HOW A WORLD PEACE FORCE
WOULD HANDLE SITUATIONS LIKE IRAQ
BETTER THAN THE UNITED STATES AS POLICEMAN
SYNOPSIS:
Now---in March 2003---we are at war.
This war is being committed by one nation
that sees itself as policeman of the world.
Will that nation attempt similar actions in other countries?
If there were a functioning World Court and World Peace Force,
then the problem of countries possibly possessing illegal weapons of mass death
would be settled by a rational examination of objective, verifiable facts
rather than by suspicions, denials, claims, & counter-claims.
Ideal methods for eliminating of weapons of mass death do not yet exist.
But we can avoid warfare committed by one nation on another
by making use of the limited methods that we do have.
Slow, methodical disarmament of nations like Iraq
by means of day-by-day inspections
is better than massive bombing and military occupation.
We can achieve the same end---disarmament---
without killing thousands of human persons.
OUTLINE:
I. A WORLD PEACE FORCE WOULD BE NEUTRAL AND NON-PARTISAN.
II. A WORLD PEACE FORCE WOULD BE DIRECTED
BY A NEUTRAL COURT OF WORLD LAW.
III. CITIZENS OF ALL COUNTRIES WOULD SUPPORT
THE WORLD COURT AND THE WORLD PEACE FORCE.
IV. SINCE WE HAVE NO FUNCTIONING WORLD COURT
OR WORLD PEACE FORCE,
WHAT IS OUR BEST APPROXIMATION FOR NOW?
V. UPDATE: NO WEAPONS OF MASS DEATH
DISCOVERED AS OF JUNE 2003.
TEXT:
"How a World Peace Force
Would Handle Situations Like Iraq
Better than the United States as Policeman"