The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict.

[Benderino]

This is a great question. I would say 'yes' and 'no'.

I think all free nations should feel guilty if the people of another nation are suffering. Of course, that leads me to wanting to save everyone in the world who so need it, which is not entirely possible.

Then you have to take into consideration the fact that the people must yearn for their own freedom and be willing to do something about it. However, we as Americans received aid (physical or moral) from the French, Dutch, Austrians, Russians, and Spanish against the British in our War for Independence.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by bobgote

When i said invited, it is more the countries that are having civil war difficulties, a number of factions vying for power, no clear leader. An example of this would be Liberia from earlier in the year.

When it comes to a nation being oppressed by a dictator for example, specific examples need to be brought forth to the UN so that the whole world, if that is not too idealistic or naive, can decide what to do. Like it or not, the UN is the only such organisation we have that can provide this unity of purpose. If no action is taken by the UN, maybe that is the best option at the time.

It might be the best option for UN, and it certainly would be the best option for the oppressive leader, but it is doubtful it would be the best option for the people who must continue to suffer his tyrrany. The UN, being that many of its member states are oppressors in one way or another themselves, is nowhere near being an organization that can provide a unity of purpose when it comes to enforcing civil rights.

My point on judge/jury/executioner is not that these processes shouldn't occur, but that the opinion of one nation is not objective enough to provide all of this by itself.

The UN finds it easy to judge as it seems to have the ability to find fault with even the most well intentioned nations and has no problem with passing resolution after resolution condeming what it sees as a wrong. What it lacks though is the willingness to execute, more often preferring the no action option over any other.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by EzInKy
It might be the best option for UN, and it certainly would be the best option for the oppressive leader, but it is doubtful it would be the best option for the people who must continue to suffer his tyrrany. The UN, being that many of its member states are oppressors in one way or another themselves, is nowhere near being an organization that can provide a unity of purpose when it comes to enforcing civil rights.

I know, the system is flawed, but I still think it is the best option available to us. I believe that if something was SERIOUSLY screwed up there would be a near-unanimous agreement to fix it. I hope...

The UN finds it easy to judge as it seems to have the ability to find fault with even the most well intentioned nations and has no problem with passing resolution after resolution condeming what it sees as a wrong. What it lacks though is the willingness to execute, more often preferring the no action option over any other.

maybe the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak?
in many issues, i'd take the path of caution and inaction rather than that of action without all options being explored. I'm certainly not saying that the UN is the be-all-and-end-all, but rather that it, or a similar organisation, is where the issue should lie, not in the hands of any one nation.

 

[EzInKy]

Originally posted by bobgote


maybe the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak?
in many issues, i'd take the path of caution and inaction rather than that of action without all options being explored. I'm certainly not saying that the UN is the be-all-and-end-all, but rather that it, or a similar organisation, is where the issue should lie, not in the hands of any one nation.

History is full of examples demonstrating that the path of caution and inaction today leads to the need for more drastic and devastating action tomorrow, the events leading to the second world war being the most obvious of course. An unresolved crisis allowed to simmer tends to continue heating up until it reaches a rolling boil and finally spills over burning many more than just the original parties who cooked up the crisis in the first place.

EDIT: I think at heart Europeans understand this and hence the quick action in the Serbian conflict.