Some leaders are so objectionable – Bashar al-Assad, Robert Mugabe – that it may seem only right to strain every sinew to get rid of them. But ghastly as their regimes may be, is there any reason to think that foreign intervention makes the situation better? Quite apart from the loss of life and limb to those intervening, what are the costs to those being "liberated"? In the end, forced to choose between these two evils, wouldn't most of us prefer tyranny to anarchy? In this one on one debate from March 2011, David Aaronovitch and Rory Stewart debate the perils of foreign intervention. Support this show http://supporter.acast.com/intelligencesquared. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Ask this episode

“What did the council decide on item 42?” — answered with the speaker and the moment.

Transcript

Related