Do you think the military of any country should go beyond the realm of self-defense?

Question

I don't feel we should be involved in peacekeeping, civil wars, military interventions or American foreign policy. I don't agree with nuclear proliferation, either.

Answer 1

What OIL you stupid waste of air?????

Yes, it's called pre-emptive defense. Do you think we should stay out of Darfur too?

The world depends on us to take care of them. I'd love it if we told them all to go shove it up their chocolate wizzways, but we won't. We're too nice.

Look at them all asking us to deal with NK, even when we say we're trying to stay out of it.

Stupid schmucks. "We hate America" except when they are saving our asses, providing aid, or giving us cash. Thankless losers. The lot of them.

Answer 2

You make a good point. HOwever we need to define self-defense. How about helping to defend a neighbour when they are attacked? Because if there were only the strict self'defense policy, a country attacked by a much stronger neighbour would be helpless. That is why we have alliances. For instance, we in Canada are allied to the USA. We felt we should join in attacking the country from which an attack on the USA had come (Afghanistan) . We did not feel that Iraq came under the same category, so we kept out.
At the same time, we believe Russia would never attack Canada, because they know they would have to deal with our stronger neighbour, the USA. So there is something to be said fo defensive alliances as well as strict self-defense. (It is possible that when you talk about self'defense you are including defensive alliances).
Basically, I agree with you: wars of agression should be out.
As far as peacekeeping is concerned, it should be done under the United Nations if possible. Although in the Bosnian war, the United Nations seem to have been very reluctant to get involved, and Nato went in ' and I do think that was a good thing, saving many lives.
So it just is not an easy black and white issue to resolve.

Answer 3

I am so glad you asked this question. I agree totally. I do not believe in starting or provoking any war to happen. Self defense is another story but I would still even at that try to defend honorably and with minimal hurt to others if possible. For instance if someone were trying to kill me, I would shoot them but not try to kill them only stop them by maybe hitting the leg or something. I do not believe anyone should be allowed to produce nuclear weapons. Enriching Uranium for peaceful purposes and to advance your country is different than producing weapons to kill. Glad to hear SOMEONE is on a similar page. Thanks

Answer 4

No, I believe that a military should only be used for self defense. If all countries held this view, then the amount of funding spent on militaries worldwide would be far less than what it is today. That freed-up money could be used on improving infrastructure, education, medicine, eradicating poverty and so forth, possibly making this world much closer to being a true Utopia than what it currently is.

Answer 5

Yes. I believe in peacekeeping. Sitting around watching the genocide that occurred in Rwanda and saying "stop that!" to the Sudanese government is reprehensible.

Answer 6

The military are also used in domestic natural disasters. Also sometimes you have to make a point outside your border to protect things inside your border. The problem is, you have to prioritize very carefully, which in my opinion has not been done.

Answer 7

Peacekepping is when you sit around, cause R.O.E is different than attacking. And you can't KEEP the peace unless it is there already.
An army is for fighting whether offence or defence, and it is said that the best defence is a good offence.

Answer 8

too late for that we already invaded iraq for their oil