>>Germans were conducting genocide against the Jews, which under
>>international law is a legitimate justification for intervention (although
>>I'm not sure how much was known about the treatment of the Jews at the time
>>the US entered WWII).
>>
>>Brett
>
>Ah! Now I understand! Weapons should be used only in self-defense... unless
>you think is right to use them to change people's minds...
If you had read my earlier posts carefully, you would have seen that I support intervention in cases where genocide is taking place. This is admittedly a somewhat fuzzy term, but not so fuzzy that it lacks significance. It is a difficult standard to meet, and purposefully and rightly so.
In the case of WWII, although it matters what kind of information was available regarding the treatment of the Jews at the time the US entered the war, there were other legitimate reasons for the US to enter the war.
Applying this logic to the Kosovo situation - the atrocities committed by the Serbian gov't had not reached genocidal proportions and the Serbian gov't had not attacked a foreign nation. Therefore intervention was not justified.
The additional criteria that non-violent options should be exhausted before considering military intervention is another reason to oppose the timing of the bombing, as NATO failed to pursue several potential diplomatic solutions to the conflict.
Brett