[Huck]

Someone tell Mrs. Palin.

[danamco]

If you missed Glenn Beck’s TV program yesterday afternoon on FOX, try to get it, very scary. Samantha Powers/Cass Sunstein/Qaddafi fits in to this article!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-O5XxXm8wPE#at=25

[NWFLConservative]

Personally I still don’t know why we should have become involved in this mess in the first place. We don’t have a national interest at stake here, yet that Bozo in the White House stuck his nose were it didn’t belong, and spent untold millions of our tax dollars on Tomahawks and for what? So the Muslime Brotherhood could overthrow Quacky the Duck? They will be trading one dictator for another.

I can think of another dictator who needs to be overthrown as well, and 2012 can’t come soon enough.

[JoeFromSidney]

Under the Just War Doctrine, one of the "just causes" for entering a war is to come to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. However, two points must be noted.

First, "just cause" is only one of the criteria. Others, such as "comparative justice," "probability of success," and "competent authority" must also be met. (Parenthetically, it's questionable whether the Libyan intervention met the third of these.) Just cause alone is not sufficient justification for going to war.

Second, the alleged "responsibility to protect" goes well beyond the Just War Doctrine. The Doctrine implies that going to the aid of the victim of unjust attack is optional. The R2P asserts that it is mandatory. As William O'Brien, one of the greatest Just War scholars of the 20th century put it, freeing the people of the Soviet Union from their tyrannical government would be one of the greatest just causes of history. However, trying to do so, with the almost inevitable consequence of a nuclear war, would violate almost every other criterion of the Just War Doctrine. It's too much to say that we have a "responsibility" to go to the aid of the victim of an unjust attack. We need to look at the other Just War criteria as well.