Hrm... I just have a few things to say. One, as a founding member of the UN and having supreme veto power on the Security Council, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Granted, our vetos can be overridden by the General Assembly, but it takes a 2/3 (or more) supermajority to do so. Plus, in recent years, many outside observers have noted increasing support from small countries to come after the US for not paying dues and being bull-headed about foreign policy. So, they all band together, get a few of the EU countries, and/or China and Russia, and suddenly, they have the votes to override US vetos. The UN as a whole isn't the problem. The problem is both the preception of the US as being a Goliath and the US's preception that the rest of the world is our plaything. Combined, you get many factions that push and tug, making democratic process corrupt. It's the Security Council's fault, with a big portion of that being the US, for the way things are right now.
Second, that article about the ICC was biased beyond belief. Granted, I know little about it, but one of the things the US has been saying for years is that there is no longer a need for carpet bombing and the general decimation of civilian buildings and population, 'cause we got smart bombs. So, war has become more of a tidy little event, complete with wrapping paper. So, with the idea in place that war can be conducted with minimal civilian casualties, the ICC drafted those vauge guidelines. Personally, I think that if the US is going to act alone in ways the affect multiple countries, maybe there is something wrong that does deserve a criminal check. US citizens, you must realize that we are not alone, we are not the only people, and we are not the only "civilized" country in the world. Acting alone will get us nowhere, make more enemies, and <i>decrease</i> our national security. You think Al Qaida is the only group out there that wants all American heads on a pole? You are sorely mistaken. In fact, the best way to solve a large problem that threatens our oil, gas, and allies is the tell Israel to quit acting like a spoiled child.
Yes, back in <i>1948</i> they had a UN charter that gave them existence. Problem was, to do that, people were displaced. Israel has a wonderful military, thanks to the US and their conscription policy. Most of the surrounding Arab countries realize this fact, which is why more are willing to settle for a pull out from West Bank and Gaza. They don't want to try to deny that a large, well-trained army exists, and that they have nothing to stop them. Everyday, you see/hear about Israeli military moving with impunity throughout the West Bank and Gaza. They could easily do the same to Lebenon, Syria, and Jordan. But, because Israel is blind to this, and is being, in many ways, a sore winner, I no longer support Israel's actions, as they are counterproductive, and just as terroristic as the Palistinian attacks. But, can the US really tell Israel this, if we too act as a lone shooter, unwilling to do more than try to salvage our immense ego?
One thing I've realized over time is this: Soldiers are trained, and death is part of the job. Therefore, to say that the death of soldiers in an armed conflict deserves revenge is stupid. They knowingly put their lives on the line, and are heros for it. But, to say that we should avenge the death of every soldier is a waste, and tarnishes their legacy. They can protect themselves, they are trained to do so... 3000 civilians in a high rise cannot, nor can the millions in Afgan, Iraq, Iran, and the others that would be harmed by indiscrimnate bombing. There is nothing left in Iraq to attack, 'cept Saddam himself. The people have the strength of a broken-backed camel. But if we attack the people, they will rise up against us, as will every other Arab and European (including Britian) country. Then what are we left with?
-SammyBoy