I don't agree with all of it either, not even close.
I do think that a system whereby we identify the degree to which a regime poses a danger to the rest of the world is evolving, announced only to a partial extent, before our eyes. The ingredients include:
A dictatorship
Completely unresponsive to its own people's wishes
Treating its own people brutally
Treating unprotected minorities brutally
Seeking out weapons and engaging in activities which can cause harm to civilians (biotox, chemical, nuclear, or terrorist supporting activities fall into this category)
Exhibiting a history of projecting violence and also emotional or psychological instability at the leadership level
No real means for the population to rise up and deal with the situation effectively themselves
If you look at the countries that exhibit all of those, I don't think there are very many, and most or all of those categories describe the world's troublemakers. If invading them makes their people better off and everyone else safer, then the only losers in the end are those who believe that "sovereignty" must never be violated for any reason. That notion is going to be under intense scrutiny and debate in the coming years, and the world may end up better off for it. |
