Anyone who wants to use force in the international arena (or, for that matter, in ANY arena), must accept the responsibility of justifying their actions or their support for such measures. The burden of proof is on the advocates of the use of force, not the other way around.
In my opinion, this means:
1) demonstrating that some kind of diplomatic or negotiated settlement is impossible
2) That the use of force is being undertaken not for cynical reasons such as extending the dominance of the actor using force, but for truly humanitarian reasons or for reasons of self-defense. I view these two purposes as legitimate, but ONLY these two reasons, and again the burden of proof is on those who are supporting the initiation of force to show that this is indeed the aim of the military operations.
3) Even assuming you meet the criteria in 1) and 2), you must then show that military action will, in fact, lead to either greater respect for human rights (if the intervention is based on humanitarian grounds) or that it will successfully defend the aggrieved party (if intervention is based on self-defense).
Nathan, I will not argue with you about Serb atrocities. It is clear that they are real and horrible, but that they are happening is not justification for the bombing. I share your sympathy for the victims, and your desire to see the killing stop, but I don't think the US can even meet requirement 1) above, let alone 2) or 3), and so I remain opposed to the bombing campaign.
Max, your error seems to be misplacing the burden of proof. You write in response to Gar (I believe):
>> 1) Does the bombing save lives? You still have provided no evidence
>> that the answer is yes. In fact you have admitted that you are
>
>True but this is a hard thing to provide evidence for. Meanwhile the Serbs
>can run amok while we agonize in doubt.
But you MUST provide such evidence before you can support the bombing in good faith. The burder of proof rests squarely on the shoulders of those who advocate the use of force.
We KNOW the bombing will add to the death toll. How can you advocate the bombing in the name of saving lives if you can't guarantee that bombing won't accelerate the atrocities you are trying to prevent?
You make the same mistake again a little later when you write:
>As Nowell pointed out, in considerably more erudite fashion, as usual we
>have a limited set of unappealing choices. Right now diplomacy does not
>appear to clearly outrank the others.
But the burden of proof to demonstrate that diplomacy has been exhausted rests on you, not me. Otherwise you admit that the use of force is just as legitimate an option as diplomacy or other non-violent means.
Brett