Arguments Against Aggressive Intervention

America has the capability to interfere in every country’s affairs under the pretense that we are protecting people from violating human rights, but that raises the question: Should we? Yes, we should, as it is our responsibility as a world leader to protect and aid the weaker countries who live on this earth. Over the past 75 years America has become much more involved in foreign affairs which brings up the issue of how to tactfully aid these countries so that the aid they’ve received they don’t use against us.
Aggressive intervention is a very practical answer to aggressive action as it is the only way to cancel out the bloodshed. For example, during the Holocaust when the Jews were being persecuted, Americans and many other countries didn’t

If America has the means to assist other less fortunate human beings than America should, as it is the right thing to do morally. Yes, there are several other factors that are involved in this situation but even though it would be a burden to some people we would be helping people to live better lives, safely in their homeland.
Other factors must also be considered, as if aid is given to dictatorial countries under the pretense of humanitarian aid and these dictators use the money to further their own corrupt regimes, then that is not a good use of money that is supposed to be going to the starving and homeless. These factors, though important, do not outshine the fact that if aid was not to be given from this moment forward, millions would suffer. There are far more benefits to giving aid and regulating what the country spends the money on.
The lack of intervention in some countries hurts the people much more than it could help the ones in power. Civilian lives are being stripped from them as their towns are burned to the ground because they are receiving no aid that benefits them. Thus, the best way for America to help is to continue giving aid in any way we can, be it financial or be it military