Quote from toc:
olias,
your reasoning does not make sense, go fvck yourself
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/