The UN has two many countries with their own agendas. The UN has been dealing with the crisis in Darfur and look how well that turned out. All the UN does is talk and talk and when they come to an agreement on something they call on the U.S. for help.
I agree that they have been far from good enough in certain cases. Thats why the UN needs to change so that it can be good enough in the future. We should work for changing the UN instead of giving the police role to another party.
those most in favour of the US policing the world are for the main part americans, who probably have very little knowledge of the world outside the states, or of any other history. this is apparent when it is suggested that america won the second world war almost singlehandedly. i mean try telling that to most of europe, especially france whose resistance army under the order of de gaulle were instrumental in the liberation of europe from nazi germany. yes america played a large part, but not the only one. no doubt the US is a great place to live, but not such a great place when it is invading other people's countries, or intervening in their affairs. and i agree that britain is as much to blame for they tend to follow in america's shadow. for this reason it should not police the world. if anyone should do this, it should be a force made up of many countries, like the UN but with the ability to add some muscle to its demands. just remember that patriotism on home soil is ok but when seen from abroad is usually a precursor to war.
Like judetheobscure said: "no doubt the US is a great place to live". Therefore the countries where the US is "interfering or invading" will also be better places to live in then they were before.
I think th UN is a good start. The biggest problem with it, is the security counsel. There is no more reasons for the 5 initiator of this counsel to keep a veto right. I do think that the UN would be way more effective if every country represented in it would have 1 voice of equal weight to each other. But in the same time, it's flawed because there are human in this counsel, and they will always be a kind of vote selling, in favor of another member. This will always falsify the balance. Equality and justice are just ideals, and they cannot be achieved. They never will, we can only try and hope to tend to them. And no human force (be it an army, a police, or religious) will be able to do anything to help, it's just in our nature.
so my friend you are saying that an invading force has the right to go into another country because they are offering that country a better way of life, so ultimately they should be grateful? i am sure that hitler's germany felt exactly the same way, and every other invading force throughout history. perhaps you would rather the whole world was called the US and everybody chanted allegiance to the flag every morning. have you ever read orwells 1984?
Yes I agree that EVERY country/territory under the US umbrella is doing better now than before. Comparing Hitler's Germany with USA is a little nutty for me to even start commenting on.
Mind you, it's not what is reported from places like Irak Electricity, water and education... Imagine yourself living a place without those now, and remembering than where a tyrant was in place, you had access to those. How long do you think it takes for peoples to think that the cure was worse than the wound, and to wish it to go back to the previous state? I don't say that Saddam had to stay, but the way he was removed was only the first step of a series of errors.
Dude, don't twist what I am saying. Here is what I said: Therefore the countries where the US is "interfering or invading" will also be better places to live in then they were before. The word WILL, is a future tense. So things WILL (in the future) get better even in Irak. That's the trademark of USA: things WILL get better. And the Irak dudes can choose their own government, so do the Afghan dudes, etc.
proteindude i am beginning to wonder what your true motives are here? i mean some of what you are saying is so skewed that either you are playing the devil's advocate or a seriously dangerous kind of guy. thankfully i have relatives and friends living in the US so i know for a fact that not all americans share your views, but someone who has no experience of the US, or is just of a fairly low intelligence may well believe that your represent the prevalent view out there. so this leads me to wonder if you are not a secret fundamentalist muslim playing mind games with other forum members?
Sorry If I misunderstood you. English is not my mother tongue, and neither a language I usually speak. But I do hope too that things will go better.
WHAT????? My head is spinning. How in the world you come to such an idiotic conclusion??? Let me spell it out for you: I am not living in US and I come from Eastern Europe so I know what communism is like. I now live in a capitalist western nation so I had the privilege of seeing and living in different worlds. As for me being a muslim??? I still can't get my head around how in the world you came to this conclusion. Let me tell you what I think about muslims, and this is what I posted on another forum: I wish the world would be targeting muslims, but it's not. Let's be totally honest: no muslims no 9/11. No muslims no Bali Bombings. No muslims: no chopping off the heads of infidels. No muslims: women can have rights, can drive cars, can compete in sports, can go to school. No muslims: no need to spend so much on security. No muslims: less queues in airports. No muslims/Islam, simply put, this world would be a MUCH better place. You can say I am a dreamer, but I am not the only one. I hope some day this will come true.
the UN cannot enforce anything because China/Russia/France will veto anything that the security council wishes to do because one of those nations in is bed with the dictator. the UN needs reform, big time.
This reminds of the world trade center building since by the time the Americans got around building it and call it world trade center, New York was not a world trade center and already was passed by other financial and trade centers of the world. USA could have played the world police after WWII or for a short time after soviet collapse. Therefore the right question here is if USA CAN be the world police even if they desire to do so now? The answer is no, the events in Iraq has shown that USA lacks the both moral and military capacity to play that role.
The UN is structured to fail. It’s like giving your 4 year old a right to decide how your income is going to be spent. Playing the bills would not be a priority.