Originally posted by debbiejo'
I don't and many don't want us in this possition...............so what could be done?Should we let the other nations duke it out like most did in the past?
I guess thats what they do now, however this age is more liberal in other nations getting involved when there is a reason for them to be there.
Ultimatly one of the functions of the UN/NATO was the idea that they would create conscientious and a united operating front amongst nations -that if something bad was happening (say Saddam gassing people or Rwandan genocide) it would allow for united action, debate and maybe avoidance of further bloodshed.
The problem is that is is a morass of bureaucracy, competing national interests, nations that aren't really team players when they don't want to be (the US to be fair) and so on. I don't think the US, or any nation should be the world policemen. Such things are not usually positive. Greater unity and cohesion between nations would be better - that is cleaning up the UN.
It is one of those debates - the moralist, the jurist, the ethicist. Should a nation with the means to rectify a problem stand by while people face persecution/genocide? The US and co's intervention into Serbia during the ethnic cleansing some years ago being an example of pros and cons for some in the debate.