[FreeReign]

"The Law of Nations" doesn't protect unalienable rights. There is no unalieneable right for a dictator or for a tyranical government to exist.

What you propose is tantamount to the sort of anarchy in international dealings that led to the Communist and Nazi abominations.

What?

It doesn't logically follow that because I don't believe in the unalienable right of a tyranical country to exist that I do believe in world anarchy.

I've not proposed anarchy of any sort. Your response has nothing to do with my comment. My commnet -- in bold -- still stands. Don't misrepresent it.

[Ohioan]

I hardly misrepresented your remark! The first principle of respect between independent nations is that no nation has the right to sit in judgment on another.

You appear to want to jettison that principle. Why, I can only guess. But if you jettison that principle, we are back to square one, in a hideously presumptive world. Indeed, your rationalization justifies every thing that has been deleterious in world affairs over the past three generations. You are not the only one who thinks that you have the inside track to a new order for the world. Both the Communists and Nazis tried to justify their assaults on other peoples as "liberation" movements.

What you propose is indeed international anarchy. But you are too focused on your own "virtue," to see it.

William Flax