Skip to main content

Home/ contemporary issues in public policy/ Bystanders to Genocide Questions-Taylor Rofinot
Taylor Rofinot

Bystanders to Genocide Questions-Taylor Rofinot - 19 views

started by Taylor Rofinot on 05 Dec 11
  • Taylor Rofinot
    #1 Taylor Rofinot on 05 Dec 11
     
    1. In the article Power states that the U.S. government "spoke analytically of "national interests" or even "humanitarian consequences" without appearing gripped by the unfolding human tragedy." Do you believe that "humanitarian consequences" are what the government should have been focused on? If not, what should they have been focused on instead? If so, why should that have been the main focus?

    2. Was it really the U.S.'s responsibility to step in and prevent the genocide? To what extent is the U.S. really responsible and when is it necessary for them to step in?
  • Kiera Murphy
    #3 Kiera Murphy on 05 Dec 11
     
    I agree that it is hard topic that can go in circles. The U.S. has the tendency to get involved in order to keep positive relations with their allies. Which makes sense. However, I do not believe that we need to step into other countries problems every chance we get. the U.S. needs to use discretion, especially in such fiscally trying times. There's a reason for the United Nations and it's a good way to have input without directly getting involved and other countries besides the U.S. We can't be the end all be all when it comes to helping out just because we may be the most powerful. I'm not saying that we shouldn't step in at all, we just shouldn't do it alone in order to look out for our best interests in the long run.
  • Lauren Frenkel
    #4 Lauren Frenkel on 05 Dec 11
     
    I understand Sharena's point that it merely impossible for the U.S. to fix the entire world's problems. We can see the backlash that has resulted from the U.S. going in to resolve peace in the Middle East. It is difficult to define when it is a moral responsibility to stay in. Of course it is a given that if the U.S. is being directly affected then they should step in, however what if we aren't impacted? Discretion and investigation are critical when deciding which issues we should get involved in. When incidents like the Rwandan genocide and the Holocaust happen I think it is necessary for us to be involved and helping. How we can stand on the sidelines and watch tragedy happen. I am not saying we need to be in control but our help is a necessity, we should lend out our privileged resources to those that are undergoing suffering.
  • Xochitl Cruz
    #5 Xochitl Cruz on 05 Dec 11
     
    Personally I do not think the US should have gotten involved with the genocide. Since the US is such a powerful country it primarly takes care of its allies because it provides resources that the US needs. In this situation it is hard to say who it to blame because it was not only the US who has power to help stop the genocide. There were others who could have done the same, but did not. It is difficult to accept the situation since it is taken emotionally and seen that way through the eyes of many people.
  • Andrew Rothans
    #6 Andrew Rothans on 05 Dec 11
     
    No it was not the U.S.'s responsibility to step in, we had nothing to do with the genocide in Rwanda and should stay out and mind our business. We are not responsible for the genocide. We did not help out, but it is not just our responsibility to aide foreign countries.
  • Gaby Ramirez Castorena
    #7 Gaby Ramirez Castorena on 06 Dec 11
     
    I don't think it is only the United States' job to help out- there are other countries out there that could have helped out as well and chose not to. But I think just because other countries didn't help out, does not excuse the U.S. for not helping out either. In my personal opinion, the U.S. should have helped out...I agree with what Lauren said, we cannot just sit on the side watching it all happen. If the issue is the enemies that we might create for ourselves in helping them, or how the country as a whole would be viewed by getting involved in something that might not directly affect us, how is that any different than if we did help out? As a result of not helping out, the U.S. gets viewed as a selfish country that only helps defend those that benefit the U.S., and not any other countries. It is practically a lose-lose situation, so why not put our own benefits aside, and just help out those that are in fact crying out for our help? And if the issue is that the country is not doing well economically or whatever, that does not mean we simply sit back and watch it unfold. The scenarios given are only of two extremes: use up everything we have to try to help, or don't do anything at all. But there does exist a middle ground. In the case where we as a country are not doing well, we could at least help out by sending weapons or some of our troops. Overall, [in my opinion] the U.S. did not do the right thing by choosing not to help out- sometimes it can be considered better to try to fix the problems within the country before trying to help out another country, but when alot of innocent people are DYING, there's no excuse.

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the contemporary issues in public policy group