World Police/peacekeeper: Who Should Step Up?

America, as everyone, knows is seen as the world police, loved & hated. True, we are a superpower but should the responsibility of world peacekeeping be on our shoulders?

What other nation should take the intiative to resolve world conflicts and disasters?

America stop the genocide in the Balkins, sent & is sending millions to deal with Africa's AIDS epidemic, assisted in Iran during that recent earthquake, still guarding the 38th parallel & proctecting S. Korea from N. Korea, allowing about a million legal immigrants into our borders each year, etc.

What About Current Problems? Other than nations pointing to America and asking/telling us to be the first to step up, who else should step up? Does any other nations - aside from U.S. or Great Britain - step up to solve world disasters?

1] Darphur, Sudan where genocide is being commited.

2] North Korea and their nukes.

3] Iran and their nukes.

4] World hunger.

What OTHER nations SHOULD TAKE ON some of these JOBS? Taking BOTH the intiative and burden, aside from America & Great Britain?

Is there a country out their that's WILLING TO STEP UP?

The UK and many continental Europe are set to be real problematic and burdensome zones soon enough.

it is unfair to claim that US are keeping all the world in peace.
i think that the rest fo the world could actually manage to survive without US-baby-sitting 😐

the U.N. has been doing peacekeeping for years, and it'll keep doing it.

It should be a cool, laidback nation who keeps the world peace. Therefore I nominate Holland or New Zealand.

i dont think UK should be anything to do with it, not with all the EU problems atm

atm they cant even decide how many sugars they want in their tea

Actually i think the world would be better off without america assuming the role of the police force.

Woodrow wilsons government decided they would get out of the worlds problems, and just deal with themselves
if only it had stayed that way

Originally posted by pr1983
the U.N. has been doing peacekeeping for years, and it'll keep doing it.

The UN leaves anytime it gets to controversal 😬 look at Somalia.... 😬 they left when the warlords started attacking them...

The UN is mainly a diplomatic means... in Bosnia they watched ... in Korea the UN forces were 98% US and there were no standard UN light blue uniforms till the 70s 😬 they didn't help in Vietnam... they didn't help Isreal in the Six day war or in the several wars following that in the region... they do nothing between Palistine and Isreal now .... and there are no UN forces currently fighting terrorists anywhere.... 😬 not in Afganistan, Pakistan, Russia, .... nowhere

Unfortunetly for the world there are only two Countries on earth with aircraft carriers....the US and Britian.

atm they cant even decide how many sugars they want in their tea

better the u.n. than warmonger bush

tbh i would LOVE for every country to keep themselves to themselves...
Asia and Africa would collapse in on itself soon enough, but all the western countries would be living up in lives of luxury

then we'd be having a different argument on here, about how the rich countries should be giving financial aid to the poor countries, and sorting out the rampant dictatorships that would quickly spring up everywhere

Originally posted by pr1983
yeah, and bush is busy deciding how many civilians to kill and call it an accident

give up, im not arguing about Bush anymore....and safe to say that comment was stupid neway

Originally posted by Clovie
it is unfair to claim that US are keeping all the world in peace.
i think that the rest fo the world could actually manage to survive without US-baby-sitting 😐

the us cannot do it alone... 😐 it never could.... but no one apparently other then us are willing to... 😬

i changed it df, but you need to lay off europeans

woodrow wilsons woulda worked if theyd stood up to hitler

Clovie it is unfair to claim that US are keeping all the world in peace.
i think that the rest fo the world could actually manage to survive without US-baby-sitting

Then why hasn't France, Germany, Italy, Russia or any other countries stepped up to stop the genocide in Darphur? Why didn't any European nation step in to stop the genocide in the Balkins? America, which was half a world away, was the one who took the initiative and did most of the work to stop the killing. And please don't tell me it has something to do with oils or resources cause THEY HAVE NOTHING the U.S. wanted. There was a genocide; the U.N. couldn't stop it; the U.S. did. .

If the world can manage, then why didn't the world stop the Balkin's genocide? Darphur is suffering from one group trying to kill another group; if the world can manage without the U.S. (or Great Britain), why haven't they? Who else is going to step up? Names of nations?

Originally posted by Beyonder
Then why hasn't France, Germany, Italy, Russia or any other countries stepped up to stop the genocide in Darphur? Why didn't any European nation step in to stop the genocide in the Balkins? America, which was half a world away, was the one who took the initiative and did most of the work to stop the killing. And please don't tell me it has something to do with oils or resources cause THEY HAVE NOTHING the U.S. wanted. There was a genocide; the U.N. couldn't stop it; the U.S. did. .

If the world can manage, then why didn't the world stop the Balkin's genocide? Darphur is suffering from one group trying to kill another group; if the world can manage without the U.S. (or Great Britain), why haven't they? Who else is going to step up? Names of nations?

thank you, sum1 shares my opinion 💃

Originally posted by Darth Sauron
Actually i think the world would be better off without america assuming the role of the police force.

Woodrow wilsons government decided they would get out of the worlds problems, and just deal with themselves
if only it had stayed that way

they did that and WW2 happened 😐 it doesn't work... we should not be in anyones problems but rather when we see some country suffering from some famine or horrendous outbreak or a crazy madman taking over the government and slaughtering thousands we should help... do to the fact that if we stand by and do nothing the people of that country will look at us and ask why we didn't help and then we got a generation of people who wanna blow us up because we are prosperous.

clinton went in to the balkans get attention away from monica which is as stupid reason as any, once they got milosevic they pissed off and left the u.n. to clean up

Originally posted by RaventheOnly
they did that and WW2 happened 😐 it doesn't work... we should not be in anyones problems but rather when we see some country suffering from some famine or horrendous outbreak or a crazy madman taking over the government and slaughtering thousands we should help... do to the fact that if we stand by and do nothing the people of that country will look at us and ask why we didn't help and then we got a generation of people who wanna blow us up because we are prosperous.

to be fair, America had very little to do with the causes of WW2

Originally posted by pr1983
i changed it df, but you need to lay off europeans

woodrow wilsons woulda worked if theyd stood up to hitler

and what about Stalin? would they have been able to stand up to Hitler and Stalin in alliance? at first that was what it was.

yeah, but stalin as bad as he was changed sides eventually.

if theyd stopped hitler stalin woulda fallen into line