It’s one thing for a supra-national authority–the U.N.–to authorize a war against someone who has committed cross-border aggression, or who has repeatedly violated earlier U.N. resolutions left over from a previous war. That was the case with Saddam in 2002–in theory.*
It’s another to let the U.N. authorize a war on what Obama calls ”humanitarian grounds”–whether it’s to stop actual killings or some less severe variety of “human rights violation.”
So far, atrocities in Libya are a little light on the ground. Sure, K. Daffy made some blood curdling threats, but how does the insurrection in Libya compare in bloodshed to some of the countries in which the UN has not interfered?
But I would think it would deeply trouble those mainstream, non-libertarian conservatives who’ve been fretting about world government for decades. Now that world government is finally arriving, only Ben Stein seems alarmed. (I may have missed others.)
And how do non-Conservative Libertarians feel about it?