No it is not. And George Washington gave us great advice to not intervene into the eastern hemisphere's problems.
Several things can lead to military intervention. For example, when a country is attacked, one big option is to respond back with the military. When leaders of other countries are not treating their own citizens correctly, this can lead to military intervention from other countries.
Annexation any other country is never morally justified. Unfortunately, military strong countries in the past often casted a envious eye on a weaker country.
Vikings did not have the right to attack on other countries. They should of stay out of the way.
Roosevelt utilized U.S. power in other countries primarily through the implementation of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, which justified American intervention in Latin America to stabilize nations and protect U.S. interests. Additionally, he employed "Big Stick" diplomacy, which emphasized the use of military strength and naval power to negotiate and influence other nations, exemplified by the construction of the Panama Canal and the subsequent control over its operations.
There are a number of reasons why military intervention in politics may occur. Some of the most common reasons include: To protect national security: In some cases, military intervention may be seen as necessary to protect a country's national security, either from external threats or internal unrest. To restore order: Military intervention may be used to restore order in the event of political instability, civil unrest, or a breakdown in the rule of law. To support democratic transitions: Military intervention may be used to support the transition to democracy in countries that are moving from authoritarian regimes. To protect human rights: In some cases, military intervention may be justified on the grounds of protecting human rights, particularly in cases where the government is committing widespread human rights abuses. To promote economic stability: Military intervention may be used to promote economic stability, particularly in cases where the government is unable to effectively manage the economy or is engaging in corrupt or irresponsible economic policies. It is important to note that military intervention in politics is generally viewed as a last resort and is generally considered to be a highly controversial and risky action. It is generally only undertaken when other efforts to address a crisis have failed and there is a clear and pressing need to address the situation.
money, food, military assistance, or other supplies given to help other countries
Some US Americans would argue it was justified, because it keeps our country safe and our interests secure. Others would say it would be wiser to use the money for education and health in order to improve US citizens' lives and leave other countries to manage for themselves.
There were 2 revolts that led to military intervention by other pact countries, Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. Additionally there was Poland in the 1980's, where the Polish army took over.
A nation may be justified in imposing its will on others in situations of humanitarian intervention, such as preventing genocide or gross human rights violations. Additionally, self-defense against aggression or threats may warrant intervention. However, such actions should ideally be supported by international law and consensus to avoid unilateralism and ensure legitimacy. Ultimately, the justification hinges on the intent, methods, and consequences of the intervention.
Instruments of Foreign Policy:Diplomacy (Talks & Treaties)Passive Agressiveactions (Embargoes supporting a certain nation)Military intervention (Incursion, Raids, Blockades).
It welcomes visitors. It doesn't attack other countries. It doesn't have military bases in other countries.
Build a strong military to prevent attacks from other countries.