The use of military force is justified...

[Toucano]

Poll question: The use of military force is justified...

Curious about our collective ideas on this concept.

Personally, I guess I would choose "rarely". For example, I guess a stronger show of force in Rwanda could have limited number of people who died there.

Almost without exception, I feel it should be the result of a multi-national effort, but that is not always a guarantee that the motivation for the use of force is true.

[Cant trust em]

1. Hard to some up in one word.

Rarely, sometimes, never....

I like polls on DU, but I feel like this needs a lot more dedicated thought.

[Toucano]

2. I should have said "feel free to elaborate"

I think you almost have to give an example of what you mean by "rarely", "sometimes", or "often".

But I think it is best left up to the respondant.

[LakeSamish706]

3. The use of military force was certainly justified for WW2 and maybe others.

What would have happened to Europe and other countries if the US had not entered that war?

[Toucano]

6. For me, the question would be "How did it get to the point where the U.S. was needed?"

One might argue that the Treaty of Versailles was unnecessarily harsh on Germans and if the diplomats had been more sensitive and realistic, a crack-pot would not have been able to take over.

I guess I would say there could have been more done diplomatically sooner.

Or perhaps it would be one of those rare occasions when as soon as Poland was invaded, an all out effort should have been made by England and France (possibly Russia) to stop the aggression there.

[Ozymanithrax]

8. Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact on 23 August, 1939 split Poland between the Soviet Union and Germany

The Soviets would not have moved against Germany at that time.

[LakeSamish706]

11. I agree it shouldn't have had to happen, but look at our own country in the

past 8 years. We should have been able to stop Bush/Cheney in their war efforts as well (hell we should have been able to stop them from stealing the 2000 election) but we didn't and the rest is history.

[Libertas1776]

4. Rarely IMHO

for example, our part in WWII was justified.

[joeybee12]

5. How about "on a case by case basis it should be examined"

I can't say anything about future events because regardless of the similarities, then the future event will in many ways be different.

[Toucano]

7. True enough.

But I still think most people have an overall philosophy about the concept, don't you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. I think "rarely" and "sometimes if options are exhausted" are pretty much synonymous.

And for all intents and purposes can be considered the same. And put together, clearly shows which way this poll is going.

[anonymous171]

10. IMO war is only justifiable if it is waged in self-defense against an aggressor

If a state attacks another state without just cause, they (the aggressor state) lose their right to exist. If the nation of Afghanistan had attacked America on 9/11, I would support this war wholeheartedly (well, at least the invasion part.)

[damntexdem]

12. In Afghanistan, it is justified; but at this point it may not be wise.

I was a pacifist decades ago; but by the time I became involved in anti-Vietnam War activities, I no longer was. Nor have I been since, through much subsequent antiwar activity. I respect pacifists for having and sticking to their views, but I find debates with them to be absolutely useless. The only debate I find useful is about WHEN warfare (why dress it up with euphemisms like 'military force'?) is justified (as you suggest).