Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

This goes in cases of major world superpowers, US, UK, U.N. collective- when, why, or IS intervention into foreign wars, or conflicts neccessary?

war of the worlds sucked ass.

As always, it depends on the benefits and the risks. Is the action going to prevent a catastrophic turn of events against your agenda? Or is it going to engender more bad things?

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This goes in cases of major world superpowers, US, UK, U.N. collective- when, why, or IS intervention into foreign wars, or conflicts neccessary? The whole possibility of small scale wars turning into wars between nuclear countries is something to avoid.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This goes in cases of major world superpowers, US, UK, U.N. collective- when, why, or IS intervention into foreign wars, or conflicts neccessary?

because local violence often has global implication.

Originally posted by The Black Ghost
This goes in cases of major world superpowers, US, UK, U.N. collective- when, why, or IS intervention into foreign wars, or conflicts neccessary?

It is not. It really depends what kind of gain, on a national and international scale US, UK or France can dig out.

It is not particularly that they care, if that what you mean. If that was the case, Darfur wouldn't have seen so many people perish, and East Timor would not have burned the way it had...etc.

Who gains and for what reason, and what kind of political and financial benefit that will produce - thats all a factor when it comes to interventions in foreign affairs.

Well the Berlin Airlift is an example of when maybe someone should step in. Most other times it is bullshit.

Oh and I agree with bitchness. Utilitarian principles in full swing. Colonialism was fine but Darfur is left as is. Funny indeed.

Well it's true going into Darfur is insane unless their is a broad international support for it. And there just isn't enough to gain there and there are to many other conflicts the world is in already. The US can't afford another war, the African union can't get in anymore because the country doesn't want them. The UN isn't allowed in either, meaning a war would have to start and nobody is looking forward to starting a war with that country and destroy even more then already has been destroyed.

What's another example of intervention that actually occurred and helped the nation state who needed the assistance?

I thought this died... Well I'll throw in my bit and say there are definate times where intervening in foreign affairs/violence is neccessary. This can be in cases where people are being ruthlessly massacred under a dictator, or something of the sort, or when the future global integrity is at stake and repercussions of a small conflict could cause further, larger problems.

But what is an example of this in history where it is neccesary and it has happened?

World War Two, World War One, Yugoslavia, Somalia....etc...etc...

peace is for hippies, My bombs bigger than yours, so suck it

Originally posted by chithappens
Well the Berlin Airlift is an example of when maybe someone should step in. Most other times it is bullshit.

Oh and I agree with bitchness. Utilitarian principles in full swing. Colonialism was fine but Darfur is left as is. Funny indeed.

I still can't believe not a single country has stepped in in Darfur to do something. Sure, Africa is beyond hope, but things like this just can't go on.

People should stop bitching at the United States to go in though. It's pretty bad that we haven't done anything, but the fact that other countries can sit on their asses and ridicule us as if they don't have a military of their own sickens me.