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?
2006-07-09 09:08:28 · 9 answers · asked by Dream Police 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
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.
2006-07-09 09:16:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
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.
2006-07-09 09:16:02 · answer #2 · answered by andy 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
2006-07-09 09:16:32 · answer #3 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
2006-07-09 09:21:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
See that's what makes the anti-conflict stream look undesirable. that is like Rosie. those of antagonistic to the conflict worrying even as she speaks. that's similar. how will you even imagine about asking climate GW must be placed to lack of existence? The conflict in Iraq became a mistake. blunders ought to correctly be crimes yet i do no longer imagine this rises to the celebration. so a procedures as Saddam is in contact the individuals of Iraq tried and convicted him, that isn't antagonistic to the Geneva convention neither is the act of turning him over contained in the first position Please there are a spread of people antagonistic to the conflict and many human beings are searching for a lifelike answer to this remember. For the sake of the adult men and women over there please allow's all use some person-pleasant sense. give up making the total anti-conflict stream look undesirable with fringe wondering the same BTW ought to correctly be suggested for Conservatives, often times they have strong factors yet even as they remark that Barack is a Muslim or Hillary is a socialist they lose all creditability. Do you fairly favor to be like them?
2016-11-06 02:43:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
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.
2006-07-20 11:46:51 · answer #6 · answered by The Mick "7" 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Without war there would be no need for repuglicans. Oh wait a minute I have no use for them and we are at war.
2006-07-09 09:22:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree
2006-07-09 09:11:50 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do you think it would any good?
2006-07-20 05:42:49 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