Why Is Military Intervention Appropriate

On patrol serving as a special constable I was called to a male that was feeling suicidal and saying he was going to kill himself. On arrival I was met by a young male who I could see was clearly and obviously distressed and emotionally upset. He said he was troubled and confused and had an urge to kill himself. It was clearly necessary for me to intervene in the situation to keep him safe and ascertain if he had done anything to himself prior to arrival, e.g. legal overdose or taken drugs.

Human catastrophe is the biggest reason as to why we need interventionism. It will help us put an end to any and all future genocides. The second reason to have interventionism is so we can maintain our allies. Without our allies we would not be capable of doing all the things we currently do, like invading places that so desperately need our help. Think of it like this, our country is having a genocide, and to know that other countries are aware of what is happening and won’t come to help because of their own petty reasons, would you then consider isolationism to be an option? In conclusion, whether we should or shouldn’t adopt an interventionism policy should not even be a question, because when the lives of those who are helpless cannot simply call out to us, they should know we will always be there to support

The use of military force can be justified on any act of military use towards defense, threats, and to keep world peace. Which has happened in the past years and will happen later in the future. For example the Cold War, Vietnam, and Iraq these are, where our government used military force and justified it. These example show that military force can be justified during an act against our country, endangering world peace and terrorist attacks against our country. As well as any act of attack against us. Therefor military force can be justified in times of threats, defense, and most to keep world peace.

The second example of the benefits of military intervention is shown during World War II which started in 1931 when Japan Invaded Manchuria. The War involved virtually every part of the world, split up into two groups, the Axis, and the Allies. The Axis consisted of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and the Allies consisted of France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. During this time Germany was under the power of dictator Adolf Hitler, who was determined to invade and occupy Poland because of the number of infantry divisions it had. Though invading Poland would be in violation of the peace treaty that was previously signed by Germany and the Soviet Union in order to prevent the invasion of Poland and form an

One of the largest decisions that the United States has faced under President Obama's reign has been what to do about the apparent and impending threat of the Islamic Nation. In fact many view many of the Islamic States actions as intentionally manipulated military strike aimed at provoking the United States into intervening Middle Eastern affairs. Their message is blatantly apparent through the strategic military strike upon the capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, thus forcing the United States into defending their alliance with the Kurdistan nation. This strategic chess move has great advantages towards in a variety of circumstances for the Islamic Nation because any other decision other than military intervention would result in the advancement

-The first complaint is explained right away and it has to do with the soldiers themselves. “It has often been said that no one hates wars more than the soldiers who fight in them” (Brimlow, 2006, pg.37). This would make sense because they have to see horrible things and do horrible things. There were arguments made in class last week that no one enjoys killings. It is something that proves war is a problem. It says something about war when the people that are being sent to war hate it. The soldiers themselves struggle with going to battle, PTSD and need moral support groups.

Before World War II, American interventionism was often overt and direct, simply landing troops on the shores of some prospective banana republic and installing a 'friendly' government there. This is exactly what happened in Hawaii, Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic, in some cases more than once. Theodore Roosevelt was hardly shy about admitting that he sent troops to Puerto Rico and the Philippines, taking Panama from Columbia or landing in person with the army in Cuba in 1898. This phase of American overseas imperialism has much in common with the previous era of frontier expansion, wars against Native Americans and the annexation of half of Mexico in 1848. New Left and Revisionist historians of the 1960s and 1970s like William Appleman Williams (1972), Gabriel Kolko (1969) and Walter LaFeber (1963) all traced the roots of post-World War II imperialism directly back to this pre-1945 expansionist impulse. Manifest Destiny and the racial attitudes towards blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans that accompanied it existed long before the U.S. became an urban, industrialized economy. Racism dates back to the colonial period in the 17th and 18th Centuries, and the type of expansion that occurred was mainly agrarian and aimed at acquiring land, which was the base of the economy until well into the 19th Century. To that extent, American imperialism was atavistic and existed long before capitalism and the

The objective of an Army, at least how it used to be during the American Civil War, World War I, and World War II, was to capture and hold key terrain, a giant game of Risk. The end result, is you control the terrain behind you, thus allowing your reinforcements to replenish your ranks and equipment, and the ability to move supplies such as food, water, and most of all bullets. If you cannot you will inevitably be ineffective in battle. Even if you have the space to maneuver behind your own front lines, if you don’t have the ability to transport those supplies you once again will be ineffective. However, long as you have the equipment to move the supplies, i.e. helicopter, truck, or even horse, you will be able to conduct some sort of sustainment operations.

