Does a super power like the US, have a moral obligation to help other people/countries in the world facing some form of catastrophe?

Even if the country doesn’t specifically ask for the US’s help, but are suffering from a dictatorship and genocide.

0|2
2478

Most Helpful Girls

  • Um, fuck no. Not morally, or politically. South Korea? We spent BILLIONS so they can sit back and laugh at us. Ever been to South Korea? They absolutely hate Americans. Yet, we keep 30,000 troops on their border. The average cost to deploy an American soldier is 40k per year. That’s money we don’t have, our country is buried in debt. A large sum of that debt was brought on by taking care of other countries problems. The Paris Treaty was literally pouring our resources into other developing countries— we didn’t benefit AT ALL. The Middle East? Yes, it’s wrong what’s happening. Is it our “duty” to take care of it? No. More than 20% of our federal income goes to foreign aid.
    I hate Donald Trump, but he has a point. It should be America First- the rest of the world prioritizes themselves, why should we be any different?

    2|8
    3|3
    • Haha I didn't know anything about Trump thought he's goofy looking however now he's grown on me he's ten times smarter than those leftist goober smooches

    • Show All
    • @Valiant
      First i am sorry that your friend had to suffer the mofos that tormented should rot in hell.
      Second If leaving a country is better as @keenybmr pointed out is for the better than that is great. However my concern lies for poor countries like somalia, niger, tanzania, burundi. You guys don't understand how much difference you can make for them. Your meal in restaurant is is like their monthly wage. USA has been helping through projects like Aid to Africa and it is much appreciated and should be continued.
      Third if you help someone just with the intention of getting something in return as @Theundergoundman said... Well thats fucked up.
      Reading these replies seems like radical nationalism is strong in USA.

    • Hi, if you are talking about USAID, I dont think its entirely just money given to poor countries for development.

      USAID has been banned in some countries. Basically they give money conditionally. I am not that apt on explaining this well so:

      qz.com/203935/countries-are-right-to-ban-usaid/

      I found this for you

  • It truly depends on the circumstances, but I would think that it is be more beneficial for the US to help ourselves first before we even attempt helping others.
    Last I heard, Puerto Rico had another island-wide power outage, Michigan was no longer offering bottled water to Flint residents, and Oklahoma teachers were not being paid a living wage.

    0|1
    0|0
    • But, we’re never going to reach a point where all of our problems will be solved. In other words, I get what you’re saying but it’s impossible to not have any problems whatsoever. Does this mean a capable super power shouldn’t try and aid a country suffering a genocide or evil dictatorship?

Most Helpful Guys

  • Let me say this: No one else is doing so. The UN SHOULD be doing something, but sadly certain powers within the UN are completely neutering it

    If the US doesn't step in, imagine who else will. Russia? China? Are you okay with that?

    Some say that the US not being the world police isn't as extreme as isolationism, but pulling back from where we are now just extends countries with abysmal democratic and human rights efforts to take our place. I don't like it one bit, and we'll eat our words 10 to 20 years down the line.

    Are we morally obligated? Yes and no. We weren't exactly the ones that created this mess (that would be Europe) but we have had our selfish days, as well.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Yes I agree with that. Now, I DO NOT agree that we should be quick to send in our troops into harms way until absolutely necessary. I’m not advocating for the free range use of our troops like that at all. I’m saying that a capable super power should have an obligation to help those that cannot help themselves and are suffering a terrible calamity.

    • I agree. Willy-nilly, that's an awful idea and causes more harm than good. But I don't want China to become as powerful as it wants to be. And Russia, though weak, is snatchin shit back.

  • Unfortunately it takes a lot of willingness, to understand all the interconnected moving parts, the various nations history of conflict, the risk they impose on destabilization to neighbors, their foreign policy, all the stakeholders involved, people are really naive thinking the US does what it does, purely for its own interest.
    The US hardly gets any of its oil for the Middle East, Asia and Europe or the beneficiaries, but indirectly its the global markets and stabilization is why the US has an interest in the Middle East and related foreign policy. Simply being emotional and having a knee jerk reaction is what all the sheeple do, if you really want to get answers, you have to do lots of research and you will find it’s very complicated, trying to keep the peace

    1|1
    0|0
    • Yeah, you’re right but on a broad/general belief, do you think that a capable superpower has an obligation to help those who need it? Such as a 3rd world country that doesn’t even have a sliver of military budget that the US has nor the same levels of prosperity?

