It depends on the situation. I mean, on one hand there’s the argument that people should be left alone on the other hand, there’s the argument to wade in a stop slaughters in places like Bosnia and Kosovo and what we probably should have done in Rwanda.

Jello Biafra

The Quote in Other Words

The appropriate course of action varies depending on the circumstances. While some argue for non-interference, others advocate for intervention to prevent atrocities like those in Bosnia, Kosovo, and potentially Rwanda.

Explanation of the Quote

This quote highlights the dilemma of interventionism versus non-interventionism in international affairs. The speaker acknowledges the two opposing arguments – one that advocates for non-interference in the affairs of other nations, and the other that argues for intervention to prevent atrocities like genocide. The speaker also cites specific examples of past failures to intervene, such as in Rwanda.

The quote raises important questions about the role of nations in promoting human rights and preventing atrocities. Should nations prioritize their own interests and sovereignty, or should they intervene to protect vulnerable populations? Is there a moral obligation to intervene in cases of genocide and other atrocities, or is non-interventionism the more ethical approach?

Ultimately, the quote suggests that there is no easy answer to these questions, and that each situation must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. It highlights the complexity of international relations and the need for careful consideration of the potential consequences of intervention or non-intervention.