The U.S. Military is impotent (http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?stage=1&word=impotent) to do anything about budding issues in the world and probably will be for years to come. And you have to imagine that the rest of the world's bad guys know it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3538728.stm)

The situation in Sudan is getting worse.

* 1m displaced
* Up to 50,000 killed
* More at risk from disease and starvation
* Arab militias accused of ethnic cleansing

The Sudanese government is rallying protests (Werman, 8/4/04) to counter international interest in Darfour, Sudan and they claim that there is "no ethnic cleansing" in Darfour. They warn against a "holy war" if outside troops should intervene. Their plight is desparate. John O'Shay (Sharp, 8/3/04) of the Irish humanitarian organization "GOAL" asks "how come we have Peace-Keepers in 20 or 30 countries around the world and not a single Peace-Keeper is in Darfour where 2 million frightened women and children don't know if they'll be alive the next day."

In North Korea.

According to Janes Defense Weekly (8/2/04), North Korea is enhancing it's ballistic missile capability with "sea-based" ballistic missiles, capable of hitting U.S. Targets.

Rwanda & Congo

Human Rights Watch (Kippenberg, 7/25/04) reports that Rwanda is still in the "human rights blind spot" and it seems possible if not probable that Rwanda has had a destabilizing role in the recent problems in neighboring Congo (BBC, 7/17/04). Rwanda, as we all know, was the site of genocidal attacks just a mere decade ago and Congo had an attack about a year ago in which nearly 1000 people were slain, most hacked to death, in under 3 hours.

Nothing we could do if we wanted to. Do we want to?

Even if there wasn't an apparent bias against reacting to African genocides in the world, could the United States afford (both monetarily and with troops) to send any peacekeepers? Our military is clearly impotent due to the detraction of the unnecessary war in Iraq. Hell, we even put the so-called War on Terror on hold to deal with Iraq, why should a bunch of primitive, dark-skinned, natives that want to kill each other in a country that's already over-populated be of concern to the citizens of the United States?

References

BBC News (8/5/04). Darfur peace force 'next week' BBC World News http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3903245.stm)

BBC News (7/17/04) Rwanda denies DR Congo meddling. BBC World News. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3903245.stm)

Kippenberg, Julianne (7/25/04). Rwanda Still in Our Human Rights Blind Spot. The Observer - Human Rights Watch Commentary.

Bermudez, Joseph S. (8/2/04). North Korea deploys new missiles. Janes Defense Weekly. http://www.janes.com/defence/news/jdw/jdw040802_1_n.shtml)

Sharp, Jeb (8/3/04). Sudan Report. NPR's The World. http://www.theworld.org/content/08031.wma)

Werman, Marco (8/4/04). Khartoum Interview with BBC's Paul Wood. NPR's The World. http://www.theworld.org/content/08041.wma)

I agree with you to a point, but the US military can't handle everything at once, and if anything they could make things worse, as demonstrated in Iraq. Sure they got rid of that bastard Saddam, but they ****ed the majority of the country up alot more than it was before.

Perhaps a mass Viagra distrubution...oh wait...you mean that impotent. :p

All kidding aside, the soldiers of the military are very very good at doing their job and what they are trained to do - killing the enemy. However, what many of these troubled places of the world need are peacekeepers and someone to teach the conflicting sides understanding, perspective, and tolerance. You can imagine how well soldiers, trained to kill, are suited for these jobs.

The UK is trying to restructure it's military, based ont he assumption that large scale "cold war type" battles are going to be a thing of the past and their main role is going to be as small peackeeping taskforces that need to be rapidly deployed.

The EU is also working towards setting up an international peackeeping unit. All this involves training in peackeeping as it is much different to war fighting.

I'd think that the US military needs to be similarly restructured, but any such moves would probably be met with political opposition (you are cutting the military, you unpatriot!!) and opposition from the arms industry.
----
The thing is, like most of the rest of the world, i don't WANT the US military becoming the world's policeman... but as it has by far the world's largest military it is a choice between either that, or a multinational force.

Obviously a multinational force would be far better. Representation of different ethnic and religious groups would help give the force credibility, stop the US taking all the flak and hopefully make the force more accepted wherever it was deployed. Unfortunately a force like that is very hard to agree (every country has its own rules, pacts, political motivations etc..) orgainse, deploy and mandate.

The only reasonalbe way to run it would be through the UN, and unfortunately the US has pretty much blocked or discredited the UN.
I don't think the UN is perfect, they definately need to reorganise it to prevent the blocking and partisanship that takes place... but the big powers (inc the US) are unwilling to do that as it would mean reducing their control and getting 100s of countries to agree on anything is a nightmare. Still, it is all we have to work with.

The problem is not that the US military is incapable of handling a military situation, because the US militay is probably the best-equipped, best-trained, most efficient military in the history of gun-based warfare. the real problem is that

A) the situation is bad in those countries, no doubt, but it seems that the same people complaining about these problems are the same people tying the military's hands and feet together, then complaining that nothing's happening.

