General Discussion

I would probably not even have bothered to reply; as you may have noticed, a fair portion of replies to my note do not agree with my view, in varying degrees and on varying grounds. Yours was the first ( the first I noticed, anyway ) that took up the shrill shriek of genocide by the United States within the last half century, and so you drew a response.

That response dealt adequately with the revised line you are attempting, in its final paragraph. I see no reason to repeat myself at any length. No one has clean hands, who has any power to intervene in this situation, so any intervention will be carried out by some government which is morally compromised by the standards you wish to employ. Of course, many would consider it placed someone in a morally compromised situation to watch cruelty done which it might be in your power to prevent if you moved forcefully to intervene, so if you are urging no intervention be made, you could well be urging a course which is itself immoral, and would render the power that chose it morally compromised, and so unfit to do anything to intervene in future potential atrocities. It gets confusing, I know, but such are the difficulties associated with trying to apply morality to real world situations in search of emotional arguments that will jibe with the positions one is pre-disposed to by ideologic conviction.