Genocide is a very controversial subject in the U.S. Many people believe that we should try and stop all genecides and I would agree with that, but we live in a broken, sinful world so that is not going to happen. The U.S. should not attempt to get involved in all the genocides that are ocurring around the world. Genocide has been going on around the world almost since time began. People are evil and sinful and there will always be genocide in the world. If the United States got involved in every single case of genocide, the military would be even more spread out than it already is. Also, there is no advantage to going into these countries and stopping the genocides for the United States. We do little or no trade with most of these countries and we will not start trading with them because they don't really have anything that we want or need. It also costs a lot of money to find and capture or kill the leaders of the genocide movements. This causes the United States to lose more money than they already do without getting any of that money back. While I do agree that genocide is bad, there is no advantage to going into these countries just for the sake of stopping genocides. That is why I believe that the U.S. should not get invovled in stopping the many genocides around the world.
Contrary to what Kentucky said, I believe the U.S. has an obligation to respond to genocides, but the U.S. should only consider getting involved with genocides which affect the most people and genocides in which the U.S can have a large effect. The U.S. should not attempt to get involved with genocides that are not large scale and do not affect large amounts of people. Because of the thousands of genocides going on worldwide, the U.S. can not physically or financially be active in helping most of them. The U.S. military is already active in 38 world countries and cannot be everywhere at once. Unless a specific situation arises, the U.S. should focus on the genocides which affect the most people and are causing the most damage. I believe the amount of people affected should be the first criteria the U.S. uses to decide whether or not to get involved. Out of the genocides which affect the most people, the U.S. still must decide which genocides are important enough to pursue stopping. I believe the next thing the U.S. should consider is whether or not they could effectively change the genocide and bring lasting change to the area. I believe in genocidal areas where fighting is between tribal groups, it is hard for the U.S. to take a side. Even if the U.S. could stop injustice, there will always be turmoil in the area when they leave. It is easier for the U.S. to be involved in genocides in which one group or leader is taking the rights and lives of regular people. The U.S. can side with the ordinary people, plan to overthrow the group or leader, and attempt to smash the heart of the genocide. Because historically the U.S. has refused actively stop genocides, I believe it is hard for the U.S. to begin being involved. With so many genocides it is hard to decide where to start. I believe the criteria above could help the U.S. decide when and how it can be involved in genocides around the world.
I agree with what Kentucky said about there being no advantages for the U.S. army by getting involved with genocides, but I also think that sometimes there comes a point in which the U.S. and other countries must get involved. Genocides happen in many different countries all the time, and we simply cannot attend to the need for assistance in every single country that needs it. It is very risky, men lose their lives, it splits up our army, and it all takes money. We must pick and choose our battles. What I mean by picking our battles is that the U.S. cannot afford to attend to the mass of genocides around the world. But, when it is beneficial because they are a trade ally, or it gets to be a worldwide crisis such as the holocaust, we should consider intervening. Genocides are horrible and gory, and I believe as a Christian that you need to help those people. But, as a nation I think that we just simply cannot do that all of the time.
Genocides are a tough issue because in most genocides people's lives are being taken. This fact should make the answer to this question easy. The United States should definitely get involved in trying to stop genocides, but as Kentucky said, "We live in a broken and sinful world." There are a lot of genocides going on and the United States does not have the funds or the man power to send troops to all the countries being effected by genocide. I believe the United States should only get involved in genocides if they become stage seven genocides. Stage seven genocides are normally genocides that have numerous innocent people being killed. It also normally has a definite "bad side" that is oppressing and killing the people. These are the genocides that the United States should get involved in because we would know what we have to do. There would be a known "bad guy" that we would hunt down and a known "good side" that we would try to protect. The genocides that the United States should not get involved in are the ones that have two sides that are fighting each other, which are both being oppressive to the people . We should not get involved with these types of genocides because the U.S. would have to try to choose a side to go in with and this could be difficult because both groups are oppressing the people and there would be almost no way to know what side is right. If the United States were to try to go in as a protector of the people it would only cause more trouble in that country and cost the U.S. a lot more money. As I have said, the problem of genocide is a very difficult one, but I believe the United States has the ability to be wise about the genocides they choose to get involved in. The United States should get involved in the genocides that they know are effecting the most innocent people and that they believe they can put an end to.
