Intervention - Good, bad, or anything in between?

[Argeus the Paladin]

It may sound nice to see that if there is an abysmal government in the world, possibly a despotic dictatorship that rampantly commits atrocities, starves its people and kicks dogs, the US of A would be right there to support the estranged people and bring democracy where it is needed. It sounds really nice and altruistic.

Question: Is it really?

[karamazovmm]

There are levels and levels of intervention what kind are you referring to?

[Argeus the Paladin]

Mostly governmental-level intervention, from sanction to invasion.

[Burnum]

I personally think the Iraq War was a good thing, regardless of dubious motives. It toppled a tyrant and weakened an Empire. Two good outcomes.

[Boyar Son]

I personally think the Iraq War was a good thing, regardless of dubious motives. It toppled a tyrant and weakened an Empire. Two good outcomes.

The best outcome will be when singapore and malaysia, either one of them finally cuts off australia from the rest of the world, and australia only yet is to be attacked when the US and china comes to fistacuffs. because Australia is on china's list of targets when war breaks out.

[Argeus the Paladin]

Sounds like conspiracies.

[Viking Prince]

Moving to the Academy from the Mudpit.

VP

[karamazovmm]

sounds like ignore list

I was implying that kind of intervention, since there is a long range of those....

But yes I do like military intervention in already established conflict zones, economic intervention is something that I'm not very fond off, since the ''same recipe'' for all plan is just idiocy in the very core.

I would recommend the

Humanitarian Intervention and International Relations. Oxford, 2006

good book very easy and informative

Shue, Henry

One of the most important implications of conceptualizing sovereignty as an analogon to dominium is that the exercise of this rights is no longer easily defeasible by moral considerations of right and wrong… having a “right conceived along the lines of roman property rights simply entitled the holder of that right to” do the wrong thing" as long as he was within his territorially limited domain… also moral considerations are irrelevant to an appraisal [of actions possibly targeted for intervention], the relevancy of such considerations is clearly bounded by the institutional constraints imposed by the notion of an exclusive right [emphasis in original]. (Kratochwil apud Shue, 2004 p. 12)

Thus, if sovereignty is a right, sovereignty is limited. Sovereignty is limited because the duty that are constitutive of the right, without which there can be no right, constrain the activity of every sovereign belonging to international society. […] is that non intervention imposes duties that also constrain the sovereignty of the state that bear the duty. It protects mine by constraining everyone else’s and protects everyone else by constraining mine this is what rights do. Where there are rights, there are duty imposing rules. (SHUE, 2006, p. 15)

[♔Goodguy1066♔]

It definetly depends. I personally think that intervention in the Yom Kippur war and in A-stan was justified, I have mixed feeling about Iraq and think that intervening in Vietnam was a big mistake.