"Stubby" wrote in message
...


Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Icebound posted:

Major (world) war will be averted only so long as nations grit their
teeth and abide within some global framework, bad as that may be, but
encouraging others to do likewise.

When nations claim to be somehow above that, and act unilaterally,
others are also encouraged to do likewise.

You may be right...in that "I don't think its possible..." to avoid
"wars". But the goal has to be to avoid *world* wars. We managed to
avoid that for the past sixty years...

What has changed to have us be sliding into it at this very moment?


Asked, and answered by your own writing. ;-)


You and I, sitting at our desks, are not going to start a world war. But
when get get together with a bunch of our friends and decide how things
"should" be and impose them on the rest of the world, we are walking down
the path to a world war.

Exactly. When we get together with a bunch of friends *out of public view*.

So having a forum where countries can air their views doesn't help.


Ah, but that is where it *does* help. The global forum allows some public
scrutiny of our backroom dealings, with this effect. It discourages such
dealings, because it publicly affects our global credibility when they are
discovered. Such a forum also pressures nations to act for the common good
of the whole globe, and not just the appeasement of some narrow coalition.

It is imperfect, to be sure, but a lot better that individual coalitions
aligned on opposite sides. Such coalitions will and do occur in global
forums as well, but they tend to be a lot more careful when they are in the
public eye of the global community, the global community which they hope to
influence.


And, ignoring Korea and Viet Nam because they are not "world" wars is
simply playing with words. Terrorism is building, it is worldwide in
scope and no bunch of politicians is going to cope with it. Terrorism is
a decentralized emotional attack rather than a political dispute such as a
land boundary.

Terrorism is building why?

Politicians are probably the *only* ones who are going to cope with it
successfully. No *policeman* can act effectively unless he is operating
under a rule of law. Otherwise, the policeman is nothing but a vigilante,
and that just encourages the other side to attack these vigilantes in a
never-ending circle.

Terrorists may be brought to justice by policemen, but only under political
direction.