Thanks you for the comments so far. I am not sure that they have directly answered the point I am making. I do not suggest that violence will disappear just because there is a new international law outlawing violence at ever level. All that I am suggesting at this stage is to get the various interested parties to agree that we want a violence free world, that this is absolutely vital for human society to survive and prosper, that all disputes should be settled by non-violent means, and that this understanding should be put into comprehensive law, with limited exceptions and with superior effect at every level. This is achievable in the 21st century. At the moment there are various legal constraints on the use of violence at various levels, domestic, regional and international, but no comprehensive ban at every level applicable to everyone. Even the United Nations Charter is not comprehensive at the international level. It needs a clear statement of non violence (not just force or the threat of force involving member states except in self-defence), with new definitions of the permissable exceptions, and with the extension of the ban to every aspect of society, individuals, groups, all states and other national, regional and international institutions. My view is that the mere existence of a comprehensive legal ban will provide the necessary impetus for the effective implementation of the ban over time and the provision of the necessary machinery for this purpose. But this will take time. The greatest thing we can leave to our children is the vision of a non violent world.

Welcome GR I have always found views such as yours extreme.
Nice but both extreme and unrealistic.
I think almost every human wants peace, no wars ever.
But if every current world power disarmed, totally,war would be the only result.
In away armed forces and arms stop wars, it can be said both sides know even winners suffer.
Hence, so far no Nuclear war after the end of ww2.
Would you take the locks off your home and car?

Belly,

It's sometimes necessary for our intelligent species to occasionally ponder its higher self, especially as we are so capable of cold-blooded savagery on our own kind.

However, I'm beginning to agree with the biologist, Ernst Mayr, who considered that homo sapiens might have been a "biological mistake."

Arjay: The way to stop wars is to have a proper constitution which Obama has trashed.

? Obama has trashed. Obama can't do anything without the approval of the American Senate. Even if he "orders" it. If my memory serves me correctly, Obama's Party doesn't have control of the Senate. I may be wrong.

The world seen through the eyes of the Radical Greenies & the Politicaly Correct. Then goaded on by the very people who take advantage of their naivety. The very people who would do anything not to be held accountable in a World Court.

Ahhh... Isn't the World a wondeful place. All sweetness & light. Let put on our Rose coloured glasses & all go sit in the corner & say, "Ommmmmm......" After, we'll have a rousing chorus of, "Kumbyah"

It's a lovely thought & I wish it could be like that, but it isn't & we have to accept that fact.

Just recently one of the African Leaders said that Wars in Africa were nessesary to keep the population small enough to be able to feed the people. I forget which one said it.

Considering all the sabre-rattling going on it seems that some sort of conflict will be inevitable.

It seems we have seen this all before.

Before Kuwait was liberated, we saw the nurse addressing the UN about how invading Iraqi soldiers left babies on the concrete hospital floor and stole their humidicribs.

Before Afghanistan was invaded we saw no less than US Secretary-of-State Colin Powell solemnly displaying artists impressions of Bin Ladens hollowed-out air-conditioned mountain fortresses, complete with elevators and missile silos.

As for Iraq, as well as the alleged WMDs, we were told about Saddams's people shredder and mobile chemical labs plus countless other atrocities and threats to world peace.

Years before, even Granada was building runways for bombers and potentially holding US agricultural students as hostages with contrived satellite images and heresay evidence to heighten the threat.

As well as being precursors to invasions, all these things has something else in common.

They were all were lies and designed to soften public opinion.

If we ignore Iran's economic role as a major producer and exporter of electricty to nearby countries then obviously any nuclear power stations are designed soley for military purposes.

Throw in some media misquoting and intemperate remarks of their leader toward an equally hostile neighbour and it seems fairly obvious that it will be just a matter of time.

Perhaps it will just depend on who the next US President is going to be.

Obama is being extremely diplomatic about Iran. So far Iran have not relented. Action will happen if Iran does not change course. They have been given every doubt possible, so far nothing has changed.
Iran is a supporter of terrorism, and can not be trusted with neuks.