A good reason
What gives one country right to intervene in other country’s internal affairs? Is it a pursuit of self-interest or protection of the indigenous population? Zogby data show that Americans of different ages significantly disagree in this respect.
For example, First Globals™ are much more likely than other age groups to say that “protection of human rights” gives America a right to intervene in other countries’ foreign affairs, with 48% of First Globals™ choosing that as a legitimate reason to intervene compared to only 23% of Americans over 65. They are also the generation least likely to say that “protection of America’s own interests” gives the U.S. a right to intervene in other countries’ affairs, with only 28% of them recognizing such right compared to 44% of Americans over 65.
It appears that First Globals have less respect for country’s boundaries – feeling, to a lesser extent than other generations, that countries are not allowed to act in their own self-interest or ignore what is happening in other places. If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. Do you believe that that will, in fact, happen? And, in your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?
first globals, future, global issues, international, peace, politics, war
Loading ...
Less respect for other countries’ borders cannot lead to greater peace. If there’s not a vital U.S. interest at stake, U.S. intervention is not warranted inside another nation’s borders.
i concur. people like to think that country borders are evil because they make it more difficult to “help” people we know nothing about. in fact country borders is what makes the world peaceful. in a few places where there are wars, the wars are about where the borders should be.
The best thing we can do is to be a good example. No one has any business interfering with any other nation and their internal afairs.
Let’s bring that a bit closer to home. If one persons actions do not infringe on the rights of another, they have no right to intervene.
When we have perfected our government and Americans no longer need to worry about tyranny from DC then we can look at the problems in other countries and offer solutions.
If First Globals™ keep these views as they grow older, once agreed-upon principle of sovereignty appears to be destined for oblivion. Do you believe that that will, in fact, happen?
How can it not be? FG’s think it is ok to intervene when human rights are the issue. (so do I, BTW), but then they also believe it is NOT ok when American interests are at stake??? We as a nation should be protecting our interests. Protecting human rights is one of those interests since we think all humans are endowed with certain basic rights. The FGer’s seem contrary to me.
And, in your view, is that going to make the world more or less peaceful?
Hopefully, more. But probably not if the FGer’s get their way. Intervene when its human rights but not when its America’s interests…sheesh.
From the responses, I don’t believe any are over the age of 50…” if we had intervened in Germany in1914 and again in 1938 …war in Europe would have been averted …..the same in China when the Japanese invaded….sitting on your hands is not the way you stay free…taking an active roll in world affairs is…!!!!