• Dasus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    If we could assume that said international forces were moral and behaved well, fuck yes that’s what I would want.

    There needn’t be a war everytime. The international forces would simply let the country know that they want person X or X, Y and Z and that if they don’t get to, then there’d be war. And all they need to do is give up a person who’s probably actually broken international laws, which aren’t usually minor ones.

    Given that I’ve assumed the morality and good behaviour of this force, then it should be no problem.

    And at that point, there wouldn’t be a need for national armies, if there was an international force that was wholly good and did have the capacity to beat any one other militaries.

    • KISSmyOSFeddit@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      There needn’t be a war everytime. The international forces would simply let the country know that they want person X or X, Y and Z and that if they don’t get to, then there’d be war. And all they need to do is give up a person who’s probably actually broken international laws, which aren’t usually minor ones.

      That worked so well in Afghanistan!

      • Dasus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Uh, we’re talking about a hypothetical scenario in which theres already enough international cooperation that there exist an actually powerful international police force strong enough to take on any military.

        That would imply such a high level of international cooperation, that most countries would know fighting against the force would be like some crack addict trying to fight the cops.

        A completely hypothetical situation which doesn’t reflect real life politics.