So when is military forced justified? Some say military force is justified when there is an impending threat to one’s borders. Which to a point is understandable, If the situation can not be solved through negotiations then depending on the situation military force should be used as justifiable. IF a country is on the verge of being invaded, it’s military should have the right to use military force.

The circumstances under which it is or is not legitimate to use military force against another group or country? When should the United States intervene in Global conflicts? The use of military force is one of the most seriously debated topics in all generations. Many top generals and commanders have a different way on how they use military force and how they advise the President of the United States to take action. Every four years during a presidential debate, it is brought up by the mediator on how to deal with foreign politics and the use of the military. When you are a part of one of the world’s most powerful military forces can you turn your head and do nothing, while other nations suffer? America doesn’t go into war blind there are decisions,

When countries go to war, it comes with casualties, increased taxes to pay off war debts and possibly loss of land or power but if the issue resulting in the war cannot be resolved any other way or if it could bring down the country if it is continued, then war is necessary. If China’s expansion into international water is to continue, China could potentially control most of America’s major trade like oil. The lack of trade could severely harm the United States and also decrease exports, causing the economy to fall since trade is a huge industry. Even though they could easily harm the USA, there is no need to declare war because the attempt to stop it has not been too strong

You are waiting for a flight to Dubai at an airport and then suddenly, BOOM! A bomb explodes killing a group of tourists instantly, BOOM! Another one explodes causing a subway station to explode. Screams and blood fill the airport and subway as you run for your life. Military and police with assault rifles pour into the building, as people are evacuated from a plane that just landed. A swarm of ambulances and EMS workers go inside the building with first aid kits and huge bags over their shoulders. A woman sits on the side of the road, crying over her unconscious husband. A huge threat to human society and the world. Spreading fear and brutality around the world, with their horrific deeds. Like moths to a flame, people join this group and spread terror and massacre many people, like in Paris, Brussels, and San Bernardino. The question is, should we intervene? Or should we leave other nations to deal with this growing problem? World leaders are debating whether or not to declare war on ISIS. Should the U.S intervene with this war against terror? Or shall we leave other nations to deal with this threat to humanity? A hard decision to make, with multiple consequences, but with multiple benefits, declaring war against ISIS can be a disastrous or a beneficial decision that the U.S can make.

On September 11, 2001, nearly 3,000 American lives were lost to terrorists who hijacked airplanes and crashed them on suicide missions. There has not been a terroristic attack like this ever committed before on Americans excluding the bombing of Pearl Harbor. When this happened, Americans were scared that this was only the beginning of what seemed to be the end of the nation they love. If a terrorist could hijack American planes, what would stop them from nuclear war? There had been rumors that Iraq and Afghanistan had the potential to create weapons of mass destruction so this was a logical question to ask. President Bush knew he needed to do something to protect his people and his country so he went looking for the people who committed this

In mid-September of this year, a military coup was launched in Burkina Faso by members of a presidential guard unit in support of former President Blaise Campaore. Campaore enjoyed 27 years of rule as the nation’s president before being peacefully removed from office (Vogt and Hinshaw). The coup lasted about a week and was met with significant public disapproval; protests and violence erupted in the nation’s capital, Ouagadougou. France and the UN, as well as the United States all weighed in on the situation, calling for an end to the coup which endangered democratic elections planned for October 11 (Vogt and Hinshaw). Ultimately, pressures by protestors and the military put an end to the coup and interim President Michel Kafando was put back in office. Presidential and legislative elections have been rescheduled for

Everyday, lives are lost due to fighting of different nation against each other, as well as within each of them. This is why foreign intervention is an important problem that needs to be discussed. There are many interventions that the US themselves have taken apart of. Some of these include the Spanish American War, The US Occupation of Haiti, The US Intervention of Dominican Republic, The US Intervention in Yugoslavia, The US Invasion of Invasion of Iraq, and many more. We believe that by setting up guidelines and rules about when to intervene, and how to intervene, we can more effectively solve global issues. The first thing that we need to establish is the guidelines for when we intervene in a certain countries affairs. The US must not intervene unless the country asks for assistance or if there is a serious and imminent act against humanity. Once these guidelines are implemented, then the US must establish how they will intervene. We will intervene through three different strategies and approaches. These three approaches include economic and political stabilization, humanitarian aid, and security through military protection.