Doug,

SNIP
>
>Not just America Mike. Humanity itself. You're quite correct that many many folks think the fighting is nuts. I do. That won't stop it though. You are aware that in all of recorded history that only about 200 years or so have been 100% war-free. That's 200 out of about 6000 years Mike. And you think I'm being unrealistic or naive perhaps? <g>


Confining my comments to this statement and some earlier related stuff...

First, no argument from me that man's history shows a propensity to settle disagreements through force.
But you are in the enviable position of having things both ways when you say "...being unrealistic or naive...".

On the one hand you dismiss international law on the basis of 'reality' and there being no one to enforce it anyway. In another case you've dismissed the Supreme Court's stand(s) on religion because you know it is wrong and because it is, as you describe it, catering to the (much despised) LIBERAL bent. Things like this sound remarkably similar to an anarchist's point of view to me.

Using "reality" as a guide, wouldn't I be able to argue that robbery happens too so I can ignore that law? Or murder? Or all of the others?

I contend that mankind's propensity to settle arguments through war is not a reflection of mankind itself.
What you have is a leader who uses his military power to 'settle' some argument in his favour. His people do as they are told and go and take whatever is at issue. The harmed leader then declares a war and people who do as they are told - go out and fight that war. So, at best, the reflection is on that of "leaders". Leaders who invoke their power, the people doing as they are told.
Please don't argue that the people don't "have to" go out and fight. We all know that they do. Way back it was because they simply were subservient to the leaders, and later it was because propaganda had confirmed the rightiousness of their cause.

The system of laws that has been developed over the years has lots of imperfections, especially when viewed from the point of view of individual cases. But it is built on the premise that it is the collective intention to follow any law that is adopted.
To argue that someone else's flout entitles you to a flout too is to destroy the basis of law, and this is true regardless of there being enforcement or not. In fact it can be argued that laws have always depended on enforcement by self and community far more than on enforcement by authority.