OSLO said:AfterSSE, the problem with the "it's a good thing he's gone" kind of backwards justification is that it opens the door for pretty much any country to invade another because they don't like the leadership. Sure, there may be a "greater good" motive (and why not use it to go into Zimbabwe, North Korea, Burma, etc where we don't like the leadership), but what if, one day, we decide, say, that we don't much care for the Turkish leader, because of his Islamist background, or with Poland, because of their catholic leaders, or Tajikistan, because they have a leader who is plainly mad (I know, I know, he's dead, but bear with me). Or imagine that we have a leader that ignores his electorate, eliminates check and balances laws to give himself more power, who ignores his cabinet and takes the countries forces on adventurist expeditions to far off lands because his buddy (who is acting according to God's will, after all) says it's a good idea. Then what is to stop any country invading us (on a legal ground, not a practical level) in order to eliminate this bad influence?
THe utilitarian argument cannot be the primary means for international galavanting.
Nothing has really changed since the early times, ever play King of the Hill, it's always going to be the bestest or the one with the mostest that win out, or in reality a good group of lawyers, OJ was dead on guilty, but his lawyer talked the talk...as long as decisions are based upon legalities, there will always be grey areas, it's somewhat like the regs, sure for the cox'n i'ts cut and dried, however the rules and regulations are nothing more then guidelines and are there to be interpreted as best as possible, so just because it is written, doesn't nescessarily mean it's the "law", everything is open to interpretation, ordinary folk who listen to the news or read the papers could care less about the UN or International Law, only politicians need concern themselves with that stuff, and there in lies the problems..