It's pretty simple actually. If you don't get it, then you're a waste of time to try to engage in meaningful dialogue. Since you couldn't understand the point I tried to make maybe you'll understand when explained by someone else: "...Together, the commonalities of these three cases suggest a new standard to guide future actions: Military intervention by an international coalition is justified to remedy ongoing, state-sponsored mass murder when the military plans carry low risks...." "...Yet these experiences, and the negative example of the Iraq war, also teach a degree of realism. Intervention for humanitarian goals cannot justify large-scale risks to our own people. Serious consideration of international moral action requires practical, case-by-case assessments of the feasibility of military intervention with very low risks. ..." "The New Standard for Humanitarian Intervention- How Libya may change the international response to mass murder" more http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...standard-for-humanitarian-intervention/73361/
comments like this expose you for the clown you are. Just because I don't think like you, you're going to make a comment like that? Classic douche behavior. You're not a real man and I have no respect for you.