I agree. If two countries in the UN are at odds, then the rules of the UN will be (or should be anyways) followed, and in that case resolved by the means of the UN. But those who are not members, are not restrained by UN laws so saying "because the UN said so" doesn't effect them. I support peaceful mediation, when possible, but some countries' leaders are so into power, greed and ego to let go of their ways. I understand that it's hard to say "our way is right, their's is most defiantly wrong" but there are some fundamental things that are just wrong. One cannot defy the fact that the US is a 'superpower' in the world, there isn't any getting around that. I feel that this makes us responsible for policing the world against things that are "fundamentally wrong". Many think that we do this out of a need to "take over the world" which I think if the US was really after, they probably could have done more by now. Keeping the world stable is a responsiblity of ours, one that we should take seriously.the_alliance said:i totally agree that the UN should mediate international affairs. but it's power only extends to the countries that are IN the UN. therefore, if a country that's not in the UN creates conflict, i think that the US should be able to "take care" of it.
not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.AliasHombre said:The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
We dont need the backing of others to use our militarySecretAgentMan said:not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.AliasHombre said:The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
Sophie You're right xdancer, we got The Un, but The USA (well the government) want to control the world that's why they do what they want, they don't need the UN anymore, and they've never needed it !!
Yes you do, if you want to keep your allies and friends!AliasHombre said:We dont need the backing of others to use our militarySecretAgentMan said:not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.AliasHombre said:The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
so we can attack or occupy any country we want? This sounds like imperialism, which has failed in the past. If you look at history you'll see the U.S. has had disappointments when it comes to foreign policy. The occupation of Phillipines, Korean War, Bay of Pigs (Cuba), Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq.AliasHombre said:We dont need the backing of others to use our militarySecretAgentMan said:not unless it has the backing of major international organizations such as the United Nations.AliasHombre said:The US has the right to interneve or not to interbene in foreign affairs as it chooses.
xdancer said:so, bush has named alberto gonzales attorney general. it makes me a bit nervous, considering he called the geneva convention "quaint." anyone else have any opinions?
Bush names Gonzales attorney general - that site has an article which gives some background about him.
[post="1064427"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]