Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dr G ...I suspect there is an international court in which such ownership might be determined, damages paid, compensation offered, etc. Might it not be reasonable to utilize the international legal system rather than war to resolve this issue?
.....
..
I am also somewhat confused by the propensity to make one's point by killing one's self. While it makes good news, wreaks destruction in a limited area, and otherwise is a good conversation starter, you only get to do it once and you have to make the best of it. Seems the better view is to be less violent and establish your ideas in a forum larger than the range of your ability to carry explosives.
I have been long impressed with the Indian nation obtaining its independence from the British empire, generally in a nonviolent manner -- are they the only people in the world who understand that violence is often and generally rewarded by more violence?
...
..
Do you really believe that teenagers [and perhaps younger children] are self motivated to act this way? Do these children really understand that they are committing not only an act of terrorism but also that they are protesting [something]? |
Dr G,
An international court comprised of whom? And who would agree to follow its decisions? And, more importantly who would enforce its decisions? The United Nations? The UN is a gigantic bureaucratic mess, just take a look at
www.un.org and even try to find a list of its members.
The mishandling of the post Gulf war embargos and inspections, the failure to stop the proliferation of Nuclear and Chemical weapons, the inability to prevent ethnic wars all over the globe and, yes, the failure to provide any sort of solution to the Israeli / Palestinian conflict, other than drafting more sanctions that will be ignored, all demonstrate the futility of the UN and global political organizations.
By attempting to solve problems without force and the proper placement of blame, the UN ends up solving nothing. It should be no surprise, the majority of the member nations are NOT free and open democracies and the "Ambassadors" are often PR men for ruthless despots (remember Tariq Azez?). Free societies with appreciation for law and cultures that respect the rights of individuals will not and should not be expected to be put on trial by an organization with such a suspect history of favoritism and double talk. The same issues plagued the League of Nations, as does any international organization with no principle based management allowing any and all to join.
As for peaceful conflict resolution and respect among nations how can Western and other democratic free socities possibly have meaningful negotiations with countries where suicide bombings, child exploitation and state sponsored hatred of other races / religions are accepted facets of their culture?
Greg