Two Halves Make a Whole?

I have a new phrase that I keep telling myself: Choose your fora carefully. I like getting into virtual fights with my fellow bloggers/online writers, but it's easy to get sucked into too many frays. 'Tis better to be selective regarding the fora in which one participants. That said, my friend Paul notified me of a recent entry on Libertas, the blog devoted to "conservative thought on film." As is expected, the entry's author gets it half-right (a left-wing blogger also would have gotten it half-right — probably the other half!). Thus, to clear the air, I had to post a libertarian comment =) :

"I wholeheartedly agree that the United Nations is inefficient, ineffectual, and corrupt--and thus worthy of abolition. However, I do not agree with the implication that we should replace the collectivist interventionism of the UN with other forms of interventionism, including unilateral invasion. Jason states that the UN failed in Rwanda and would have failed in Iraq. Yet, that begs the question: Does he mean that the U.S. should have invaded Rwanda in order to stop the bloodshed? Will the U.S. invasion of Iraq prove a long-term success or an abysmal political and financial failure? I suggest that conservatives not only critique the naive, overly idealistic internationalism of the UN but also the equally naive, unilateral interventionism of our current foreign policy."