What the U.S. does about genocides is a very hard thing to determine. On one hand, genocide is horribly wrong and I think something needs to be done to help. But on the other hand, the government is already in debt and we don’t have enough man power as it is, and because of these downfalls, we cannot help in every genocide that we hear of. As a Christian I believe that something needs to be done about genocide and I think that individually you can decide whether you want to help the cause or not. The Kony 2012 campaign is a perfect example of this; one man decided that he wanted to help and he got other people to make the decision to help or not also. But it was an individual thing. There way of helping was going to the government to get them to find Kony. I think that this is a rare thing and it should be. We should not get involved in all the problems around the world. Our government is already in a lot of trouble in the area of debt and man power and if we do get involved these problems will only get worse. We will lose more soldiers, we will lose more money, and we cannot afford more problems. Like Unknown wrote, I believe that the government should consider whether they can actually effectively change the genocide and to also be able to bring a long lasting change to the area. If the U.S. goes in and causes more problems than there was in the first place we don’t need to be there. We need to go in and make change quickly. Like I said before, what the U.S. should do is very hard to determine, but something needs to be done. As Christians we are called to help, but we also need to think about what is best for the U.S. , and spending more and more money and lives on things that didn’t involve us in the first is not the best thing we could be doing for our country right now.
Here in our country there is a big problem about if the U.S should get involved in genocide a lot say yes and a lot say no. I think The U.S should be involved in genocide, because for one this country has so much power and a lot of soldiers that are well trained and could stop genocide in some other countries. Yes would be putting our soldiers lives in danger but it would be for a good cause. Like the one that’s being heard about a lot now “Kony” he is getting children giving them guns and making them kill people first off their parents, this is not right that’s why the us should send more soldiers over to help they are children yes they aren’t from the U.S but that’s still wrong just to be here knowing what’s going on and not doing anything about it when we could. I agree with Kentucky that we shouldn’t try to get involved in all of them, but do try to some like the “Kony “one what have the kids done to deserve that. Over all I do think the U.S could be doing more to get involved with genocide and help other countries.
The problem that faces the United States government while talking about genocide is that there are people that believe that it is ethically wrong but there is no economic gain for the US so they do not believe that we should step in. I think that the US government should stay out of the business of genocide some of time. Genocide only happens in third world countries so there is no economic advantage for the US to step in and help. I agree with Alex Newhouse when she said that we should step in and help when the genocide becomes a stage 7 genocide. In the end we should help when it is at its worst but we cannot possible help everyone.
Syracuse is right we as a country do not know about genocide neither do we have a desire too do anything about it. This is a problem because we should feel obligated as the stewards of this earth too help our fellow human beings and not stepping in too help the less fortunate should not be acceptable. The U.S.A. should step in and stop Genocide no matter where it springs up. Even if we have no stake in the war or the genocide Americans should rise up and stop the attrocities.
I'm goint to first address the Kony 2012 campaign that has stirred everyone to become an activist via their internet connection. After watching one video everyone agrees Kony must be stopped because this video says he's done bad things alot and its still happening alot. I would challenge anyone who shared that video in any way to find Uganda on a map. Even a signifciantly fewer amount could tell me the motives of the LRA. I encourage everyone to read this article so you can gain insight on Kony and the LRA and tackle with the surprising motives of this faction http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.html
As for on the U.S.'s approach to genocide, i would say yes we should intervene. Many of my peers on this blog say that we do not have the man power to help prevent/aid the victims, but I would bring up the soldiers stationed either here in America or in another first world country where there is not much threat of attack or catastrophe. I do have to agree with the point the bring up about funding. I too would be skeptical about how we would be able to fund such an operation without being hurting the U.S. in its endeavors to climb out of debt. I for one, do not know how we'd do this. I will say we need to step in when it comes to level 7 genocides, like Alexandra said.
Scott Laverman The difficult part of genocide is whether to get involved or not. I say the U.S. should get involved if something like this happens. People are dying because of what we aren’t doing. Little kids are being given guns and shooting their own parents and adults who are shooting at villages simply because they are of a different ethnic or social background. People are given bad memories of the events which are passed down to the next generation and not much has been done to stop them. Not because we don’t care but because they don’t know how to get anyone else to listen to what is going on with other people on the other sides of the world. There may be no advantage for the United States economically, but that is not what should drive our decision. That’s the point. We decide some people are not worth saving and people are dying because we are concerned of the outcome we get in return for saving them. We scratch their back they scratch ours is out of the question when it comes to saving people who don’t need or cannot repay us. Seeing people have a future should be enough of an incentive. True the government doesn’t have the money to get soldiers to get there but people should come first rather than the money. It would seem that it will always be that way, that that money comes first rather than people. For that reason I do not agree with Kentucky. The right thing to do is not easy or cheap.
Genocide is a very controversial subject in the U.S. Many people believe that we should try and stop all genecides and I would agree with that, but we live in a broken, sinful world so that is not going to happen. The U.S. should not attempt to get involved in all the genocides that are ocurring around the world.
