Assuming no ulterior motives, is invading foreign soil to prevent a civilian massacre justifiable?

[Very_Boring_Name]

[no_hypocrisy]

1. If yes, why did this country wait to be bombed at Pearl Harbor instead of earlier invading Germany

when it knew about mass murders?

[Very_Boring_Name]

3. I don't know, why?

[SpartanDem]

20. We should have, but we had more isolationist foreign policy

stance at the time you can make thr argument that we overlearned that lesson and are now too invovled with world problems. But on WW2 itself I firmly believe we should've declared war the day the Nazis rolled into Poland

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. Did we invade durring the genocide in Darfur? NO!

Are we invading Yemen, Bahrain, or the Saudis? NO.
Did we invade when Iran was slaughtering its own dissenters? No.

There are slaughters everywhere. We.are.not.policemen.

[Very_Boring_Name]

4. Do you think we should have?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

7. NO.

[Very_Boring_Name]

9. What's the benefit in allowing genocide to happen?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

22. Clinton was President durring the Rwanda genocide. No invasion.

Unless there is a US interest, we should not get involved.

I would support dropping arms off to the other side, but nothing more.

[Very_Boring_Name]

23. You're holding up Rwanda and the 800,000 dead as an example of why we should NOT get involved?

Jeez, you need some serious help.

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Intervention is acceptable...

...only in countries facing a humanitarian catastrophe that also have no oil, and have been visited by Bono.

[PVnRT]

24. No, we are not policemen. The UN is.

And this is a multinational mission, not just "us." The first planes to go in were French.

[leftstreet]

5. Not if you've got 17+ Intel agencies and an entire Diplomatic corps

and 8 gazillion embassies and bases around the globe....

[Alamuti Lotus]

6. Should Iran, India, and China invade Afghanistan to protect against further US/NATO atrocities?

[Very_Boring_Name]

8. Why shouldn't they?

[unkachuck]

10. yes....

....there's the letter of the law and then there's the spirit of the law....

....we can't be in all places at all times but if we can make a humanitarian difference and impact human suffering and save human life then don't we have a duty to get involved?

[piedmont]

11. Justifiable? Maybe. Advisable? Hell no. Which is why most don't want U.S. troops in Libya. nt

[Very_Boring_Name]

12. Most don't want *ground* troops in Libya. Most *support* the current action underway in Libya

[piedmont]

19. More exactly what I meant. Thanks. nt

[quinnox]

14. It depends on the number of lives

If a billion lives are to be saved, then I might start to be convinced. Anything below that and it will be a tough case to make.

[MedleyMisty]

15. I don't like the use of the term "invading"

At the moment, it's intervening with a no-fly zone. Not an invasion. There is a difference.

And I think it's justifiable. I grew up reading about the Holocaust, and I'd have a lot more respect for humans if the Allies had at least bombed the railroads that led to the camps.

I don't see it as the US being the world's policeperson. I see it as a global effort to protect each other. We are not the only country involved in the Libya NFZ, and there's no reason why we'd have to be the only country involved in any other intervention. And we don't need to have the biggest military in the world or need to spend as much money as we do to be able to contribute - Canada sent six jets, for instance. It'd be cool with me if we could just contribute six jets to help save others.

An injury to one is an injury to all.

[bobbolink]

16. I appreciate your reasoned approach.

"An injury to one is an injury to all." Indeed, and that applies to so many things.
Thank you.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. Only if there's reason to believe that it will improve the outcome nt

[BeFree]

18. Heh

So.... you are against our invading AfPak and the massacre of those civilians?
Yes? Who could stop us? Who stopped us in Iraq? Does might make us right?

[PurityOfEssence]

21. The burden of proof would need to be rather high. Kosovo fit for me, as would have Rwanda.

Those were also trending toward the genocidal, with crazed religion bullshit in the former and tribal warfare in the second.

It would be FAR too easy to merely say "it's going to happen" and use it for an excuse to attack.

The concept of national sovereignty is a very basic one and needs to be respected in order for any world body to have any influence; the xenophobic fears will surface immediately if people feel that the United Nations is going to appoint itself the arbiter of justice for internal affairs and enforce it with force of arms.