If genocide is occurring in another country, what should our response be? A) Leave it be. It’s not our problem. B) We can go in, but we aren’t required to. C) We are required morally to stop evil like genocide. D) A different answer.
If you are going to agree with someone, you need to add something and not simply repeat his or her words.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
I think that the answer should be alittle bit of B and C. We are not required to by any kind of law, but morally we should try to help the genocide people in some way. This doesn't mean that we have to go in and take over, it means that we should send food over or money, help them in some way. Of course I don't know the details to how genocides work but I also think that the answer is in a way, A although people are getting killed, we don't have a right to interfere in any other country unless they are hurting us. Like the beginning of the holocaust, we didn't do anything because we weren't part of the war, but when the US joined, we were the ones who liberated some camps. Once again, I don't know how I would handle a genocide but I think that there could be another answer (D). Overall, if you combine A, B, C and D you will have the right answer because different nations do different things.
I believe that it depends on your point of veiw on the holocaust. Was it right for us to go in? Not talking about the morality or it but speaking of it in terms of our country in compare to others was it really a big issue for us?
Yes, I believe this because if we let Hitler control all of Europe it would eventually spread and the world could be under a dictatorship. The same applies to present day genocides. The well being of our country depends on the condition of other countries. For example in World War II we helped paid for Great Britain to rebuild there cities after the bombing caused by the Germans. We did this because we feared that a fight would occur against the government because of the condition there country was in. If we did not help out Britian multiple problems could occur. Though it was not our problem if we did not help Britian than the problem would have spread resulting in another war.
Finally, I believe that to be most help in another country is to get down and dirty and help out. If not the consiquences cannot only affect neighboring countries but other countries as well. Instead of just sending over food and suplise do more to end genocieds once and for all.
If genocide is occurring in another country we, the United States, should probably interfer even though we don't necisarily have too.We know in our minds and our concouis that genocides are appalling, and we should't just ingnore them because the are in a different time zone or a different country. We should help our niehbor. What if we were in a genocide. Wouldn't we want other country's to care and try to help us? The answer is yes. Maybe if we helped other countries in distress, they might return the favor if by some chance we were to ever be in a genocide. It might start a chian reaction or something.
I think that even though we aren't required to, we should help a country if there's a genocide there. Our country was built on the phrase "We hold these truths that all men are created equal". Genocides go against that because one of the processes is dehumanization. We still need to honor that cometment as we have for over two hundred years! The costs will be effective on some of us, but think about the costs of the people being killed. During the holocaust, Jews were bsically being butchered by the Nazis. Many families were torn, and people like Elie are scared for life. If there is ever a genocide, our reaction should be to jump in and try to stop it.
I think it's like a mix between B and C. We wouldn't be required to go in, but we should. It is the right thing to do. I agree with the post above this one. It is unfair to the people who are being killed if they get no help by a country who is capable of helping. If there were a genocide, we should help because it is real, living people who are being affected, and we should be able to emphasize with them and think about what it would be like if we were in their place. It is the right thing to do to help, and additionally we would want help too, if we were the ones who were victims to a genocide
I agree that "We can go in, but we aren’t required to." Going in to help somebody is the right thing todo especially if it involves extermination of a race and or religion. No one deserves to die. Adolf Hitler was a racist who did no care at all for someone except himself. Effaceing someone because of there skin color or religion means that you just dont have a heart and you dont care and you like watching death and you believe it's a good thing. No one should ever believe that. That i why i believe that we should go in and help out someone else if there in trouble even if it doesn't concern us, it may not cioncern us but it's the right thing.
In the situation of a genocide happening in another country, we should take action. The correct thing to do would be to go into the country that this is taking place in (C). I believe that it is a very obvious descision regardless of cost or convenience. The right descision is a very important thing to make in a time of genocide. We could also use option (D) and send supplies and food to the suffering group of people. There are many right things to do in this case but standing back and doing nothing is not an option.
