Ruby: thank you for your clear reply.
I take it you think we should not have intervened in Korea, in which case all Koreans would now be living under the regime of Kim Jong Il.
And, presumably, we should not have gotten involved in WWII? (We could easily have avoided it -- we could have simply brought home our military forces from the other side of the Pacific, and turned the Phillippines over to Japan -- or just abandoned them, which would have amounted to the same thing.)
In the case of the ICC, suppose it were to condemn the genocidal leader of a state whose army and militias are killing thousands of innocent people every day.
Would not the policemen sent to arrest him have to be escorted by quite a few soldiers? Wouldn't these soldiers best be supported by an airforce, with bombs?
If not, how could the decision of the ICC be enforced?
I take it you think we should not have intervened in Korea, in which case all Koreans would now be living under the regime of Kim Jong Il.
And, presumably, we should not have gotten involved in WWII? (We could easily have avoided it -- we could have simply brought home our military forces from the other side of the Pacific, and turned the Phillippines over to Japan -- or just abandoned them, which would have amounted to the same thing.)
In the case of the ICC, suppose it were to condemn the genocidal leader of a state whose army and militias are killing thousands of innocent people every day.
Would not the policemen sent to arrest him have to be escorted by quite a few soldiers? Wouldn't these soldiers best be supported by an airforce, with bombs?
If not, how could the decision of the ICC be enforced?