Humanitarian intervention is a highly debatable topic. When should we intervene into other countries issues? Should we intervene? How to intervene? The issue goes on and on. There is no end, and no correct answer. However, most people agree that it is unfair for innocent people to get hurt. This seems to be the general comment among anyone who you talk to about this. However, I have heard that United States must engage because we have the most power so we need to support others that who cannot support themselves. Others believe it is their country, their problem and U.S should not be the world police.
Technology in war equipment is changing rapidly. The problem with new technology is the new items need tested and the older equipment needs scrapped out. I believe yes we should engage in Humanitarian intervention, and I believe we should do so with equipment that is in prototype for testing or equipment that must be scrapped out. By doing this we help another country, get to try our new latest equipment and get to use outdated scrap equipment. This seems likes a easy solution in my opinion.
Trying to police the world is impossible, but as technology continues to increase, and engaging into humanitarian situation will eventually be a simple as playing on a flight simulator. We should engage into global conflict only because it is a test of our abilities and capabilities. The more we engage the better and more technical we become, also helping those in need.
Troops on the ground is something I do not agree with for Humanitarian intervention. It seems reasonless to send our troops endanger to help other countries. I believe our troops should only be used on the ground when we are directly threatened. I have much respect for the members of the armed forces, but that should be our last resort. However, I am in favor of robots on the ground instead of the troops. The troops should controlling the...