Originally posted by: ricarleite
It is always justified if done the proper way by the proper reasons. A military action IS justifiable to remove Omar al-Bashir. Will it be done? No. Why? No economical profit from it. There's a military action taking place in Haiti lead by the UN, a country teared apart by war, hunger and poverty. Several nations are sending in soldiers (including Brazil). American soldiers in Haiti? None. No profit from it.
So, answering your question, military actions are justified when they are done with the porpouse of saving people's lifes and making them better. WW2 for instance was justifiable. Vietnan was not.
It is always justified if done the proper way by the proper reasons. A military action IS justifiable to remove Omar al-Bashir. Will it be done? No. Why? No economical profit from it. There's a military action taking place in Haiti lead by the UN, a country teared apart by war, hunger and poverty. Several nations are sending in soldiers (including Brazil). American soldiers in Haiti? None. No profit from it.
So, answering your question, military actions are justified when they are done with the porpouse of saving people's lifes and making them better. WW2 for instance was justifiable. Vietnan was not.
Hmm. So, the companies making the equipment for the U.N. (that noble of most noble organizations, hopefully nobody will be sexually assaulted on their watch) are donating it to them? The workers in the companies making the equipment work for free?
You realize the U.N. is in Haiti because the U.S. urged them to go in during the Clinton administration, and also because the U.S. played a large role in getting Cedras out.
I'm sure the South Vietnamese who were slaughtered after the fall of Saigon would tell you it wasn't a good thing that the U.S. left...