Explanation Clarification

I must remind myself that there are no rules so I can't do it wrong.

If each country is like a household or even a single person: We wouldn't use the foreign policies we use today. When I think of what we were taught in kindergarden about how to treat other people I remember that it is never ok to hit.

Alright let me state this: I would like to use analogies as a discription but not a s proof of my points. My anologies will most likly be very different then what I am comparing it to but it helps to understand my POV.

If it is never OK to hit someone then it is never OK to resort to violence? Correct? What is the difference in FP or Foreign Policy? As professionals in the EMT buisness guys at the Fire Dept. are not allowed to retaliate against billagerant patients. Unless it is in self protection. But if a patient hits us we can't hit them back. It is against the Law. We can take action that will restrain the patient but we can't womp them.

I suppose some would say that Iraq was posing a threat. But they never punched us. At least the punches that theu gave us were not used as reasons for going to war. I would agree that the Iraqi's shot at our planes in the no fly zone and maybe even other things but we didn't go to war with them because of that. Hell that incedent probably happened during the Clinton Administration.

Does a cop have the right to beat up, shoot, or arrest a suspect because they might have a gun (Iraq). If the suspect next to him has a gun and uses it (Al Qa'eda). Then (Iraq) the suspect looks like he might have a gun, he may use it or he may give it to the guy next to him, does that give the cop the right to shoot him. In that case we ought to go to war with Russia because they arn't responsioble with there WMD's (guns).