World Police/peacekeeper: Who Should Step Up?

Technically the UN was not created to be a police force, nor as a military body, it was meant to be a forum, a place where nations could talk out problems, plan actions and try to solve disputes with out the terrible cost of war. They don't actually have any real power, as such, they are a body that lets international consensus guide. The UN can declare and impose punishments like sanctions and trade embargoes, but it doesn't help if nations don't obey. Even more so it is a body that is meant to aid, not rage wars. Thats said, it is true that the world survived for a long time with out a peace keeper, but this is not really applicable any more, at least not with the power a nation can wield these days.....

Still, I don't think any one nation should be a police force, what I would like to see is full blown dissolving of nations and the creation of a true, progressive world state!!!! ✅

Particularly in repsonse to Beyonders comment about Darphur.
The American's didn't do a good job in Darphur. 800 000 people lost their lifes before they came in.
American commander Romeo Dallaire spent his time either fighting at Darphur or trying to convince the UN to come in. The UN literally turned their back on Darphur and the notion was "there was nothing of national interest".
Romeo Dallaire ended up with 500 men to fight when he espected 4500 and needed even more. The american's did nothing until after 800 000 deaths.
What people need to realise is that politics aren't going to fix problems.
This goes as far back as the 1800's, It has been happening for over 100 years and no amount of politics will stop anything. Even so America didn't even go into to politics.
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america

edit

Originally posted by LoneWolf_Spike
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america

Then again it's not as though the rest of the world stepped in, in any major way. So relatively speaking it was a good job by America.

People bash the U.S. for not doing a good enough job...but no one else even tries. As far as us minding our own business and whatnot... if the U.S. decided to mind our own business instead of trying to be diplomatic with problem countries and places then we wouldn't be doing business with 1/2 the nations we do. And if we quit doing business with them they lose the majority of their national income which comes from us importing things from them. Also, america gives the most money to charity across the world. I think in second place to that is the EU. Not one place but the collective European Union. So i think that we might not do the best job, but at least we're trying. And if anyone else wants to step up and give it a shot they're more than welcome to lend us a hand.

Originally posted by LoneWolf_Spike
So what did they do? Look at the facts
* 800 000 people died
* America steps in

wow good job america

You're right. Good job, America, for being willing to do something no one else in the world would.

Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Noone is bashing America, it is the administration which has been same for the past 30 years, that is being bashed.

And what you wrote is simply not true. If American Administration REALLY cared about ''peace keeping'', they would have ''invaded'' Darfur.
Where are Americans while civil war and unreast is happening in Sri Lanka for the past 26 odd years?
Why is there no American ''peace keeping'' in Israel?
What about unreast in Nigeria? Civil war in Colombia?
Why doesn't America invade/bomb China and Free Tibet, since so many have recently become such experts on Chinese/Tibetian history?
What about Chechnya? Why doesn't America interfear with Duma the way it does with other small defenceless countries and tries to spread ''democracy'' and ''freedom'' there?
What about Kashmir? Why don't you invade India and deal with the Kashmir problem?
What about Congo?

Small defenceless countries with stratigic locations/potential satelite states/natural resources = good peace-keeping-democracy-spreading operation hot spots.

Strong millitary or unimportant secluded countries of no particular importance = noone cares.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
Why do people even try to bash America for stepping in and trying to end violence in areas where it doesn't benefit them at all? The U.S. may not have done the best of jobs, but they're the only ones who even try. And they try for no reason. If most of the world goes to s**t the U.S. would still be fine. We only help out because we think things are wrong. Unlike the rest of the modern world who sit back and watch and rely on the U.S. to solve the problems of poorer impoverished countries just because we have more money (despite the fact consumer debt here is 3 TRILLION dollars). We're broke as a joke and still helping control the peace more than any other country.

Sorry. Like where?

You can't imply that Afghanistan or Iraq fall under those definitions because the US went to war in both for entirely different reasons. The 1st to chase the Taliban post 9/11 and the 2nd for alleged WMD's. There wasn't any real conflict in either country (although that's not to say there wasn't anyone being oppressed or killed because there was)

The only time the US can really claim to have done anything was in Bosnia in 1995, at which point it was far too late to have done anything effective.

