CU4, whether you realize it or not, you just articulated the very reasons why the Allies, led by the U.S.A., towards the end of the Second World War, laid the legal and moral foundations of the United Nations. They knew all too well the world you described. They recognized that a foundation of law and order, backed by force, the force of the United Nations, had to be laid down and slowly built upon, one year after another. That it was either the Law of the Jungle or the Rule of Law if further conflicts like WWII were to be avoided.
Every year, small advances were made. Everyone, including the founders of the UN, knew that the structure of international law and order couldn't be built overnight, and that it would be a long, slow process of many years. A certain amount of dedication to the process was involved, forbearance to some degree on the part of the wealthy and powerful nations, justified by the realization that, if the shit ever again hit the fan, not even the powerful would be spared from the ravages of war.
That process, IMHO, the slow, incremental building towards a rule of law, was set back a hundred years by the unbelievable actions of the Bush administration. Every principle of international law was shattered in one disastrous 8-year period by the Bush administration - - the launching of wars of unprovoked aggression, the torture of prisoners, the denial of basic human rights and the utter contempt for the very basis of the law and its institutions as "quaint and old-fashioned," in much the same way as Hitler himself had previously excoriated the League of Nations when he withdrew Germany from membership in it.
As you can see, the fabric, once torn, is not easily repaired. So far, the Obama regime is continuing the same lawlessness as its predecessor. Other nations will be bound to follow suit - - why should they obey international laws when the U.S.A. itself, the originator of much of the current framework of the law, has opted to toss the whole thing into the trashcan?
The alternative to the Rule of Law is armed conflict. Why should China be any more respectful of the national sovereignty of Kuwait than the U.S. was of Iraq's? If both China and the USA need oil, why shouldn't each grab what it can before the other does? What should have restrained them before was the rule of law, but I think we can all "thank" the Bush administration for clearing that "quaint and old-fashioned" cobweb out of our paths. Soon fabricated excuses won't even be necessary. Wanting or needing the oil will be justification enough for the invasions and atrocities that follow. The people of the U.S. or China don't want to sacrifice their sons for oil? Fuck the people! You've seen with your own eyes how much difference it makes who is "elected," the war for oil goes on and more troops WILL be sent.
The real problems will erupt when there isn't enough zebra to go round and two lions want the same zebra. Or in another variation, when some of the lions get sick and tired of one particular lion who's pissing everybody off and always takes more than his fair share. When they figure out they have a choice between letting him attack them one at a time or all of them taking some pro-active response and attacking him all together. These are the reasons why even the strongest lion in the jungle could benefit from a little law-and-order, but instead of building respect for international law, the U.S.A. has been undermining, ridiculing and even denouncing it for almost a full decade. Well, what goes around comes around. My grandchildren are going to see some interesting things in their time.
