what you think about using force to deal with other country is it right or is it interference?

Question

is it right for any country to use force against any country what would be the causes and why some has no right to arm themselves only for protection and others have that right what make those dangerous and others not and who give the great countries the right to arm themselves and use their force to attack others

Answer 1

Ask yourself this question . . . how would you feel if no one in your country asked for interference and another country's military showed up to 'liberate' your country because that other country felt you and your people were being repressed. Better yet, because your country's majority religion isn't 'acceptable'.

What the US is doing in Iraq is just that, for oil. They are telling the public the company line to get the support (WMD, links to 9/11, etc., none of which is true). It's a sugar coated excuse because the American public would never support an invasion in order to secure the control of oil.

Invasions happen all the time, because of religion, land, Independence, etc. As far as armaments, that is a residual of the cold war. The big boys were in control and it was important to keep track of who had toys and who could get toys. During the cold war, all the leaders with nuclear power kept their finger on the button 24/7. Also, coming out of WWII, the allies wanted to make sure none of the axis powers were able to build up an arsenal to retaliate for having lost.

Armament control is a thing of the past and is almost laughable, due to the fact that anyone with enough money can have their very one Little Boy in their backyard. So why tell a country they can't arm themselves? Besides, who in the world has that right anyway?

Answer 2

War is an extension to politics.

All through the history of mankind if the leaders of one country wanted something from another country and they couldn't get it by asking nicely or if they didn't think they'd get it even if they paid a heavy price for it, they'd put their heads together and calculate if they could get what they wanted by force.
If the maths said it was viable, if the object of their desires (natural resources, land to expand into, extended power over other countries, etc.) was worth spending lives, effort or money then they would vote for war and try and take what they wanted.

Is it right? No, the use of force against another country is not right unless there are very good reasons for it. Who decides if the reasons are good enough? Thats the tricky bit.

Nowadays it is the international community that decides if all other possible options have been exhausted when a "situation" arises between two nations or two groups of nations that have taken opposite sides over a matter.

We're in the 21st century, for crying out loud! We're all grown up nations with a huge history of violence, a past of force exherted for wrong reasons. And the old nations should be helping the young nations start well. Instead of that, we're still manufacturing new weapons to keep our industries working and selling these weapons to couintries that should be spending that money on educating, employing and feeding their populations.

In answer to your question, some countries have abused the posession of armies and weapons in the past so the international community has decided not to allow them to have an army as strong as other countries that have had armies and have used them for the better good of the world. Obvious examples are Japan and Germany, who were only allowed to have "Self-Defense Forces" after the Second World War.
Other countries are too powerful to be told to "turn off" their armies. After WW2 Russia, America, China, Great Britain laid down the rules by which our current governernments may involve themselves in the politics of other nations by force and they also began to create the international bodies that check on their activities (look up the League of Nations to see how previous attempts didn't work) and try to stop the use of force when a political, peaceful intervention can be arranged instead.*

"Interference" is in the eye of the beholder... and in the power of the country that decides to "interfere." What to some countries might be unwanted interference in their own matters, to another country might be a legitimate interest in stopping a situation that could eventually affect their own people.

Imagine Russia now invaded the state of White Russia just because they shut the pipeline that passes through it to Europe for the reason that they wanted more money for letting it through. Who is wrong, who would be right, who would take sides and who would warm the people that would freeze?

* I forgot to mention all those little states that don't bother to have their own standing armies. They make political and economical alliances with bigger nations for their protection in the event that some other country wanted to step in and take over the running of their country. Think about all those southamerican nations, the smaller countries in Europe, even the Vatican... And those alliances are usually the ones that cause small disputes to snowball into big wars.

Answer 3

That would depend on what the other country was doing and how much potential harm it might do to us if we did not take action. Let a bunch of wild eyed America-hating fanatics have a nuclear bomb for example begs for some kind of intervention.

Answer 4

It is right if said country poses a threat to our way of life.

Answer 5

Just like our country, there is a difference of opinion.

Answer 6

it is not right it is named the forest of low

Answer 7

if you threaten to wipe other nations of the face of the earth, that is pretty threatening.

Answer 8

hell yes nuke em all