Other sterling examples....Somalia, Korea, Vietnam.

Yay...U...S...A.

We've got the biggest......balls of them all.

^and it only does to reason that people all around the globe should shoot at them untill theyr riddles like swiss cheese with semen rushing out in torrent.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
We've got the biggest......balls of them all.

thats because its testicular cancer. 😉

^errrrrr............ shudnt that be testicular cancer?????? unless your talking about painful male anal 😛

Originally posted by leonheartmm
^errrrrr............ shudnt that be testicular cancer?????? unless your talking about painful male anal 😛

yes you are right keep thinking of the nut check procedure turn your head and coff.

No one nation should be the primary peacekeeper. It should be the role of the United Nations Security Council.

forget the UN we need the most powerful nations to take over the world and rule by strict punishment that would stop all the stupid little wars that everyone is always crying about.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Noone is bashing America, it is the administration which has been same for the past 30 years, that is being bashed.

And what you wrote is simply not true. If American Administration REALLY cared about ''peace keeping'', they would have ''invaded'' Darfur.
Where are Americans while civil war and unreast is happening in Sri Lanka for the past 26 odd years?
Why is there no American ''peace keeping'' in Israel?
What about unreast in Nigeria? Civil war in Colombia?
Why doesn't America invade/bomb China and Free Tibet, since so many have recently become such experts on Chinese/Tibetian history?
What about Chechnya? Why doesn't America interfear with Duma the way it does with other small defenceless countries and tries to spread ''democracy'' and ''freedom'' there?
What about Kashmir? Why don't you invade India and deal with the Kashmir problem?
What about Congo?

Small defenceless countries with stratigic locations/potential satelite states/natural resources = good peace-keeping-democracy-spreading operation hot spots.

Strong millitary or unimportant secluded countries of no particular importance = noone cares.

We have operations going on in multiple different countries. Some are not as militaristic as others but we do have them going on in other places (political aid, financial aid). We typically only step up and bring in forces or invade a place if we believe they are a threat to us at home (or if they have oil and a dumb redneck and former chairman of OPEC are Pres and vice Pres).

Originally posted by jaden101

The only time the US can really claim to have done anything was in Bosnia in 1995, at which point it was far too late to have done anything effective.

USA was there from the start of the War. They're the ones that supported radical Islamic leader of Bosnians, Allia Izetbegovich who was bent on making an Islamic country in the heart of Europe at the expence of minorities.
Although CNN and BBC truth varies.

The funny thing about Bosnia is that 2 men out of 19 responsible for 9/11 were fighting at the time in Bosnia alongside Allia Izetbegovich's and US NATO forces.

As as thanks, in 1993, Bosnia granted Osama Bin Laden and his assistant a Bosnian passport and citizenship.

Peace keeping in other countries, humanitarian intervention and all that bollox will come back and bite America in the ass - as it has many times.

The problem is, it won't be those fat old farts in the Administration that will suffer, but their own people. And it looks like they just don't care.

Originally posted by LDHZenkai
We have operations going on in multiple different countries. Some are not as militaristic as others but we do have them going on in other places (political aid, financial aid). We typically only step up and bring in forces or invade a place if we believe they are a threat to us at home (or if they have oil and a dumb redneck and former chairman of OPEC are Pres and vice Pres).

But I can bet you, that greatest majority of Americans, not only don't know all the regions their country is involved in, but also where those countries are situated.

Lets look at 2 biggest potential ''threats'' to world and America - Iran and North Korea.

Iran has not declared war on anyone since 1970s and North Korea hasn't declared a war since 1975, while America declaires one war every 2-5 years.
How can then Iran or North Korea be called unstable threat to the world and America? They haven't declared war on anyone in over 38 years!

It is not that simple. American administration does not wage war to threats, because that would mean engaging in war with itself and half of EUcratic Union.

Do America really declare one war every 2-5 years? hmm, maybe they are the unstable threat to world peace that should be invaded then...