ReplyDeleteGenocide has been going on around the world almost since time began. People are evil and sinful and there will always be genocide in the world. If the United States got involved in every single case of genocide, the military would be even more spread out than it already is. Also, there is no advantage to going into these countries and stopping the genocides for the United States. We do little or no trade with most of these countries and we will not start trading with them because they don't really have anything that we want or need. It also costs a lot of money to find and capture or kill the leaders of the genocide movements. This causes the United States to lose more money than they already do without getting any of that money back.
While I do agree that genocide is bad, there is no advantage to going into these countries just for the sake of stopping genocides. That is why I believe that the U.S. should not get invovled in stopping the many genocides around the world.
Contrary to what Kentucky said, I believe the U.S. has an obligation to respond to genocides, but the U.S. should only consider getting involved with genocides which affect the most people and genocides in which the U.S can have a large effect.
ReplyDeleteThe U.S. should not attempt to get involved with genocides that are not large scale and do not affect large amounts of people. Because of the thousands of genocides going on worldwide, the U.S. can not physically or financially be active in helping most of them. The U.S. military is already active in 38 world countries and cannot be everywhere at once. Unless a specific situation arises, the U.S. should focus on the genocides which affect the most people and are causing the most damage. I believe the amount of people affected should be the first criteria the U.S. uses to decide whether or not to get involved.
Out of the genocides which affect the most people, the U.S. still must decide which genocides are important enough to pursue stopping. I believe the next thing the U.S. should consider is whether or not they could effectively change the genocide and bring lasting change to the area. I believe in genocidal areas where fighting is between tribal groups, it is hard for the U.S. to take a side. Even if the U.S. could stop injustice, there will always be turmoil in the area when they leave. It is easier for the U.S. to be involved in genocides in which one group or leader is taking the rights and lives of regular people. The U.S. can side with the ordinary people, plan to overthrow the group or leader, and attempt to smash the heart of the genocide.
Because historically the U.S. has refused actively stop genocides, I believe it is hard for the U.S. to begin being involved. With so many genocides it is hard to decide where to start. I believe the criteria above could help the U.S. decide when and how it can be involved in genocides around the world.
I agree with what Kentucky said about there being no advantages for the U.S. army by getting involved with genocides, but I also think that sometimes there comes a point in which the U.S. and other countries must get involved.
ReplyDeleteGenocides happen in many different countries all the time, and we simply cannot attend to the need for assistance in every single country that needs it. It is very risky, men lose their lives, it splits up our army, and it all takes money. We must pick and choose our battles.
What I mean by picking our battles is that the U.S. cannot afford to attend to the mass of genocides around the world. But, when it is beneficial because they are a trade ally, or it gets to be a worldwide crisis such as the holocaust, we should consider intervening.
Genocides are horrible and gory, and I believe as a Christian that you need to help those people. But, as a nation I think that we just simply cannot do that all of the time.
Genocides are a tough issue because in most genocides people's lives are being taken. This fact should make the answer to this question easy. The United States should definitely get involved in trying to stop genocides, but as Kentucky said, "We live in a broken and sinful world." There are a lot of genocides going on and the United States does not have the funds or the man power to send troops to all the countries being effected by genocide. I believe the United States should only get involved in genocides if they become stage seven genocides.
ReplyDeleteStage seven genocides are normally genocides that have numerous innocent people being killed. It also normally has a definite "bad side" that is oppressing and killing the people. These are the genocides that the United States should get involved in because we would know what we have to do. There would be a known "bad guy" that we would hunt down and a known "good side" that we would try to protect.
The genocides that the United States should not get involved in are the ones that have two sides that are fighting each other, which are both being oppressive to the people . We should not get involved with these types of genocides because the U.S. would have to try to choose a side to go in with and this could be difficult because both groups are oppressing the people and there would be almost no way to know what side is right. If the United States were to try to go in as a protector of the people it would only cause more trouble in that country and cost the U.S. a lot more money.
As I have said, the problem of genocide is a very difficult one, but I believe the United States has the ability to be wise about the genocides they choose to get involved in. The United States should get involved in the genocides that they know are effecting the most innocent people and that they believe they can put an end to.
What the U.S. does about genocides is a very hard thing to determine. On one hand, genocide is horribly wrong and I think something needs to be done to help. But on the other hand, the government is already in debt and we don’t have enough man power as it is, and because of these downfalls, we cannot help in every genocide that we hear of.
