When does it become time for another country to intervene?

[Tokos]

Only if said country attacks us. I believe our military is to be used for defense only. We've tried preemptive strikes and look where it got us.

I dunno, man, the Barbary Wars were pretty safe.

They could be spun as being for defence of us (aka UK, European coasts, etc.)

[Yootopia]

Only if said country attacks us. I believe our military is to be used for defense only. We've tried preemptive strikes and look where it got us.

I dunno, man, the Barbary Wars were pretty safe.

They could be spun as being for defence of us (aka UK, European coasts, etc.)

Yeah but the US actually fought in both of them instead of just giving the Barbary states golds to fuck off, which is a fair call, seeing as the US is quite a way away from North Africa.

[Ordo Mallus]

When either we get attacked, our allies get attacked, or massive amounts of people die.

[Sun Aut Ex]

Who defines human rights? The UN? Where did they get their ideas from?

I don't see why a country would join the UN if they don't believe in their stances on human rights.

[Andaluciae]

Bob Dole.

[Goath]

A lot goes into the answer of this question.

If a conflict in one country is threatening to spread into more countries, it might be appropriate to intervene.

If violations to human rights are being committed- particularly genocide- intervention is warranted.

To protect vital global interests (which, yes, could include oil, but also could include shipping or something of the like) intervention might be warranted.

In the end, though, countries should act through the United Nations to address any of those instances.

[Wilgrove]

Bob Dole.

I totally read this in Bob Dole's voice. Which made me laughed at work.

[Wilgrove]

A lot goes into the answer of this question.

If a conflict in one country is threatening to spread into more countries, it might be appropriate to intervene.

If violations to human rights are being committed- particularly genocide- intervention is warranted.

To protect vital global interests (which, yes, could include oil, but also could include shipping or something of the like) intervention might be warranted.

In the end, though, countries should act through the United Nations to address any of those instances.

Or if you want to actually do something, then go through NATO.

[Nadkor]

When they steal our canal. We'll get France and Israel involved, nothing could possibl-eye go wrong.

[Fartsniffage]

When they steal our canal. We'll get France and Israel involved, nothing could possibl-eye go wrong.

Canals are important. Where else would be partake of the truely British past time of narrow boating?

At the OP, when it is in our economic interest to do so. I wish it were otherwise but even the richest nations can't afford to intervene in every nation currently abusing human rights. Diplomacy is a slower but much cheaper way of effecting change.

[Glorious Freedonia]

I have faith that human rights are divine. Many people agree with me. Fortunately, I think the UN adopts human rights treaties that recognize human rights. The fact that they are self evident is reflected by the fact that pretty much every constitution that I ever read addresses them somehow. This is true even in oppressive regimes. Constitutions seem to be the documents that define the ideals of the people even if they are ignored by regimes that supposedly operate under them. I think even North Korea has a constitution that does not read as an anti human rights document.

[Knorway]

When God tells you to.

[The Norse Hordes]

Ask me every month. Ill tell you who we should go after and when.

[The Norse Hordes]

A lot goes into the answer of this question.

If a conflict in one country is threatening to spread into more countries, it might be appropriate to intervene.

If violations to human rights are being committed- particularly genocide- intervention is warranted.

To protect vital global interests (which, yes, could include oil, but also could include shipping or something of the like) intervention might be warranted.

In the end, though, countries should act through the United Nations to address any of those instances.

Or if you want to actually do something, then go through NATO.

Impossible. NATO member countries have no obligation to attack anyone unless a member country was attacked first. Youre thinking of the UN Security Council.