Collective Global Security

What is need to achieve Collective Global Security?
Personally, I don't believe CGB can be achieved. I believe we can always have less conflict between nations as time progresses, but I don't believe there's a way to give everyone what they want, making it fair to all nations.
How should a collective international body handle nations that are a threat to collective global security?
First, there should be no threatening towards the rogue nation. If there is, then the whole point of peace and security is being contradicted. Perhaps a way to handle the nation is to reason with it and find out if there are valid reasons for their demands or whether there's an underlying reason.
Where would the international body get its power and legitimacy?
In the body, all nations would be equal, with no nation leading the rest. A representative from each nation would get together and decide on some ground rules. However, the people should be agreed on the representative so it doesn't become forced on the citizens.

Neutral

Being neutral is when you're impartial, and when you neither oppose or support a situation. The situations in which I remain to stay neutral is when I don't know enough about the topic or situation being brought up. Even if I do know about it I still form an opinion on it but might not voice it because it won't be a strong issue for me. Also, if arguing the issue will cause more problems than the situation actually causes, then I chose to remain silent. There are many issues concerning various human equality rights that I feel very strongly about. If any of those topics are brought up, then I can't really help myself but voice my views because I feel very strongly and defensive about them. Examples would be my defense on feminism or gay rights.

War and Violence

Why do wars begin?
Wars usually start for the same selfish reasons; nations benefiting from the other country's loss. It's either about oil, food, money, military, or any types of resources. If a nation sees a benefit in fighting with others or involving themselves in other wars, they jump on the opportunity.

Are they always justified?
There's a difference between wars being "justified" and justified. Nations always claim that the next war will help advance their nation, or that they're doing it in the name of God. These excuses are usually excuses for nations to gain power and money. However, I've never really heard of a war that was fairly justified, and I doubt I ever will.

Is violence the answer to getting what you want?
Technically, wars end up getting their nations what they were after. Whether it's a just and right reason is another question entirely. Personally, I believe there are ways of compromise, without including violence, for nations to settle their disputes. However, I think it'll be a long time before that happens.