Outside of the defense of the United States and its allies...

[MrScorpio]

Do you believe that ANY use of military force is justifiable?

[Ozymanithrax]

1. In the defense of those who are in need but not our allies...

I think the theory that force can be brought to bear to stop human right abuses by states intent on violating human rights is a sound one.

Execution is tricky.

[Rowdyboy]

2. Obviously situations will occur that demand action....shit happens and you have to respond

So, yeah the answer to your question is yes.

[Spider Jerusalem]

3. ANY use, no, SOME use, yes

it's not an either/or proposition really; it'd be nice if things were that simple. Case in point: I don't happen to think that the use of military force in the invasion of Iraq was justifiable, as the case for invasion was based on trumped-up intelligence and Saddam posed a clear and present danger to neither the US and UK nor to his own people. However I also think that the present intervention in Libya is justifiable as it's based on the clear and present danger of a massacre and subsequent humanitarian crisis (given that when the UN Security Council voted the resolution, Gaddafi was advancing on Benghazi with an armoured column).

[Mr Rabble]

6. That is a very interesting analysis.

I am curious how the "justifiable as it's based on the clear and present danger of a massacre and subsequent humanitarian crisis" would carry over to say...something that we did, or one of our allies did.
As an example- would military force be acceptable if we knew of a country that had been condemned by the World Court for war crimes, and was in radical violation of Security Council resolutions? How about a country that was involved in creating, maintaining, and exacerbating a "massacre and humanitarian crisis" over a people living under occupation?

I just want to be sure that those are the criteria that we are talking about.

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. No, those aren't really the criteria we're talking about

you're broadening the criteria to include things that extend beyond the scope of what I've said (and indeed beyond the scope of the "responsibility to protect" that forms the basis of the Security Council resolution on intervention in Libya). If the US or its allies were directing brutal violence employing military forces against their own people? Then yes. What part of "advancing on Benghazi with an armoured column" were you not clear on?

By the same token I'd have applied this standard to Cambodia nearly 30 years ago; if you're implying by your suggestions that this should form a basis for intervention in say...Israel, or for action directed against the US and UK and/or their military operations in Afghanistan...then I don't think you really have much grasp of either geopolitical reality or proportionality.

[Mr Rabble]

8. I dont think I was.

That is why I used quotes for your criteria. I wasnt making it up. :)

So, then it has to be repression of their own citizens/people, instead of say...repression of people living under occupation of an invading force. Got it.

As for geopolitical reality, I would suggest that if we were not the 800 lb gorilla and were still doing the sort of things that we do now, we would be getting invaded ourselves, and the invading force would use all sorts of justifications as to why it was legitimate and so on.

The fact that you either dont see this very basic point, or feel that it somehow does not apply to us is what I was commenting on.

[Paradoxical]

4. I think this is a poorly worded question.

[Mr Rabble]

5. Ok- when is it justified...

against the US?

If the US government is committing human rights abuses, and/or harboring terrorists, would another country be justified in using military force against the US?

If the US leadership were responsible for say...millions of civilian deaths, classified as war crimes by the World Court, would the use of military force be justified and warranted?

Of course this isn't the right answer or in fact a question that can even be asked. And yet, it is most appropriate.

The criteria for the use of military force by the US government has had nothing to do with defense of this country or its allies since the end of WW2.