I believe we are stumbling to a new realization. In the Wild West of a century or two ago, law was hard to come by. If there was one strong group, they usually tyrannized their neighbors. But that is not really possible in the new almost totally interlocked world. The United States has built a strong and rewarding economy. Yes, I know there are many people that do not share in this prosperity and that is regrettable. I don't have an answer for this. Perhaps true Utopia is not possible. But in general we have created a society that has a better standard of living than has ever existed before. It has created a society that is comfortable enough to be compassionate. If a compassionate strong man in the old West observed someone being abused or brutalized, I like to think they would exert their power to remove this negative circumstance.
      I think we are in that position now. What value is there in power if it is not used to improve people's lot. We have to be careful not to react to other people's envy. We must accept the kind of negativity that accompanies such envy. But can we really sit and watch TV while other people in the world are being abused. Do we have a right to step in and stop brutality. Can we really sit by and do nothing while such brutality goes unchecked?
      We are going to have to find a way of accomplishing this "good" without making the mistakes of empires past. We need to find a way of being comfortable with using the "big club" for good ends. How do we determine what is a "good end"? Aye, there's the rub!. Certainly when a "ruler" abuses his own people and threatens his neighbors, he should be stopped. Who else can do it?

      There is a corollary to this. I think we have to recognize the genetic flaw in human beings that convinces them that it is right for them to physically harm people that do not agree with them. This seems to be the root cause for many of the world's problems.
      I have one solution. If the UN is to remain toothless, then the superpower will have to fill the vacuum. The first step will be to set the world's boundaries. perhaps a map put out by Rand-McNally at 3PM on the 22 of July 1993 could be chosen as the world map, whose boundaries are set. When there is a dispute over these boundaries, the United Nations could be the arbiter and future maps would be drawn including their decisions.
      But of course, there will be disagreements. This would lead to the second phase. If anyone puts their troops on the other side of a line on this map, Everybody in the rest of the world would line up on the other side and force them back. Surely the Super Power would have to be the major player here. But the response should be an automatic and univeral one, not dependent on United Nations' oratory. It should not be influenced by any consideration other than the inappropriate location of troops or weapons.

      The United States would have to bite the bullet and tell Israel to get behind their original boundaries. But this would also require the world to recognize these boundaries and defend them should aggression occur. This is the only way to relieve the tension in the MidEast that has any chance of success. This guarantee of enforced stability would have to work both ways. If Israel violated the boundaries, they would have to be sent back by universal military action.

      If this recognition of human failings could be accepted along with the cost of violation, I don't believe any state would dare defy the rest of the world. There would have to be a concerted and universal force applied, irrespective of religion, politics or any other consideration. The ONLY consideration is whether or not aggression is taking place.