    • Show All
    • I’ve known people to work in the intelligence community, and they go so black and White, never confused, they would say “you really don’t want to know what we know, it’s a burden” so there is a great deal of undercurrent invisible to the media, all I know is Hussein had to go, according to everyone basically who were in a position to have an opinion of influence on the matter, he really could of started an apocalyptic like world war in the Middle East shutting down global economies in the process

    • Yeah I definitely agree with that. The undercurrent/unknown knowledge to the public.

Recommended Questions

Have an opinion?

What Girls Said 22

  • No. Not at all.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No anytime they try to overthrow a dictatorship they cause another power vacuum and another regime takes place. It’s a waste of money, it takes many American veterans away from their families , and it causes our deficit to worsen. We need to put Americans first.

    1|9
    0|1
  • I think that any help we can give would be great. We are all human beings; race, appearances, and customs aside. We do for others in hopes to make the world a better place, not just our country. That being said, I don’t think we should sacrifice too much to help others, and when I say too much I simply don’t want to go into a market depression, or have families growing more impoverished with a high unemployment rate.

    0|1
    0|0
  • I feel like maybe the U. S. only helps those in other countries when they can get something out of it, like natural resources from that country. I hope I’m wrong though. No, the U. S. does not have a moral obligation to. But I feel like they might say that they do as an excuse, they might have different motives.

    0|1
    0|0
    • Excuse me? Lmao.
      The US literally spends BILLIONS so other countries don’t have too. We literally play peace keeper for everyone else.

    • Yes, you’re right.

    • Are you serious? The only reason why America is in the middle East is cause of oil. Bush even said it America is addicted to oil. America is addicted to many natural resources. As an American born and raised all I see is America wanting full control of the world.

  • I believe so yes. With a lot of power comes also a certain responsibility

    2|4
    2|3
  • The US need to start minding their own business instead of making a countries problem , a problem for the world.

    4|0
    0|0
  • I believe we do, yes. Borders are man made constructs but humanity itself is something much more real and tangible—we’re connected to those people in a much more powerful way than how we’re separated.

    I hate suffering and I feel like it’s a moral obligation for all of us do expend what resources we have to eliminate as much of it as possible. As individuals, that often isn’t much.

    As a nation, we have more than everyone else on earth. To leave our fellow man stranded would just be greed.

    1|2
    0|2
    • Well said.

    • Show All
    • @Love_of_Hate Gerald brovlovski , is that you? 👌🏼😂

    • Trolls, Trolls everywhere 😌

  • Don't try to fix your neighbors leaky faucet during a flood

    2|1
    1|1
    • I would compare the US to other countries in the reverse. The US isn’t experiencing some of the highest levels of mass murder/genocide as other countries, not even close. Also, we’re never going to reach a point where we have zero problems whatsoever, so that leaky faucet will always continue to leak no matter what.

    • Show All
    • Great dodge to my comment...

  • On paper yes, theoretically no. If the powers have a treaty such as NATO, then yes. Any attack on countries involved in that treat, and the others will get involved. So if France got attacked, the US would definitely give military support. If there is no treaty, however, it is all down to the government to decide.

    0|0
    0|0
    • He said moral, not legal.

    • It’s good to know that, what she said and she is right. Moral is so subjective. Moral? Seems like what is one person’s Morality is another person self righteousness, similar to Terrorist vs Freedom Fighters. The US after WW2, after bailing Europe out of two wars, Evil vs Good basically (not so simple but it was more simple back then vs today). The mission to transform the world into thinking like Americans is almost indistinguishable from “moral policy” as they are one of the same, to those who advocate it. So, how do you answer the question, difficult

  • 100% no. A good number of countries are in turmoil right now BECAUSE Western power nations such as the US tried to meddle or "fix" them up. And it DOESN'T WORK. You gotta let that shit happen on its own or it won't work.

    0|0
    0|0
    • They tried to help them for their own benefit (USA)

    • Exactly. If anything's morally wrong it's that, screwing up another country for your own country's benefit.

  • They probably should otherwise it's going to bite them in the ass. When U. S is going through hard ships what countries will they be able to rely on to help them out? Super power countries can can have problems too.

    1|1
    0|0
  • Yes. If they HAVE the power to stop this suffering of people then yes they totally should.

    1|3
    2|1
  • Yes but it has a moral obligation not to cause such catastrophes like in Syria or Libyia.

    3|0
    0|0
  • I think if they can help without it affecting their country too much then they should.

