For all the cheerleaders who thought overthrowing Qaddafi was such a great idea

[pampango]

28. No one. When people need help we all have a decision to make.

If we do not have the power to help, we can express our sympathy and just say there's nothing we can do. When the Soviet tanks rolled into Czechoslovakia and Hungary and put down 'revolutions', there was nothing we could do about it. My elderly neighbor has cancer. I don't have the power to cure it so I bring over meals and talk.

If we have the power and decide not to use it that is a decision, not an absence of decision. Sometimes it will be the right decision and sometimes not. The US had the power to enter the war against Germany prior to Germany's declaration war on us after Pearl Harbor and chose not to do so. The USSR could have declared war on Germany when it invaded Poland and decided not to do so. You can argue that those were wise or unwise decisions, but they were decisions one way or the other.

We had the power to respond to the North Korean invasion of the South. We could have said it was none of our affair. Perhaps all of Korea would be united now under Kim Jong Un for better or worse. We used our power - through the UN since the USSR was boycotting it at the wrong time.

In the modern world, the UN sometimes authorizes international intervention in countries were civilians are at risk and sometimes it does not. This aspect of international law is a modern consideration that does not apply to helping your neighbor or what happened back in the 1930's and 40's.

I don't think liberals can say that the answer is to ALWAYS help people in need or to NEVER help them. There are practical and legal considerations that make each situation different.