Can we justify attacking another nation simply for abuse of its own citizens? Again, no easy answers. A good case can be made that a nation that obliterates its own citizens will inevitably move outward to destroy others, if only to survive. Does the case hold up?

At the end of this, I pretty much gave my own "doctrine" on that topic. But, as you and others may have guessed, I'm a One-Worlder, and proud of it (so was Einstein). Hell, I'm a dedicated science fiction fan with the long-established belief that a planetary government is necessary and inevitable. Naive? Probably, except for the fact that I don't believe it can be accomplished in my lifetime, but I do believe it should be an ongoing process. (Being an American, I'd prefer a democratic republic, of course)

Part of governing humans is policing - criminal acts wil be committed; it's human nature. There are already international treaties with something close to the force of law, and almost-universally accepted doctrines of human rights. They need to be enforced, consistently and with due process, which latter includes proper authorization of the force(s) used. On the other hand, there's national sovreignty... that's why due process is vital. So, yeah: in my best-of-all-possible, Milosevic would have been dealt with a lot sooner than Bosnia and Kosevo. Saddam would have been long gone, as would the Taliban.

Here's something else I believe in: the Jewish philosophy of tikkun olam; lit. "fixing the world". According to it, that's why we're here.

Fox