If there is a genocide going on in another country, we should not just ignore it. We should at least try to help that country with the problems they are having. Although we are not required to by law, or something. We do not have to go in to the country and start a war that is going to leave that country devasted, and even our own country. We as a country do not have the right to just go and invade a country and start something that is going to last for six or more years. For example we went into Iraq looking for nuclear weapons, and we did not find any yet our troops are still there. See the United States has a habbit of going into other countries trying to sort out problems, or rebuild governments, and we end up staying their for many years fighting a war that is not our's. Yes, we should lend a hand to help the country. But they need to sort out their problem on their own.
I believe if genocide was currently happening in another country, I think that the United States should go into the other country, because it is morally right. We are not required to do this, but we should know from the past that we should do this (example: Holocaust). After the Holocaust happened, we should take genocides that are happening everywhere a bit more seriously, or we could be seeing another larger genocide.
If we, the United States, do not interfere, this could go against everything that we believe in. Not only is this stupid if we don’t interfere, it will cause many innocent lives to be lost. As I said before, this would be like another Holocaust, but it would not as large or as many lives being lost. So, sitting back and doing nothing could be risky for a lot of people and maybe even countries.
Also, if we do not go into the country (countries), where the genocide(s) are happening, we could send the country (countries) resources. This is not as helpful as going into the country and stopping the genocide at once, but it shows that we are trying to help. There are more ways to help, but this will still be very helpful to the country.
My answer would be to follow through choice B.), in which we ( as a country) should go into a country where a genocide is occurring, but we are not required to. It is important to eliminate the devastation of genocide quickly when the genocide has caused the deaths of hundreds, thousands, of even millions of innocent people and has caused a major outcome upon the rest of the world, such as in Holocaust for the following reasons. The actions of the country which had exhibited some form of genocide should be dealt with quickly and efficiently to prevent the genocide from spreading chaotically, to prevent the loss of innocent lives from increasing dramatically, and even to negotiate about the reasons of why the genocide is actually occurring within that Country. In genocide, one group of domestic people usually argues their point through whatever actions necessary to eliminate another group of people with differential beliefs in ways of cruelty and violence. This process of elimination should not be accepted in our society today. The act of going into a country may not be the best idea, however, because it most likely will create a disputed war against a government of de-humanistic values. This would cause political and financial corruption to the opposing country and will have a damaging effect on the country which invading forcefully into the other country. If we invade into a country we should do if the genocide will have an adverse affect on the rest of the world and if it is a major problem and injustice. The decision of going into a country would be same as, Are we ready to risk our lives ,our country, and everything important to save foreign people from another country who are in jeopardy from genocide that are completely non-existent in our society. For example, if we invade into 2 countries that have fought for centuries against religious beliefs, such as the tribes in Rwanda, we would be able to remove the fighting occurring between the two countries even if each group will refuses to deteriorate their argument, and to what extent would we be able to do this. In the end it comes to, if the fight against the Genocide has an important debate, and if the argument can be fixed through force, we should go in to resolve the conflict in that country.
I think it is B. We have the choice to go in or not. No other country would make us go in and stop it. It is our decision. It would definitley be a good idea, but still we are not required to. If it was A, I don't think it would be good. We should try and stay out of genocides or wars we are not part of. Unless the Genocide is toward us or our allies, we should't be a part of it. It is a hard choice because there could be dozens of options about stopping a genocide. But, once again, we should try and stay out of genocides that don't involve us or our allies.
C: In America we are the home of the free. We are a country who's society is based upon freedom and rights for all. If we don't act to help these other countries then none of this is correct. The question isn't wether or not we should it's if we can. If we can then we have a moral obligation to try and stop what is going on. However, we are currently in a war. This ties up a lot of our resources. Thus making it hard for us to fully enter this fight. However, that doesn't mean we cant help out. there are many things a country can do to help fight against genocide. If we don't try to stop this then everything we stand by is false.
To ignore something as terrible as a genocide could be just as bad as the enemies. Although the 1st world country is not actually killing the victims, they are doing just as bad by letting it happen. Just like Elie Wiesel wrote in the end of "Night", "Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim." (Page 118) I agree completely; some people are saying how a 1st world country that is not involved in an occurring genocide is not required to help the victim- I strongly disagree. It is everyone's job to help out people that are suffering in genocides. How would you feel if you were tortured, starving, embarassed, and harassed just like the Jews were during the Holocaust and no one cared enough to save you? It is our job to keep things like the Holocaust from happening again. Countries need to look out for each other instead of stay out of it because they "aren't required to." That is ridiculous; people's lives are important and when they are in danger, it is the right thing to do to help them.
