Quote Originally Posted by Pannonian
You might want to note that saving succeeding generations from the scourge of war comes first in the statement, and only then does the reaffirment in the faith in fundamental human rights etc. follow. In any conflict between the two, the first usually prevails - war is not a good thing, and its prevention was the primary purpose for the establishment of the UN.
Then fundamental human rights aren't really fundamental?

You may want to note that the quoted passage is one long sentence where war sentiment and fundamental rights are part of a series. To assume one element in the series overrides other elements in the series simply by placement begs the question.

Only when the latter is grossly abused does it override the desire for peace. Would you rather there were an authority that overrode the desire for peace so as to guarantee fundamental human rights and justice for everyone?
Of course! The U.S. is founded on blood. If authoritarian peace and servitude trumps liberty and a government amenable to its citizenry then revolution and war on behalf of democracy cannot be justified.

Most of us recognise the world isn't perfect, but in trying to make it better, we do what we can. You are seeking an absolute truth, a world where there is justice and universal rights for all. That isn't going to happen, especially if you disregard the greater evils that may be done in their name.
It should be noted that sacrificing principle and legitimacy has not saved the world from the scourge of war as the history of conflict post the founding of the UN demonstrates.

Stop being as inflexible as Tribesman.
That's fairly disturbing.