Originally posted by The Achiever
But how would you implement those changes without brute force?
As slowly as necessary. And I'm fully aware that no amount of time/care/explaining would get everyone on page with me. So yeah, eventually some amount of brute force would be necessary, as a last option.
The people of the world are used to seeing it's most powerful countries only use brute force to end conflict when European interests are at stake, with it's most powerful country as the enforcer. We've known for decades that certain cultures use women as human toilets but have refused to do anything about it. In Rawanda, the Hutsis and the Tu-Tus (may have misspelled the names) killed well over a million in tribal warfare. The most powerful military in the history of the world stood by and did nothing. Apartheid stood for decades after our own civil rights movement had succeeded (depending on whom you ask). But we did nothing. We've actually back the current violence in the Middle East, with our own president (purposely not spelled with a capital P) saying just a week ago that it was to soon for a cease-fire. How is it ever too soon to stop civilian deaths?
But when the Serbs and Albanians (Europeans) were into it a few years ago we rushed right in. Can't let Europeans kill each other, huh? When Iraq invaded tiny Kuwait on Aug 2, 1990 the U.S. rushed right into Kuwait to defend the tiny nation that couldn't itself against the neighborhood bully. Or at least that's how they tried to spin it. In reality, we've been "in bed" with oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Kuwait's neighbor, and couldn't let fighting spill in that direction.
Once the people of the world realize that I'd police the ENTIRE world regardless of whom is the aggressor and who stands to gain, they'd realize the good being done. Or at least most would...I think.