That's a different discussion, then. The point is, the onus is on whoever is doing the military intervention to prove that they will save more lives than they will destroy. This is very high bar to clear especially since the enemy is going to fight as well, and we do not know the future.

In general, I am in favor of nonviolent resistance (which might include economic sanctions, sabotages etc.) rather than military action. In fact, it is often easier to gain moral support that way.

However, I understand that many humans naturally choose the latter, for tribal reasons, despite it being overall a worse choice.