Hypothetical

[Martin]

Imagine a country where hundreds of thousands of people suffer and die each year due to the actions of their government. For more than a decade, the international community has been trying to rectify the situation. Numerous UNSC resolutions have been passed and broken. Sanctions have been put in place, to no avail. You get the general picture, I suspect ;)

But, unlike some other countries we could mention, these problems are created not through the selfishness and malice of their leaders, but through ignorance, incompetence and mismanagement. Under those circumstances, is regime change through military action justified? Moral? Legal? Does it matter what form of government is in place? Democracy? Republic? Totalitarian dictatorship? Under what circumstances would you support military action to prevent the suffering of these people?

[Wile E. Coyote]

I believe that if the suffering was not due to malice, then the leaders would be genuinely concerned about the welfare of their people. In this case, providing support in the form of advice or humanitarian aid would probably alleviate the problem.

If such aid was refused, then I would argue that either the leadership is acting out of malice, or that the culture is self-destructive to a degree that makes salvation impossible.

In the latter case, military action might be necessary if the actions of the said nations effect the world community in a negative way.

[Supercharts]

All you have to do is get rid of the Queen and the House of Lords. Abolish all titles

Edited to say: Oops! This country is hypothetical. Sorry. .:o