> The Khmer Rouge attained power due to the mind-boggling U.S. bombing of
> Cambodia, so that's hardly a good example. And there's a huge difference
> between the United Nations dealing with things like the KR (would there
ever
> be a KR without the precipitating atrocities?) and any nation-state doing
> it. Nation-states should be moving away from war. Simple point.
I don't see the relevance of one's opinion on whether or not the US was to blame for the Khmer Rouge. I pointed to one instance in which I think it would've been A-OK for one nation (Vietnam) to invade another country (Cambodia) and destroy its government without direct provocation and without much in the way of international support.
> You said pre-emptive war by a nation-state is "inexcusable when
pointless."
> When, then, is it excusable? When does it have a point that justifies the
> action and the precedent?
I'm glad that someone put a stop to the slaughter in Cambodia, even though I'm no fan of the Vietnamese communists. I wish someone would've put a stop to the slaughter in the Rwanda. I wish someone would put a stop to the slaughter in the Sudan.
-- Luke