[darawk]

Indeed. Being successful doesn't mean you were right to do what you did. However, having the ability to impose your will and choosing not to is a moral choice, just as much as choosing to impose it is. If we have the power to stop terrible things from happening in other parts of the world, at some point, it is our duty to. This is complicated and wrapped up in issues of sovereignty, of course.

[JohnFen]

I agree. I'm not a pacifist, and I certainly think there are situations where violently attacking people is, on the whole, the right thing to do.

I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more.

[darawk]

> I'm merely objecting to the notion that being the toughest kid on the block implies it's always right to use force. Might does not equal right. Sufficient might only equals military victory, nothing more

Absolutely. I did not mean to imply that in any way. What I meant was that might gives you the power, and therefore responsibility, to make moral decisions about when and where to impose your will on others when they are acting 'sufficiently immorally', however you choose to define that.

[Gibbon1]

> implies it's always right to use force.

Ever notice that people arguing for war are always anxious that the opportunity will slip away if we don't attack _them_ this instant?

Ever also notice that _them_ look pretty much like a lot of erstwhile allies that we aren't at loggerheads with?