>To what extent do you agree with Liberal Internationalism?
>This is a belief that nations should intervene in the affairs of other nations in order to pursue liberal objectives. Different people define it in different ways, often depending on how critical they are of it. How critical of it are you? Is there ever a case for intervening in the affairs of others? And if so when should we do it?
Battison's Blog 
>Liberal Internationalism has some funny definitions. A literal interpretation, that it involves spreading liberal ideologies abroad is almost guaranteed to be judged unkindly by history. Liberalism is an ideology, which cannot be proven as better than any other. In this respect Liberal Internationalists could be compared to Crusaders.However I would descrive myself as a Liberal Internationalist, because I use a different definition. I believe it is right to intervene in the affairs of other countries when two conditions are met:A) It's undeniable that intervention would save more lives than would be taken in the intervention.B) Success is highly likely. Under these conditions I do not think invading Iraq in 2003 was wise. However I can understand that if Iraq had had WMD then it might have caused a war with Israel, which could have plunged the entire region in war, and the entire world into recession (largely through oil prices and availability).Yet under these circumstances I think it was absolutely inexcusable not to intervene in Rwanda in 1994.