As if you are trying to set up some poor ET editor to be attacked from all sides.

Nap...but I do see that there is a line (and it's only normal) when some commentators here are marked as trolls if they do not feet editorial views. Maybe it's just because "trolls" do not present their views in a manner accepted by editorial elite. I don't know. ET (or any other forum) is not without position, no matter how different views we discussants may present. I was interested to know more about that position.

The trick, therefore, is to replace war, as much as possible, by more peaceful diplomatic, political, negotiated and democratic methods.

You mean like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpXbA6yZY-8

There is an increasing body of international law and institutions to promote and sometimes enforce it.

UN is useless puppet in USA hands and I applauded Russia and China that they do not want to participate in this charade anymore and are just not showing for the sessions. No use of words there anymore...
International criminal court is even worse...it is an instrument for USA/NATO to use at their will and with USA excluding itself long time ago it's just a side show that is becoming sickening...

But as a Government leader you have to have  very good reason to put your treasury and soldiers at risk - and unavoidably self-interest is a large part of it.
 

Hah, c'mon, like they care to even ask anybody when they go to war.

4. Do not tolerate presidents who violate our Constitution and start wars without congressional deliberation and a declaration of war (article 1, section 8, clause 11). Do not let them disobey federal statutes and international treaties in pursuing unlawful, misdirected quicksand wars, as in Iraq, that produce deaths, destruction and debts that undermine our country's national interests.

Did Sarco or Berlusconi ask parliaments before they engaged your countries in war in Libya?

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind...Albert Einstein