- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,122
- Reaction score
- 3,751
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Alright, I think this line of questioning kind of drives home the point that many proponents of moral interventionism would have. There are more principles in the world than whether or not our national sovereignty was violated. The enslavement of hundreds of millions and the slaughter of tens of millions more are worthy enough causes to engage in conflict. The salvation of our brothers and sisters in Asia and in Europe was a cause worth fighting for in an effort to repel the Nazi yolk, halt the Stalinist advance, and overthrow the Empire of Japan. The 'America First' proponents were wrong in 1939 and they would be wrong today.
I agree that preventing genocidal situations is worthwhile, IF and when we have good reason to believe that our intervention will do more good than harm. However, short of preventing genocide, we should stay out of other nation's affairs militarily.