Should the US intervene in another country to prevent genocide?

Answer 1

No it isn't are responsibility, before WW2 the US had a strong sense of isolationism, we should go back to those ways and stay outta other peoples business. Our founding fathers warned us about getting into foreign entanglements and how it would play a key role into the downfall of our nation.

Answer 2

The question can be read two ways:

1) Under what conditions should the US commit genocide? -- The answer to this question is NEVER. Genocide, the extermination of a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group, is the worst crime as yet named by humanity and is not justified by any secular norms or conduct. There is a reason why nearly all countries (including the US) have signed conventions against genocide; it is an appalling crime.

2) Under what conditions should the US intervene to prevent genocides in other countries? -- This is a much more subjective question and one that is often very controversial, especially between isolationists (who oppose US intervention in foreign conflicts) and war-hawks (who recommend US intervention in foreign conflicts). However, stopping a genocide is the one case where isolationists are most willing to concede the value of some limited intervention, often to protect the fleeing victims of genocide or grant them some kind of asylum. War-Hawks often argue that direct intervention is necessary in order to end the genocide and bring the responsible parties to justice. While isolationists may concede that this is a noble goal, they will often argue that (1) it is not worth the blood and treasure of the US to achieve this goal or (2) that there is no guarantee that the post-intervention environment will be better than the pre-intervention environment.

Answer 3

The U.S. should if it affects it or more than one country, but shouldn't if it can help it.