Indeed, I think if we are committed to the traditionally liberal notions of democracy, self rule, freedom to act and freedom to be left alone, one has little other choice but to act when another is in desperation, and even when crisis abounds. I think it's an issue of principle and to take the role of silence is complicity, and as Wiesel says, "a nod to the aggressor" (I think this was in one of the previous posts.) The challenge is how nations, in a modern setting, are able to convince their citizens of the moral and ethical need to act. When government articulates a clear moral and imperative need to act, its citizens should be aligned with that level of moral outrage. When it is not, it is reflective of either government's inability to articulate the moral issue present or that the citizenry does not believe in the moral issue present. Either way, there is a credibility gap that needs to be addressed.