B) there is a relatively high likelyhood that, at some point, the US will decide to remove a govenment commiting well-documented atrocities, and it will spark another world war. (after all, WW2 was finally started by the Austrian invasion of Serbia after Serbian nationalists assasinated Austrian Archduke Franz Ferdinand)

You advertise kerry for prez and yet you complain about the ineffectiveness of the US military?! You really shoud reevaluate your stance...either accept the military as is and stand for Kerry, or call for action and stand against Kerry.

Originally posted by Cpt. Bannon
You advertise kerry for prez and yet you complain about the ineffectiveness of the US military?!

It's the neo-conservative agenda that has replaced the conservative one that has me bothered. And it's this agenda, which is one to obtain power and control, regardless of the size of government, that has overextended our military.

Self-described neo-conservatives (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitze, Pearle, et al) made their intentions to invade Iraq and remove Saddam from power long before 9/11. After that date, they used the tragedy as an excuse to execute their plans.

Our military would have been better utilized by focusing more on the so-called "War on Terror" and less on whatever it is the neo-cons want to achieve in Iraq. Which, in my opinion is the long-term security of the Dollar as the defacto currency for OPEC (instead of the Euro, which OPEC has been considering) and the eventual foothold in the Middle East that would serve American interests.

I'm not necessarily opposed[i] to either of these agendas, but there are more pressing priorities. In addition, setting precedents of actions we cannot follow through with is bad world leadership.

So, yes, I'm supporting the Kerry/Edwards ticket. Not because I have an overwhelming amount of faith in their abilities so much as I have an overwheliming amount of disdain for the abilities of the current Pinnochio that thinks he's the President. An ideal candidate would have been McCain, but we'll have to wait another four years.

Actually, I'd like to see a strong Independent or Third Party candidate make a bid in 2008. That way we'd be assured of election reform once he/she took office. As it is, neither Democratic or Republican representatives [i]want any other choices for the nation. As long as we have this false-dichotomy pushed on us, we'll always be divided as a nation. There will always be the right and the left, conservative and liberal, right-wing and left-wing, etc.I, personally, don't like having to align myself with an ideology. A more diverse poltical party system would allow, even encourage, candidates to run on their own platforms rather than that of some dogma or ideology.

With that sort of political party system, when you see someone supporting a particular candidate, automatic assumptions won't be made as to the politics of the individual. I have some very conservative values, but these can be sacrificed in 2004 to ensure that some very humanistic values I have as well are being addressed.

And not wanting the topic to stray too far, I'll only add this about gun control: I'm not necessarily for legislation restricting firearm ownership, but large capacity, military style weapons can be banned and effectively controled in the blackmarket. The supply can be interrupted and the value of the firearm can be affected. This makes casual ownership and use difficult for the lawbreaker. If the price of an illicit product increases, cheaper products are sought. Supply and demand are laws that even criminals cannot break. In addition, the gun manufacturing companies can also be mandated to begin keeping appropriate records of their firearms. I can show the ownership history of a 1979 Mustang from the factory to me, along with every accident its been involved in through a simple database search, but try the same with a firearm recovered in the commission of a crime and you get nowhere.

I'm not interested in starting a sub-topic in this thread, so if anyone is interested in continuing this line of discussion, quote the appropriate text and create a new thread based on it, please.

This is of course as topical as ever. There's been a lot of activism around my campus about the situation in Darfur, and it continues to be a lingering problem. As long as US forces are concentrated in one area, they have less power to extend someplace else. Politics and military action are so tied together in a (so-called) free society, politicians need to continually justify actions and expenditures (they ought to be accountable after all). This leads to accusations of hypocrisy when it comes to humanitarian nightmares like this one.

Some argue that the US should not be "the world's policeman" (think Teddy Roosevelt) and that other nations should pull their "fair share." Others would point out that with great power, comes great responsibility (thanks Spider-Man!), and so the US has a moral obligation to use its military might "for good" (causes), etc.

Anyway, it's all very depressing, I guess the first thing we need to do is stay informed on the issues. It's easy to forget about these things in the mainstream media since they tend to focus on what sells rather than what is "really important" at all times.

Such ongoing tragedies should never be the responsibilties of any one nation to monitor or intervene. The entire world has been impotent in their reaction and response to strife in Africa.

But as long as:
*African nations are a threat to no-one but themselves
*They are not responsible for the production of one of western civilisation's most vauable commodities

the you're not likely to see any reasonable intervention anytime soon.

mtfbwya

I do believe the U.S. Military is good at what they do: kill. It's the leadership that sucks.

I don't think the U.S. should get involved in any international conflict, period. The Africans have been committing atrocities for decades, why are we just now noticing it? And the war in Iraq is a waste of time. I strongly believe we should stay at home, protect our borders, and let the rest of the world kill themselves. Why not spend the money used for the Iraq situation and spend it on researching anti-ballistic missile defenses? Then we wouldn't have to worry about ICBMs.

The rest of the world pretty much wants us to butt out, I have no problem with that. If an international peacekeeping force was created (and run by the UN or someone other than the U.S.), I'd be for sending over some soldiers for the cause.

