Global Comradery, or lack of Options

[Comptine]

Generally, a country (or the United Nations as a whole) is expected to NOT be involved in another country's domestic affairs (keep out of my country and I'll do the same). I believe that this rule was set after World War II but I'm not sure.

Is this a good rule? To a degree, I think so because other countries don't impede on another's right to self rule. While America is evident in many countries, it doesn't take a direct reign. In fact, America has had a long history of isolation.

However, in instances such as Africa (where many countries are ravaged by disease, famine, and warloads) and India (where AIDS is growing), I think it's the duty as fellow humans to help them.

I'm aware that countries do help places in Africa and India. However, a majority of these efforts are voluntary and based completely on donations. When it comes to warloads, the response is sort of...lacking.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Yeah about the "famine" and "poverty" issues, that's the time when countries can eavesdrop, but war is kind of different. When a country is in war, no other country *cough*US*cough* should interfere unless they were asked for help. It would be a little "egotistical" if they think they can just butt in when no one even asked for help... I mean look at that war Bush started, it really brought the economy down back in the USA. Now my mom is afraid to drive the car (because she might run out of gas).

[Comptine]

... no other country *cough*US*cough* should interfere unless they were asked for help

If someone is getting mugged in an alley and he's getting beat up but doesn't call out for help, does that mean nobody should help him?

Or like in a lot of African countries, warloads are slaughtering people and the victims are too busy hiding/fleeing to ask another country for help, does that mean we shouldn't? In Rwanda, it was foreigners who first urged the UN to send help. Foreigners, not citizens of Rwanda.