The article addresses those who believe that unilateral intervention in
another country is justified by the perception that the country is a
site of:
*ongoing genocide,
*precursors of full blown genocide,
*similar mass killings, or
*"the likely consequences of inaction seem obvious and far outweigh the
risks of intervention."
Yet if you can say that the consequences of inaction are obvious, you
have already made an assessment. So what was the real basis of your
assessment? The article suggests a bundling of reasons with a moral base
derived from "just war" theory.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
