|
In response to
"Hands off in my mind would be to stay out of conflicts inside countries, but still use sanctions. We should use military force when countries.. -- (edited)"
by
Inigo
|
I think you'd have general agreement in principle, but it would break down in practice.
Posted by
Roger More (aka Rogermore)
Apr 7 '17, 05:55
|
For example, China and Taiwan is officially an internal dispute. Would the US get involved in conflict there?
What does it mean in places like the Ukraine, which is an "internal conflict" but not really? What would it have meant for the collapse of Yugoslavia - should the US not have gotten involved in a civil war on NATO's doorstep?
What does it mean in Syria, where you have strategic adversaries like Iran actively taking a role?
What if something similar to Syria happened somewhere in the Americas? Like, if Venezuela were to collapse, what would the US do? What if a foreign power rushed in arms and advisers to influence the outcome of a conflict?
I'm OK with the US acting in its own strategic interests, just like any other country.
The issue (for me) is that intervening to prevent genocide is best done through a multilateral approach, but many in the US see multilateralism as abdicating sovereignty (unless allies go along with whatever the US wants)
|