[extropy-chat] urban sprawl as defense

[Stephen J. Van Sickle]

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 19:45, Brett Paatsch wrote:

> Damn, this is frustrating. On one hand you ask some excellent questions
> (above) but no sooner do you do so then you say ...

My apologies, I was being snarky.  I can fully understand why you would
find my comment frustrating.  I agree that international law is a
prerequisite for world peace and prosperity.  What I do think is that it
is dangerous to consider international law as highly evolved and well
developed as, say, US commercial law.  Therefore, splitting hairs the
way that a contract lawyer might is counterproductive, *at this time*,
to the purpose of international law, which is (or should be), peace,
freedom, and prosperity.

Furthermore, what use is law without enforcement?  There *are* no
international police.  The current situation with international law is
similar to the situation prior to the development of police forces, i.e.
enforcement was primarily a private matter, with the law picking up the
pieces and deciding who is right after the fact.

I am more concerned with the way things are, rather than the way they
ought to be.  If international law is to have any meaning, Saddam should
have been in prison 20 years ago, and Pol Pot would not have died in bed
of old age.  

How do we get from here to there?  I don't know, but I'm pretty sure
that it's not by giving murderous dictators a pass while hamstringing
liberal democracies.  

Still, I *am* interested in the way international law is, and how it is
developing, and would be interested in what parts of international law,
UN resolutions, and the laws and customs of warfare you think the US has
violated.  If you don't wish to play, though, I understand.