posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 08:27 AM
We would do well to remember that when we choose to go to war, we choose to force the opposing group to do "whatever it takes" to defeat us. You
don't want to put anyone in a situation like this. You will see the ugly side of humanity come out. Not every warring nation will have the exact same
opportunities for victory. Some will be forced to take drastic measures, some will not have the same standard for the value of a human life, some will
simply not have the economical or technological development to reasonably be expected to meet the "humane" standard for the destruction of life,
some might just be "crazy", meaning they do not prescribe to a belief system that falls within our preferred degree of similarity to our own.
Remember that, in the proposed scenario, we are at war here, folks! The only thing that could remotely be considered truly crazy when the goal
of this activity is the defeat of your opponent would be something that can only decrease your chances of victory, like, for example, to send all your
perfectly good weapons, food and water, and medical supplies to your enemy.
The Japanese could have believed that their idea of evil would take over the world if they did not win this war. Perhaps defeat was "not an
option"? I'm not condoning the actions of the perpetrators of Unit 731, I'm merely condemning each participant in the act of war equally. What they
did was no worse than what we (Americans) did, or the Germans, the Russians, Italians, or any of the major powers of the war. We all set out to kill,
we all killed civilians, inadvertently or otherwise, and yes, we all tested weapons on human beings and continue to do so to this day. Did you think
they used crash test dummies? Or midgets? No, I'm talking real, live people here... White people, ok? Does it get any more real than that? And I mean
real, full white, so no Italians or anything, just white males from England, Ireland and Scotland. But only some parts of Scotland...
So remember the cost when diplomacy is tossed aside, when we allow our elected officials to pull the strings and allow pearl harbor to take place in
order to bring us into the war, and furthermore, when we allow bankers to incite, and control the outcome of global conflicts. We might not always see
eye to eye on the proper hammer in which to go about destroying one another. So maybe its best if we just don't play that game if we can't all agree
on the rules. It would be much less costly to settle arguments by allowing the rest of the nonparticipants vote. Each of the 120 somethin countries
could get anywhere from 1 to 25 representatives based on an algorithm devised from the percentage of the worlds population in said country, a rating
given by an established human rights organization, and some other criteria. This isn't an idea for a one world gov. It's a one world court for
settling disputes. The court cannot rule on how a nation governs itself. That stays the same. This idea is only for interactions between nations, not
the people within them. That way big superpowers can't just say, "they are harboring wmds and terrorists" and go to war. They would have to present
their evidence and suggest what nonviolent solution they would like to see happen. This could involve having court appointed inspectors run an
investigation on these claims. I could go on but I didn't want to derail the thread, just wanted to present an idea for how we could avoid the
"problem" stated in the OP. Peace and blessings to all.