
   I guess that it was not acceptable because Germany *also* chose
   a path of aggression simultaneously that put the interests of
   other countries in peril. I wonder whether US or other countries
   would have risked themselves if only Jews were persecuted and
   Hitler had no imperialist ambitions. (I am no student of history
   and I am just asking questions.)

I don't think they would have.  After all the U.S. was one of the
countries that turned away Jewish refugees when there was still time
to get them out.  (Considered and rejected at the Cabinet level then..)

   ...
   Under what conditions should US interfere in foregin countries,
   is an abstraction one must clarify before resorting to acrimonious
   accusations of religious bigotry and such.

As I understand it, International law provides the right of any
country to intervene to prevent genocide.  I think once the World
Court has ruled that genocide is being committed... 

If a Human Rights Czar is appointed at the U.N., we could have
international monitors recording events and responses of local
officials and develop an objective basis.  This could be backed by
adjudication at the International Court of Justice and enforcement
through a Rapid Deployment Force under the U.N. Secretary General's
command.  I would like to see the U.N.  directly impose ICJ rulings
whenever feasible (without the possibility of vetos at the UN Security
Council.. much as the President can't veto a U.S. Supreme Court
ruling). 
 
The U.S. is now supporting the effort to appoint the HR Czar -- the
third world opposition is led by three countries, China, Iran and
Pakistan (What company is Pakistan keeping!).  

The U.S. is also reconsidering its opposition to the U.N. force
initially envisaged in the Charter (although under the control of the
Security Council).  The UN SC is quite a flawed body.  Rogue
governments like the PRC have even threatened their veto in the last
few months to block the move to place U.N. troops in Bosnia under
Chapter 7 instead of 11 (if I have the numbers straight) where they
could have moved from being a monitoring to an enforcement force
without requiring further SC action.  (The PRC even continues to
threaten using its veto on U.N. action despite the ICJ ruling.  The
current set-up requires the SC to enforce ICJ rulings..).

Peace,