    1|1
    0|0
    • Exactly. We are obviously in a well off condition which is wonderful compared to other countries.

  • Genocide is a war crime, so yes, as part of the UN, US would have an obligation in that regard to intercede.

    A dictatorship on its own? No.

    0|1
    0|1
  • we should at least always offer help. sometimes our help does more harm than help, but sometimes its needed

    0|0
    0|0
  • Absolutely not. Helping should be restricted to economic help. Let other countries go through their own processes. Trust me they'll find their way :)

    2|0
    0|0
    • Because that works so well in Africa.

    • Show All
    • I'm so happy Hillary lost the election.

    • @PolitesaurusPecs I mean I am too.. if only Trump didn't win. But why are you posting this?

  • No its just some enlightened fools who think that.

    No one wants or needs america.

    1|0
    0|0
    • What sort of global impact do you think would happen if the US ceased attempting to help anyone and just sat and watched. No one in or out except for work related things. No money is being gifted out and no ops good or bad are carried out.

    • Show All
    • Have a wonderful day.

    • @Bribree18 Any evidence to prove that or examples?

  • As in fixing the government there no but as in supplying food, medical care, water in times of need I believe so

    0|0
    0|0
  • Absolutely. As fellow human beings.

    1|2
    1|1
  • More from Girls
    2

What Guys Said 76

  • Nope, not at all. Everyone should have the right to look out for themselves first. Citizens of the US have a right for their taxpayer money to go into the US, not into other countries.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Not really, but it helps the country gain favor with other countries

    0|0
    0|0
  • NO!! That ideal is some religious, altruistic Bias that some seem to need, forcing the US into wars, when other NATIONS NEED TO STAND UP, but they look to the great big nursing Breast of the US to protect, and carry them, when they cannot manage their own nations!! \
    WHY? Our people die for them, and they don't care!!
    Get serious!! If you want US Troops, then those places should accept US Territory Status!
    Why does the US ALWAYS have to be the 'POLICE" of the UN, when they have shown their incompetence and ability to maintain PEACE?
    Why does the US sacrifice our people, our resources, and all the other nations in the UN, and NATO, just PUSS OUT?
    I am tired of paying taxes to pay for OUR soldiers, in 'SHIT HOLE' Nations!! They go there, we pay, they die, and for what?
    Communism is a JOKE!! And even now, CHINA, the last MAJOR Communist nation is realizing that free trade, and capitalism is the way!! Why do our people need to keep going to these horrible countries, to try to save people that HATE US?

    0|1
    1|0
  • I think helping your nieghbor is always a good idea, as long as you make sure that they want it first. Unless of course a tyrannical dictator is out for world domination! In which case we need to shut that shit down. We didn't think Hitler was our problem for the longest time... I think he taught us that evil left unchecked will eventually become "our problem" sooner or later...

    0|0
    0|0
  • I think the USA, as the only global superpower in hard and soft power, does have the moral obligation to some extent to help those in need or facing a catastrophe. But it's to be expected that this interference would never mess up their politics.

    It does not even need to be war or genocide. I think countries should at least offer help to countries struck by natural disasters (big earthquake in Mexico), whether it's accepted or rejected (Israeli help in earthquake in Iran). So in that sense, when a natural disasters has befallen a nation then the USA should definitely jump in and at least offer their help.

    Since you stated genocide, I think there is to be some sort of force (only a superpower can realistically do it) that ought to uphold international law and therefore prevent genocide from happening or taking down said person who commits genocide. If the UNSC won't approve it, then just ignore them in my opinion. That being said, now there's a large gaping area of hypocrisy present since many parts of this intervention does indeed break international law and many deaths, so you can't really claim the moral high ground.

    I'll stretch the definition of catastrophe as well, since there are other things where the USA should also involve themselves with for the better of (almost) everyone.

    Good example are the Hormuz strait and South China sea. The US navy has taken it upon itself to make sure both are always open without hegemony of the Iranians or Chinese to make sure there is a) continuous freedom of navigation and b) protection of maritime commerce. Local countries are simply not capable of deploying the same sheer force to reach those goals, only the US navy can do that. It's a great thing that they do that.

    But nothing of this would of course ever interfere with the politics of the superpower in question. Moral obligations only count to an extent and can easily be ignored. You'll are also not likely to get much out of it, since a war-torn country is going to be of no use in any way. So it's understandable that the USA keeps an eye closed at some of the things their allies do, or acting against it with their immense soft power.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No it does not, what right does the government/country have to force its citizens to pay, die, and suffer repercussions on behalf of another country which may lie in shambles after "liberating" said country? War is a bloody thing and unless it has gotten to the point of crimes against humanity like north korea and palestine, and most of the populace is willing to shoulder the consequences that will affect them and future generations then maybe.