Due to the fact that there is a genocide occuring in other countires, it isn't necessarily our country's problem to fix it. Although it is not, most of us would feel better knowing they put a stop to something this evil and tried to help. That's why C would be a good answer. We wouldn't want genocide happening to our country so we would probably like to help the countries it is occuring in. We would also hope that if this did happen to us, we would get other peoples help to get it fixed. That's why it is the right thing to do and lend a helping hand to fix it. Also B is a good answer because no one should have to do something like this they don't want to. If they did happen to go in, they might help other people when they need it most and in this situation, that's really all you can do.
D:I think that we should have fund raisers that put money in organizations that are helping stop the genocide. We Americans get involved with too many things that we don't need to be in. Being in a war or helping stop a genocide with our troops will cost a great deal of money. We cannot afford anymore wars because we are in a tremendous amount of debt as i speak. All we have to do is give a little bit of money and that will be enough contribution. Plus, we help out with everything that is wrong in today's world, lets just lay back and let someone else do it for once.
I think the best of the three choices would be C. Even though a genocide in another country or part of the world isn't our problem, it could eventually spread and become our problem. The last thing that millions of Americans want is innocent people where ever the are being killed and treated brutally, yet we are ignoring what is happening in places such as Darfur today. The reason we don't do anything is because we don't (United States) know exactly whats happening. That's why we need to do follow choice C and try to put a stop to any type of genocide that is ever occuring, like Darfur right now.
when a first world country knows that that there is a genocide that is curently going on, then should take an offensive to stop it. the reason that i say that they should take an offesive is becuase if the genocide gets big enough that it comes to you, than you know that it is too late and it will take extreme amounts to try to stop it. i feel that the halocuast could have been sized down if country's did something about it rather than just let it bouild hoping that it would not come to them. Although a genocide and a snowball arent similar at all a genocide uses the snowball technique it rolls and gets bigger as it goes, there for if you give it time the genocide will get increasingly bigger. another way that you can look at it is, which is easier to stop, a snowball that just started r0lling down a hill and is still small or the one that has been rolling for a long time and will take a large amount of people to stop? the answer is the one that just started, you can use this and look at the genocide the same way, it is alot easier to stop it when it just started rather when it is in full rage. i believe as a first world country the united states should take action in trying to stop and starting or on going genocides. my response would be c. not only is it morally correct but it is a lot easier to stop.
In my opinion I think answer C is the best decision: the United States should be required morally to stop evil like the genocide. I think this because weather the people know it or not, what they're doing to the innocent people is very inhumanly. I also think the Unites States should help because if they fight for what's right, they will set the tortured people free and give everyone hope and reassurance. Genocides are wrong in every way and fighting against them would show the other countries how wrong they are and how much we care about the people involved in the genocide. Not only would we help set free many tortured civilians, we would stop it before it gets any worse.
In my opinion, our response to a genocide in another country should be C. It is morally correct to stop evil like genocide. It is very hard for us to understand how people feel during a genocide because we live so far away from them. In our minds, genocides are silly becasue it's unthinkable to us why such crazy things happen, why one race is so intolerant to another. So often times we try to ignore the fact that there is a genocide because it's so far away from us. However, it is the job of all humanity to protect one another. After all, we are separated by man-made borders.
I think that genocide is a horrible thing. So many people are killed because of prejudice against race or religion. We should always try to help people who are in need, some people may say to not intervine which is horrible. If one does not intervine than more people are killed, so how could going in not be justified. Although I would hesitate to go into a country that would kill our country's soldiers. I would wait for a point in time that the country was at it's weakest, and then go in. It is so sad that people have to die, and a country can not always get there to help.
I Believe the answer to our problem should be answer B or C. I think this because genocide is a very important problem that needs to be solve and we cant just say "it's not are problem". People are being treated very wrong and are suffering. If genocide was happening in the U.S.A and we couldn't fix it i would wont help from anyone....because it's the right thing to do it doesn't matter if it's dangerous or not as long as people are in danger you do as much as you can.
Post a Comment