ReplyDeleteAs a Christian I believe that something needs to be done about genocide and I think that individually you can decide whether you want to help the cause or not. The Kony 2012 campaign is a perfect example of this; one man decided that he wanted to help and he got other people to make the decision to help or not also. But it was an individual thing. There way of helping was going to the government to get them to find Kony. I think that this is a rare thing and it should be.
We should not get involved in all the problems around the world. Our government is already in a lot of trouble in the area of debt and man power and if we do get involved these problems will only get worse. We will lose more soldiers, we will lose more money, and we cannot afford more problems. Like Unknown wrote, I believe that the government should consider whether they can actually effectively change the genocide and to also be able to bring a long lasting change to the area. If the U.S. goes in and causes more problems than there was in the first place we don’t need to be there. We need to go in and make change quickly.
Like I said before, what the U.S. should do is very hard to determine, but something needs to be done. As Christians we are called to help, but we also need to think about what is best for the U.S. , and spending more and more money and lives on things that didn’t involve us in the first is not the best thing we could be doing for our country right now.
Here in our country there is a big problem about if the U.S should get involved in genocide a lot say yes and a lot say no. I think The U.S should be involved in genocide, because for one this country has so much power and a lot of soldiers that are well trained and could stop genocide in some other countries. Yes would be putting our soldiers lives in danger but it would be for a good cause.
ReplyDeleteLike the one that’s being heard about a lot now “Kony” he is getting children giving them guns and making them kill people first off their parents, this is not right that’s why the us should send more soldiers over to help they are children yes they aren’t from the U.S but that’s still wrong just to be here knowing what’s going on and not doing anything about it when we could.
I agree with Kentucky that we shouldn’t try to get involved in all of them, but do try to some like the “Kony “one what have the kids done to deserve that. Over all I do think the U.S could be doing more to get involved with genocide and help other countries.
The problem that faces the United States government while talking about genocide is that there are people that believe that it is ethically wrong but there is no economic gain for the US so they do not believe that we should step in. I think that the US government should stay out of the business of genocide some of time. Genocide only happens in third world countries so there is no economic advantage for the US to step in and help. I agree with Alex Newhouse when she said that we should step in and help when the genocide becomes a stage 7 genocide. In the end we should help when it is at its worst but we cannot possible help everyone.
ReplyDeleteSyracuse is right we as a country do not know about genocide neither do we have a desire too do anything about it. This is a problem because we should feel obligated as the stewards of this earth too help our fellow human beings and not stepping in too help the less fortunate should not be acceptable. The U.S.A. should step in and stop Genocide no matter where it springs up. Even if we have no stake in the war or the genocide Americans should rise up and stop the attrocities.
ReplyDeleteI'm goint to first address the Kony 2012 campaign that has stirred everyone to become an activist via their internet connection. After watching one video everyone agrees Kony must be stopped because this video says he's done bad things alot and its still happening alot. I would challenge anyone who shared that video in any way to find Uganda on a map. Even a signifciantly fewer amount could tell me the motives of the LRA. I encourage everyone to read this article so you can gain insight on Kony and the LRA and tackle with the surprising motives of this faction
ReplyDeletehttp://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/lra.html
As for on the U.S.'s approach to genocide, i would say yes we should intervene. Many of my peers on this blog say that we do not have the man power to help prevent/aid the victims, but I would bring up the soldiers stationed either here in America or in another first world country where there is not much threat of attack or catastrophe. I do have to agree with the point the bring up about funding. I too would be skeptical about how we would be able to fund such an operation without being hurting the U.S. in its endeavors to climb out of debt. I for one, do not know how we'd do this. I will say we need to step in when it comes to level 7 genocides, like Alexandra said.
Scott Laverman
ReplyDeleteThe difficult part of genocide is whether to get involved or not. I say the U.S. should get involved if something like this happens. People are dying because of what we aren’t doing. Little kids are being given guns and shooting their own parents and adults who are shooting at villages simply because they are of a different ethnic or social background. People are given bad memories of the events which are passed down to the next generation and not much has been done to stop them. Not because we don’t care but because they don’t know how to get anyone else to listen to what is going on with other people on the other sides of the world. There may be no advantage for the United States economically, but that is not what should drive our decision. That’s the point. We decide some people are not worth saving and people are dying because we are concerned of the outcome we get in return for saving them. We scratch their back they scratch ours is out of the question when it comes to saving people who don’t need or cannot repay us. Seeing people have a future should be enough of an incentive. True the government doesn’t have the money to get soldiers to get there but people should come first rather than the money. It would seem that it will always be that way, that that money comes first rather than people. For that reason I do not agree with Kentucky. The right thing to do is not easy or cheap.