Originally Posted by Malkavian

Well, i watched Michelle's link on Rwanda... It looks like it was UN who ordered the good general not to raid the militia's weapons stash. But after Somalia, i can't really say i can blame the UN.... If UN tried to take on militias, it would be condemned for playing politics, since it didn't it is accused of standing idly by the genocide. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Even Tutsi rebels didn't want the UN present... So what can you really do? Fully engage in a civil war and attempt nation building? We are doing that in Iraq now, and look how great it is working out.

All the stuff you mention is great and international law is important, but there is a question of enforcement. Do you invade any country that does something we do not like? Do we invade only the weak ones, like the states in Africa? Will UN ever have the power to invade US, China or Russia in order to intervene in their domestic squabbles? I don't think so...

How do we define acceptable conduct of war? From Western perspective? What if another culture considers certain things perfectly acceptable whereas the West does not? Since conflict takes place on their turf, does the West have the right to shove it's values down other people's throats with a gun? If yes, then what's wrong with Bush's Iraq war? If no, what exactly are the grounds for the intervention?

Now, don't get me wrong, i hate this "all cultures are equal" crap, no they are not, some are better than others. But even if one is better than another, that does not give the right to force it one anybody else... The sad reality is, West really has very little idea about politics and history of the places it wishes to intervene in, even when intentions are good. As a result, little good ever comes out from those interventions. Just like i oppose US bullying other countries and telling them what is best for them, i oppose the rest of the world telling US what is best for the US. Hence my non-interventionist position.