-postat de Virgil Andronescu-
-sursa: The Economist- WHY intervene in Libya and not in other places? I outsource to Normblog, in Britain, who laments
“a tendency to conflate the reasonable demand for a proper degree of consistency and impartiality in the application of moral principles with the not at all reasonable demand for people to display an impossible amount of energy, time, command over resources and so on, by generalizing their actions for the good so as to benefit all parties who might be thought appropriate objects of them. This tendency is wrong-headed, requiring as it does superhuman levels of capability from those of whom the generalizing actions are demanded. It's as common as it is, not because of any real belief in such impossible levels of capability, but because it's a quick method of trying to embarrass people you disagree with. But it's also a useless one.”
Having just listened to President Obama's statement, it must also be admitted that the aesthetics of each case, as opposed to the objective merits, also affect the decision on whether to intervene. Had Colonel Qaddafi gone on killing quietly and not engaged in loud, mouth-frothing threats to show "no mercy" to the "rats" demanding democracy, he might not now be facing military intervention. Mar 18th 2011, 18:47 by Lexington
