion just yet though.

By intervention, we can mean a lot of things. Should we send aid packages to poor countries? Why, or why not? On the one side you will be helping people, but you can spend that money just as well in your own country by helping out the poor people, homeless, etc. (speaking like a liberal now, ugh).

If we do help other countries, shouldn't we have a say in their politics, or at least influence it? What gives them the priviledge of getting free stuff from the richer countries?

Do we have the authority to dictate them? Dictate here is used as a synonym to intervene. On what basis do we have the right to intervene and dictate into the internal workings of another country?

If we say we don't have any right (and such would warrant the complete withdrawl of all the United States' forces from the world, where we are intervening [such as Israel]), then how come we have the right to send aid to a poor country? You may say that the aid will help people. But so will military intervention (such as helping the Israelis).

If we say we have such a right, then of course we can send aid to foreign countries. But where does it stop? Why can't we then intervene in the internal politics?

Just some thoughts... ) I'm doing some research for my philosophy essay.

 

[Luis G]

Interesting topic, LL, i probably know where you're going with this.

Any country should be independent from others, if a given country asks for help, then it is the decision of the other country to give or not to give such help. That help, either it is on money, or resources to help out a natural disaster, should not be "paid", you're just giving away that.

And that type of help, does not give you the right to intervene in their politics, like i said, the countries must be independent from others, if you can't live with that you can always refuse to help others (which is covered by the independence of your country).

About military help, military help always involve two parts, the "good ones" and "the bad ones", if a given country asks for help, you're helping out one country and practically declaring yourself enemy of the other. This type of decisions are not easy to take, and i would say that the UN should decide what to do.

 

[ris]

i don't see any reason why we shouldn't send aid to other countries to aid them in times of crisis, or strengthen fledgeling economies. i don't see how that gives us the right to control their governments however, they have a right to develop their own society structure and government as the people see fit.
they must retain their sovereign rights, as we reserve the right to ours.

often aid is not 'free' stuff, they are loans and grants, and western economies benefit from increased trade with those countries, both import and export. things like grants can be used for western companies to set up and use the infrastructure that may have been paid for.

does withdrawal from countries include companies who are there, whose profits and taxes go to our governments? or is it all in the selfish interests of the one country, doing what's best for them at the expense of anyone else?

 

[freako104]

i feel we should intervene only aid and help military should only intervene if absolutly necessary(if a country asks for it or in the case of Israel VS Palestine i say we should help Israel) i say that because i see no need to invade another country unless it is to protect a country. i do like the ide of america trying to keep the peace but i say intervene only if necessary unless offering aid to people.

 

[Ardsgaine]

No monetary aid whatsoever. The government should never take money from one person and give it to another, whether in the same country or a foreign one. All charity should be through private organizations using donations that were freely given.

Military aid should only be extended when it is in the national interest, i.e., when it is necessary to protect the freedom of the nation's citizens.

The only time one country should ever try to rule another country is after defeating them in a war of national defense. Then it should only be done as a temporary measure until a constitutional republic can be set up. If the population will not support such a government, then destroy their capacity to make war and walk out. Never, ever, though, leave the bastard who started the war still in power like we did in Iraq. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

 

[GOD ALMIGHTY]

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he nevers hungers again.

 

[PT]

I don't think we should give aid to another country unless they ask for the aid, need the aid to survive, and are willing to follow some rules to get it. Case in point... We have helped a number of small countries build themselves back up, only to invade their next door neighbor using the weapons, training, and other supplies that we gave them. Then we call them bad.

I also have to say that we have enough people in this country that truly need help that we should be concentrating our efforts at home before we go spend millions on a country that could end up being our enemy someday. I realize some of you say we give enough to welfare in this country now. I agree, to a point. We need to reform the welfare system so it is not a hand out, But a hand up. I know, those were Bill's words, and I'm not proud to repeat them, but he had a point. People that get handouts tend to believe they should continue to get handouts, if we force them to work for the handout, and to better themselves, through schooling or other training, they are more likely to become valued members of our society.

Back to the foreign countries though, If we are giving them money, why shouldn't we have the right to tell them how to treat their people? Force them to live democratically or they don't get the money. And as far as bringing all the U.S. Troops back home, forget about it, most of the countries want us there as much as our government want us to be there. True there are some exceptions, Cuba, maybe the Phillipines, but those are areas where we have to be there to protect our country. And we have earned a right to be in both those places.

 

[Jeslek]

Originally posted by Ardsgaine
No monetary aid whatsoever. The government should never take money from one person and give it to another, whether in the same country or a foreign one. All charity should be through private organizations using donations that were freely given.

Military aid should only be extended when it is in the national interest, i.e., when it is necessary to protect the freedom of the nation's citizens.

The only time one country should ever try to rule another country is after defeating them in a war of national defense. Then it should only be done as a temporary measure until a constitutional republic can be set up. If the population will not support such a government, then destroy their capacity to make war and walk out. Never, ever, though, leave the bastard who started the war still in power like we did in Iraq. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

So so good, it deserves to be repeated.

 

[[b]]

I can't let Ardsgaine have the last word, especially twice in the same post. He's ego would get big and explode all over the place.

No $$ or food help except in case of natural disaster. If private citizens want to do more, go for it.

No military. Fight your own wars.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by
No $$ or food help except in case of natural disaster. If private citizens want to do more, go for it.

What makes it okay in the case of a natural disaster? If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? Why not leave it to private organizations like the Red Cross to help out during natural disasters as well?

 

[Luis G]

who says it's wrong helping other people? (natural disaster)

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Luis G
who says it's wrong helping other people? (natural disaster)

It's wrong for the government to take money from one man and give it to another. Forced charity is what I object to principally, but I consider any charity that amounts to self-sacrifice wrong. Give if you can afford it, and if it doesn't conflict with your values. In other words, giving money to cancer research when you're flush is fine, but don't give away the money you need for college to some bum.

 

[Luis G]

nobody said giving help was free.

however, i don't see anything wrong with helping, help as much as you can.

Even 3rd world countries, like Mexico, help other countries, i really don't complain about it, and i see nobody complaining about it.

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Luis G
nobody said giving help was free.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Giving help costs you whatever you give, obviously. Do you mean that a person shouldn't object if it costs more than he wants to give? Do you not think giving should be voluntary?

however, i don't see anything wrong with helping, help as much as you can.

Or want to?

Even 3rd world countries, like Mexico, help other countries, i really don't complain about it, and i see nobody complaining about it.

::waving arms and jumping up and down::

Can you see me now?

 

[Luis G]

are you trying to say that is better to let people die?

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Luis G
are you trying to say that is better to let people die?

Than to put a gun to someone else's head and force him to save them? Yes.

 

[Luis G]

can you tell me when was the last time that somebody put a gun against your head and forced you to give your money away to help some country in Africa?

 

[Ardsgaine]

Originally posted by Luis G
can you tell me when was the last time that somebody put a gun against your head and forced you to give your money away to help some country in Africa?

Every time the government takes money out a person's check, it's done by force. If you don't believe the gun is there, try not paying your taxes. The money they extort goes to a variety of things, but you can be sure that part of it ends up in some third world country in Africa.

 

[Luis G]

geez dude, you're the most selfish person i've ever seen.

 

[Jeslek]

NO, it is those dipshits in Africa that breed like hamsters and sit around the whole day and do nothing that is the problem. I will NOT HAVE my money go to some second rated place when there is PLENTY of needy people where I live.

If you have to steal money from your own people to give to charity, help your own people FIRST. Not some dipshit 5,000km away that I don't know.

Taxation was introduced to support the government, NOT the people of the country.