Naturally, war is considered wrong, regardless of the fact that it's perpetuated through human nature:

“I want!”
“You cannot have!”
“But it’s mine!”
“Prove it!”

Now, regardless of what some here seem to think, the U.S. has elected itself Worldwide Marshal, and we have been striving for global peace for many, many decades. It's a catch-as-catch-can proposition in that we continually bump heads with other nations, and other heads of state are quick to jump up and shout that the U.S. is therefore wrong in its assertion for peace -- and so the global bickering continues and nothing toward real peace is ever achieved. Violence keeps the upper hand.

What has changed? Again, I think we have. Humans -- well, real humans, anyway -- don't want war. The problem, though, is that this declaration will be difficult to push, simply because doing so requires aggression. To stop war, we must fight it, and often with the same tools that forge war -- bringing about casualties and justifiable anger. The primary assault must be against aggressive forces. The secondary must be against poverty. Get rid of these two and you get peace.

As for the Geneva Convention and the Laws of War, I feel that stating in writing which targets are to be considered "legal" targets for some warrior nation, or aggressive faction of a 3rd world state, is to legalize war itself, and I don't think that's what we want.

I could still be wrong.

Dan