A couple of questions

[Finding Rawls]

I'd like to get a feel for where people stand one these issues

1. If genocide is taking place in a state, is America obligated to step in and end it (military force)?

2. Are there any times when America is obligated to become involved in another state's affairs as a result of a minority group being persecuted, not neccesarily being killed? (military or non military intervention)

[Djinn]

1. Depends what you mean by obligated

morally, legally??

Personally I'd say no - very few people have been "liberated" by outside intervention and when they have been that liberation is a by product of the real reasons the intervention happened.

The UK did not go to war against Hitler to save the Jews, Japan did not invade the (at the time) Dutch East Indies to protect the local population from European colonialism, Vietnam did not invade Cambodia to save Cambodians from Pol Pot, the US did not invade/occupy Iraq to save Iraqi's.

The only fly in the ointment as far as "obliged to help" goes (IMHO) is when a nation helped to create the dictator/famine/war etc in the first place, however this should only ever apply if the people of the nation being helped actually want that help.

[DrDebug]

2. The US or any other country should not be able to apply military force

So it's not a matter of obligated. The idea used to be the that UN was the only organisation with the authority to decide whether a military action was needed.

As far as non-military intervention goes, the US is free to take action in case of genocide or any other severe injustice. By applying political / economic pressure it can help to make a foreign government change its mind.

But I don't think there will ever be an obligation. Maybe morally, but sadly the economy generally outweighs human right violations regardless of who has come to power.