President Barack Obama claimed that the United States should intervene in an attack on the Yezidi people in Iraq by ISIS in order to prevent genocide. An interventionist might argue that the United States was justified in such an attack, just as a bystander would be permitted to intervene if they were to see an innocent person being threatened. Which of the following would be the best response that the noninterventionist could give to the interventionist argument?

icon
Related questions
Question
In 2014 President Barack Obama claimed that the United States should intervene in an attack on the Yezidi people in Iraq by ISIS in order to prevent genocide. An interventionist might argue that the United States was justified in such an attack, just as a bystander would be permitted to intervene if they were to see an innocent person being threatened. Which of the following would be the best response that the noninterventionist could give to the interventionist argument?
Group of answer choices
Just as a bystander must ask for help in order to justify intervention, the Yezidi people must also ask for help, which they cannot do.
Preventing genocide is not a legitimate reason for any nation to engage in aggression.
A leader of government may not make decisions that will put soldiers in danger, simply for the sake of preventing genocide.
There is a well-established doctrine of international conduct that one sovereign state may not meddle in the internal affairs of another.
Expert Solution
trending now

Trending now

This is a popular solution!

steps

Step by step

Solved in 2 steps

Blurred answer