Why doesn’t the international community rally together to make war, invasions, violent military aggressions, acts of violent aggression and terror one nation or group of people within a nation against another, a international criminal offence? With all the death, destruction, violent activities and poverty these international actions create why are these actions not taken as seriously, and considered to be the same as one individual murdering another individual within your own community, town, city, province, state and country? What is the difference? Especially when these international acts of violence leave so tremendously much death, destruction, corruption and poverty in their after math? Especially when the vast majority of these international conflicts are the direct result of some misguided and over zealous political figure going insane over little or no actual acceptable reason at all in hind sight? If Mr. Bush wants to use his military why not use it to enforce these laws?
You are so right!
These crazy people make no sense whatsoever.
They have all this money and power and all they are good at is killing people and making lives miserable.
I just don’t understand how political brains work anymore.
It’s like if their wind shield is broken they burn the house to fix it.
February 4th, 2010 at 4:30 pm
I agree
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
The US ever since the end of WWII has been the World’s peace keepers. The UN has always asked more of the US than any other nation and most of NATO and other countries around the world has reduced their militaries to all us to be their protectors. Korea is a good example of what can happen when idiots do not fight a war to win. That is the biggest trouble with the UN, they want to start conflicts but they do not have the guts to finish them. Now, the UN is being ran by more rogue nations than at any other time in history.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
You are so right!
These crazy people make no sense whatsoever.
They have all this money and power and all they are good at is killing people and making lives miserable.
I just don’t understand how political brains work anymore.
It’s like if their wind shield is broken they burn the house to fix it.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 5:57 pm
Though a noble idea, I think the problem is twofold. One, crazy dictators and terrorists don’t care about international law. So you would still have those people committing "war actions", forcing other countries to respond. So war would still occur.
The international law would only come into play after the war, when you would have war crimes trials, just like in Nuremberg after World War II. So, I think, your idea becomes an after-the-fact system of punishment rather than a deterrent to war.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 6:31 pm
Because the ‘international community’ as you choose to name it is basically the Western Nations who benefit from taking over other people’s countries and gaining from it. Look at the USA and Britain and Israel. They seem to gain from violence, subjugation and theft. I laugh when I visit the UK’s British Museum and notice that it is populated with the treasures of the world the British ‘conquered’. History has a deep memory and I know I won’t be around when it all turns around. But it certainly will.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 7:02 pm
Without war there would be no need for repuglicans. Oh wait a minute I have no use for them and we are at war.
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 7:46 pm
Do you think it would any good?
References :
February 4th, 2010 at 8:13 pm
Do you really think countries like Iran, Iraq, and their allies would abide by some form of international law? I doubt it. My God they cut peoples heads off for the entire world to see. Free countries have to be able to defend themselves. If they are attacked they must have the right to defend and retaliate. Your concept makes sense but I don’t think this would happen, at least for some time.
References :