    0|1
    0|0
  • It doesn't matter whether we're asked to help or not because the results always wind up turning out the same way. It's the same song and dance on the same broken record. Whenever we help, we're told that it's none of our business. Whenever we don't help, we're told that we don't care.

    2|1
    0|0
  • If this wasn´t a Truman Show concentration camp ruled by parasitic Aliens for sure any land where the inhabitants were faring well would consider it an obligation to help people living in lands where they were not faring as well,, but since this world is governed by degenerate people that sold their souls for temporal power and parasitic aliens that depends upon negative emotions to feed off, it will never be considered till they are finally defeated and exiled from here.

    0|0
    0|0
  • What do you mean specifically? Please don't come to other countries without permission. Its illegal. American exceptionalism is ILLEGAL in international law.

    Would you like Mexico or Russia supplying guns to Texan Separatists? What gives America the supreme right to do whatever?

    When a country uses chemical weapons, its bombed by America yet when America uses chemical weapons, its okay!

    Please stop. Don't support your evil government.

    0|0
    0|0
    • The United States has not used chemical weapons since 1918. You need to learn some real history.

    • @johnnalley Agent Orange was just a plant Auxin, a simple hormone to help the Vietnam forests grow. Damn commies wanted to turn it into a farm!

  • Politically, absolutely not. But as far as humanitarian efforts, (pandemic, crop failure, catastrophic natural disaster) ehhh we probably should but we're not obligated as a government. As humans we absolutely should though.

    1|0
    0|0
  • No nation has the obligation to stress their own resources and endanger their own people for the sake of helping another's

    The Syrian conflict however is not about helping the Syrian people, it's about dismantling Bashar Assad. Assad is needed in power, the alternative is a retarded Islamist government

    1|0
    0|0
  • No. The U. S. does not have the right to meddle in the affairs of other countries. Our role is to protect our own people. No matter what the moral issue is. If we think we can do better then take over the other country and do better but don't waste our resources and lives "helping" people that don't even want our help

    0|2
    0|0
  • I think we all have a moral obligation to help others in need. The country, as an expression of us collectively, therefore also has that same obligation. That obligation does not extend to giving help when it is not needed, or in ways that injure the United States.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Hahaha, in politics there is no love and moral. Every action is based on interest and only interest. Entirely different thing is what politicians are talking that are doing. They must tell citizens that they are helping because no one would pay bills for army and no one would want to go to war. In syria neither Russians neither Americans care about people and children. Its a war between these to countries, war for power masked under war against terrorist or dictation.

    0|0
    0|0
  • No one has an obligation to help anyone... no, but if you have kindness and you care about humanity and the dignity of others.. you will see what those other counties need and help fulfill (without stepping in and taking over. Which is the problem America has) the needs based on what the people say. Other than that America needs to learn to mind our damn business!

    0|0
    0|0
  • Your definition of catastrophe is strange. I thought of natural. Dictatorship you can't help them with becAuse democracy doesn't work if you force it on people. If Iraq and Afghanistan fits show that. But genocide and human right abuses are obligation of the UN and that includes US. But that also means UN must approve it.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Wake the f up. We only help if it's lucrative. Nothing is free,,, even the virtual you got sold. , By the way all that money my uncle stopped from going to Africa... hahahaha LMAO people never seen ,,,, so now they're govs are gonna suck the shxx out if them

    0|0
    0|0
    • Now here's the trick if the issue, we are number 1 one in this planet,,, now 2,3,4,5,,,,,, they all want ur stautus, n morals are not their forte'

    • My bad status...

  • I think they should feel pretty obligated when it spends 44% of their tax dollars on killing people.
    What countries citizens would ever really want the help from America? Maybe if help and killing people wasn't the same thing.

    0|0
    0|0
  • Truthfully no people should take care of themselves but in real life someone does have to bear the burden of taking on the world's problems or else we will have mad scientists and Hitler look alikes running around trying to kill all of us

    0|0
    0|0
  • Genocide is an example of absolute truth it's wrong
    The perpetrator must be unseated
    I hope ya don't close this I have to say but no time to right now

    0|0
    0|1
  • More from Guys
    56

Recommended myTakes

Loading...