would you support a law to make war illegal.?

Question

only the united nations could vote to make war on a country.unless four fives of congress decided to make war.

Answer 1

Your plan is laudable however does not protect minority rights. Presently, war is the only means of protection of sovereign states. This is because there is not effective international "legal" option.

I would suggest creating a stronger international law and effective means of enforcement. If states can "suit" and have confidence in a fair outcome then war becomes less of an option.

Of course there are always those who ignore the law. That is where your UN idea could come into play.

Answer 2

I have no idea what 'four fives of congress' might be, but the notion that the United Nations is there to declare war is contrary to their very reason for being. They are there to make peace. It doesn't always work, but that's the basic idea.
Making war illegal is a nice idea, but how would you enforce it. If, for example, China decided to invade Japan and take back some of their disputed territory, would you lock up the Chinese nation? And where would you put them? I applaud your concern, but we need more practical suggestions. Holding the threat of nuclear weapons over the heads of other countries doesn't do it either. Science is science, and sooner or later all the renegade nations will have atomic weapons too.

Answer 3

That is the most asinine idea I've ever heard of. So you are saying that unless 4/5 of the congress decided to go to war we have to ask the almighty un if have the right to defend ourselves. So much for our freedom and liberty. While we're at it why don't we just turn over the entire US to them as well. Makes as much sense.

Answer 4

War is a result of disrespecting law and order among other things...

Nice to think about, but human nature prevails when the people making decisions are not well rounded in their life experiences or education...

Fighting, arguing, and disagreeing are natural parts of life,.... what separates humans from other living creatures on this planet is we are smart enough to make the choice not to fight.

Answer 5

The post-WW1 Kellogg-Briand Pact already tried to outlaw war. It was an abysmal failure.

The fact of the matter is that war is a necessary evil in some situations. I believe we should strive for peace, but war is inevitable. Trying to make it illegal is simply setting yourself up for failure.

Answer 6

absolutely not. for one the UN is the most corrupt BUSINESS in the world. 2nd, 4/5ths of congress will never agree on anything.

i strongly believe that in certain circumstances, although war should be used as a last option, it is sometimes necessary. anyone who doesn't lives in some imaginary idealist world that doesnt exist and needs to come back to reality.

Answer 7

No, i wo'nt. War is not at all times be condemned. Defensive war should be upheld because its the way of the defending one's country. Anyway there is an article of war - a guideline that should be followed by the combatants in conducting their war. Worry no more.

Answer 8

the UN can't pour a cup of tea without holding a 30 day meeting to determine if the rate of pour will offend anyone. asking the UN to make a difficult decision like war means we would be putting the control of the car in the hands of someone who doesn't like to drive. i say no, i wouldn't support that.

Answer 9

Would support the Laughtney Admendment (not sure of spelling) Before WW2 they tried and failed to amend constitution that voter on referdim would have to pass deceleration of war.

Answer 10

The United Nations is a collection of corrupt politicians who break our country's laws with impunity, and pocket as much ill gotten money as they can. I would cut off their funding.