Do you agree with countries using military force for humanitarian means?

To stop genocides, extreme human rights violations, etc. NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina might be an example.

  • Yes
    Vote A
  • No
    Vote B
Select a gender to cast your vote:
I'm a GirlI'm a Guy


Most Helpful Guy

  • Yes, if there is good, sound reason for it, I support it. However, I'm very sceptic towards institutions such as the NATO. It's very much a cold-war "organization" and in my eyes, the NATO actually makes the world more hostile rather than save.
    I would approve of the UN's blue helmet troops being stocked up. They did some good stuff, for example the peace keeping mission in Ruanda. The problem with the UN is that eeeeverything is soooo slowwww. For normal political agreements that might be okay but when the UN sent blue helmet troops to Ruanda during the genocide, thousands of tutsis had already been slaughtered.

    • I see. Do you think a country with the means should make a unilateral decision to take action then, even if the UN isn't on board yet?

    • No, I don't because that's how things like the war in Iraq or in Ukraine start, which are usually about money and power and not about helping anyone. I think the UN is a great institution but it should have more power (also more international troops at its disposal) and it should perhaps find ways to be a little faster. However, I do acknowledge that this is a hard thing since all the countries have to talk to each other.

Most Helpful Girl

  • Humanitarian relief is part of the roles of some armed forces.


Have an opinion?

What Guys Said 5

  • I understand the desire to want to do that, but I don't agree with the use of war, to force other countries to live by our standards. Instead we should use peaceful methods such as trade embargo, and international pressure.

  • I would agree when the human rights violations are real and not just an excuse to start a war.

    • Assume it's real. That there's a mass genocide going on somewhere.

    • Show All
    • No, like the very real ethnic-cleansing that went on during the Bosnian War. I just want to know where people draw the line for intervention or no intervention, or if major powers should always stay out of what's happening in the world no matter how bad it is.

    • It was not a 'Bosnian War'. It was the dismembering of Yugoslavia, started by western help to Slovenia and Croatia against Serbia and Montenegro, followed by Balkanization of the country.
      The Bosnian part of the war was cherry picked as a reason to arm Albanian Kosovar militias in Bosnia (the UCK) against Serbs. Many died on both sides.

  • 'NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina'... i think the example you use is a better example of a blind eye turned to atrocities...

    The choice for action is always cynical, ie, the region having geographical significance or oil/mineral rich

  • generally, yes but there are also cases where they did more damage than help

  • I'm isolationist, so no.


What Girls Said 0

The only opinion from girls was selected the Most Helpful Opinion, but you can still contribute by sharing an opinion!