You make a good point actually. It made me think and I'd even take it a step further and say most of the places the US (military) is involved in are not great

You make a good point actually. It made me think and I'd even take it a step further and say most of the places the US (military) is involved in are not great like Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, Uganda, Haiti, etc. which is interesting because this thread originally asked about our (US) Bill of Rights. Obviously the UN (and thus all of its mistakes) is typically supported by Democrats... But also Paul Wolfowitz, neoconservative extraordinaire and also the world's worst human being and the only person I know who can be singularly blamed for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and now Syria, was a Republican idealist who was going to spread human rights values by attacking Iraq and paying for the $50 billion dollar war (turned out to be $3 trillion) with captured oil revenues from the temporary, "month long" occupation of southern Iraq... So, the question is, do good inspiring rights-based documents cause disastrous foreign policy decisions when countries try to implement them in real life? The opposite of all this by the way is realpolitik, advocated by Henry Kissinger. But then again that was during Vietnam...a war of comparable brutality to Iraq. In the end...I would say since everything seems to fail...go with the inspiring, come up with a list of actions that will never be justifiable so that "going to far" and "failure" is never a matter of debate but only a matter of proof, and get good leaders.