Persuasive Speech On American Intervention

Walzer, still maintaining a strict principle of non-interference like his fellow communitarian thinkers, nonetheless leaves room for nuance in his work and distinguishes between just and unjust wars as a means of preventing human suffering. In Just and Unjust Wars, he details three circumstances in which sovereignty may justifiably be overlooked; his rules of disregard: (I) during times of civil war in which there is already a clear victor, (II) counter-interventionism to balance the influence of another foreign state actor, (III) and in times of mass killings and crimes against humanity perpetrated by the the state. In writing for Dissent, Walzer in fact agrees with the notion that such intervention has just cause, but maintains that the conflict itself is nonetheless still unjust as he foresees no “reasonable prospect of success” or “any vision of what a morally just end would look like.” Under the principles of just war theory, it would be unethical to commit military force to a conflict that cannot reach a just end. As Walzer writes, “Suppose that ISIS is defeated, what then? Are the Sunni Muslims in the caliphate to be returned to Shiite rule in Iraq and Alawite rule in Syria? That isn’t a prospect likely to inspire any of our Sunni

When problems arise people step up and take responsibility. Like in the quote from Elie Wiesel, human suffering really is everyone’s problem. In war and times of conflict, America has intervened because they believe that it is their problem to try and solve. This is evident through speeches in World War I, propaganda in World War II, letters during Vietnam, biographies concerning the Soviet War in Afghanistan, and speeches from the War on Terror.

Take France for instance, France has been having several economic and governmental issues lately, but none of those problems have affected us in any way. If countries don't interfere with our affairs, we should not interfere with theirs. Unless the ask for help we should deliver because not only it is the Christian thing to do, it shows these countries that we care and we are willing to help other countries heal and resolve conflicts. For example if they start issues we should stop them. If they terrorize other countries that cannot defend themselves, we should stop them. In addition, if they do anything that could potentially harm America or the rest of the world, we need to interfere. Although we generally aim for peace, we have a right to defend ourselves and any other country who asks us for help in

Intervention: involvement by a foreign power in the affairs of another nation, typically to achieve the stronger power's aims

Now when one country gets involved in War, multiple are pulled in causing a global catastrophe, this ultimately crippling many countries

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, Elie Wiesel said civilized people must “take sides” and “interfere” without regard to “national borders and sensitivities” whenever and wherever other human beings are suffering. Should humans throw themselves into unknown situations to help those less fortunate than themselves? This question, proposed by Wiesel’s comment, has been a highly debated topic and will continue to be. One can see this issue as a lack of kindness or as a lack of self-preservation. Some believe those who will not help the less fortunate have no kindness or passion for those lower than themselves.

Human catastrophe is the biggest reason as to why we need interventionism. It will help us put an end to any and all future genocides. The second reason to have interventionism is so we can maintain our allies. Without our allies we would not be capable of doing all the things we currently do, like invading places that so desperately need our help. Think of it like this, our country is having a genocide, and to know that other countries are aware of what is happening and won’t come to help because of their own petty reasons, would you then consider isolationism to be an option? In conclusion, whether we should or shouldn’t adopt an interventionism policy should not even be a question, because when the lives of those who are helpless cannot simply call out to us, they should know we will always be there to support

Tiara, I think you hit the nail right on the head. The United States government is a case in point that has helped a lot of countries and we continue to do so, on a regular base. We the people or government that the people elected help so much throughout the world because of our Christian faith this country was built on. There are times, such as after a war, the United States disengages from the country early leaving the citizens and an unprepared military to fend for themselves. Although things may have been not the best before we engaged in war, when leaving a country in an unprepared situation can result in rebel forces taking over, creating a possible more threating situation.

Humanitarian efforts are spread through the world to try to change. Medical aid is put in poverty like Africa. Before the good side is seen, the reason for the aid must first be observed. If so much hate and violence wasn't an issue, there would be no need for all of the lives lost and the money and resources required to help an effort like this. Many people say that war technologies are important and necessary, are the lives necessary too? Villages and cities have been wiped out because of weapons. Are all the lives and resources lost, for this "protection" from one group to another worth it? There are people who live in fear because of weapons. Parents gone, lives lost and the thing that causes it? The click of a button. The power that can be put into the hands of one is scary. One person can have the power and resources to erase an entire race of people forever. This is why the world is changing for the worse, and the arguments are

On the other hand, Interventionism is when the United States Interfere in foreign countries own business. A state's intervention in the affairs of another nation as part of its foreign policy is called a foreign intervention. Unlike the American imperialism; which is the act of expansionism in foreign countries in order to make them part of the United States Empire, the American

The United States gets involved in other countries even if it is not necessary. According to Mark Twain he once said that it is going against our traditions and we are entering in an unjust and trivial war. This war is against helpless people and robbery. The United States should be ashamed about the choices that we make and how we go through

Carl von Clausewitz stated that “the value of [the] object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration.” (Clausewitz, 92) With that maxim in mind, it makes strategic sense for an outside power to intervene in an insurgency when it supports the power’s policy objective and the cost of the intervention does not exceed the value of the object.

History has been shown to repeat itself, and if we don't learn from it, we are doomed to repeat it. We have watched many genocides happen within the last decade, some of which the U.S. has intervened, and in some cases where they have not. The United States should not intervene in foreign countries for humanitarian reasons because the U.S. may lack investing the amount of troops and resources necessary to make the intervention successful ; that doctrine will be abused unless there is a self-interest at stake.

The Syrian situation has been viewed using the just war theory lens by different scholars who have offered contrasting analysis. In what started as pro-democracy protests following the Arab spring uprisings in 2011, the ensuing unrest escalated to a civil war between government forces and rebel forces with the UN reporting that 90000 had been killed as of June 2013 and 250000 as of 2015 (Rodgers, 2016). The question raised is whether the intended United States military intervention is justified or not from a just war theory perspective. According to William Galston, a senior fellow at Brookings institution, the enormity of the massacre in Syria justifies an external intervention failure to which he thinks the war will continue indefinitely. Based on the principle of just war, Galston observes that the proposed intervention would be protecting further killings of innocent human life pointing out it might be the last resort (Shimron, 2013). Another scholar, Rabbi Broyde, a professor of law, concurs with Galston’s observations that an

Another aspect that plays into conflicts is outside powers getting involved too much or too little to secure their own influence in the aftermath. When outside powers become aware of cross-cultural conflicts they are criticized if they get involved and also if they don’t. Like Huntington’s argument, Samantha Power an ambassador to the United Nations from the US, would have us rather look at the loss of life rather than political nonsense. In her book A Problem From Hell, Power’s writes a quote from Ambassador Morgenthau saying that “unless it directly affected America lives or American interests, it was outside the concern of the American government,” as a way to show how outside powers look at these conflicts . She argues that more international