But in the post cold-war era is the main role of an army to kill? Or is it more like a police force, needing to know how to keep the peace, defuse tension, create law and order etc...?
Thats what a lot of the European armies have decided, and they are restructuring into smaller rapid-reaction units with those skills.

Though i'm not entirely sure of the purpose of rapid reaction units when the politicians never make rapid decisions.

Agreed with Phreak on all points... it's time we leave other nations to do as they wish, gentlemen.

^^^^
Tell that to the families of the millions killed in the various civil wars in Africa, where no one had the balls to stop people being dismembered/burnt/tortured because they chose to deny that people were being killed.

I'm not denying that people are getting killed, I'm accepting that people want us to butt out of their business. Plus, I don't think I want to spend money policing the world, we have our own problems as well.

I like how we invaded Iraq to "free the people," but we don't "free the people" in African countries because they have no economic value to us.

But in the post cold-war era is the main role of an army to kill? Or is it more like a police force, needing to know how to keep the peace, defuse tension, create law and order etc...?

[In my opinion] The Military's role is to defend our country from foreign invaders, or to kick butt when some country declares war on the U.S. I don't believe the army would be the most efficient police force.

^^^^
Tell that to the families of the millions killed in the various civil wars in Africa, where no one had the balls to stop people being dismembered/burnt/tortured because they chose to deny that people were being killed.

Not my job.

Sounds cold and a little selfish no? Imagine during the Holocaust FDR refuses to help the jews, gypsies, and gays just because he was already dealing with the great depression back in the U.S. Its one of my main gripes with most of the modern leaders, they don't want to help anyone that won't be able to give much back in return it seems.

Sounds cold and a little selfish no? Imagine during the Holocaust FDR refuses to help the jews, gypsies, and gays just because he was already dealing with the great depression back in the U.S. Its one of my main gripes with most of the modern leaders, they don't want to help anyone that won't be able to give much back in return it seems.

No, it doesn't sound selfish. A government exists to serve its own people, not go around the world acting as a global police force. If private organizations want to go provide humanitarian aide in Africa, I'm all for it. But if our government can't even react to a crisis on its own soil, like Katrina, how the HELL is it going to deal with something as hopeless as the situation in Africa?!

Because out major export is ass kicking. We may not be good handling the aftermath, but they couldn't be any worse off than they are now, it's not like we'd be toppling a government like in Iraq.

Also, it is selfish. The definition of selfish is defined as exclusively caring about oneself: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=selfish)

Also, it is selfish. The definition of selfish is defined as exclusively caring about oneself: http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=selfish)

So because the purpose of government is to serve its people, the government is selfish??

I guess...

No, your attitude about it was selfish and a little narcisisstic.

Also, the purpose of government isn't necessarily to govern just one nation, in fact it has many definitions, among them is the upholding of moral codes and laws. And not saving millions does not seem at all moral, not to mention the act of genocide being against international law. And make no mistake, the thing that have happened in Africa and many other places in the world are genocide.

For instance, the Armenian genocide (1915, 1.5 million killed), genocide, the Cambodian genocide (1975, 2.3 million), the Rwandan genocide (1994, 800,000), the Congolese genocide (1998, 2.5 million) We, nor anyone else did anything. These are all examples of genocide, and against international law (granted, the UN wasn't around in 1915, but anyone could have helped there).

So why isn't the UN doing anything about it? Why does the U.S. have more authority or is more obligated to spend money that we don't have to solve a problem we can't solve? Why isn't Britain doing the work? Or Germany? Or France? Or China?

Maybe because they realize that it isn't their job to do so.

Cold hearted? Sure, but that's just the kind of person I am.

I think the Iraq War is an excellent example of why we shouldn't be getting involved in Africa.

The United Nations should be handling these situations, not the U.S. I guess all the U.N. can do is send scary letters of warning? If the U.N. decides to get its act together and form an international peacekeeping force, then all is good. Until then, I'm opposed to any future "policing of the world" by the U.S.

I agree that's the supposed role of the UN, of course the troops the UN has for enforcement are contributed by member nations, and we just happen to be one of the bigger and more powerful ones on board. Maybe we should choose our battles more carefully, and I agree. I think that was Skin's point earlier. We threw away our troops on questionable fights so now we don't have them when they really could do some actual good in the world. I mean yes, the men and women who die are still dead whether they died for a humanitarian cause or on a wild goose chase after supposed terrorists or guarding oil wells of some jerk we didn't like, but it's a kind of moral capital on the world stage, national pride, and the knowledge that they died for something maybe worth dying for (if such a thing exists).

As an anecdote, I remember how when Pat Buchanan was running for president his opponents were calling him a 'Nazi' and a horrible evil person for reversing his past opinions while he was working with the Republican party, and now saying that the US should stay out of foreign wars where we aren't directly threatened, etc. I guess it looks like he had the right idea, it's just taken other people longer to come around. The stuff people got pissed at him for saying we should do ends up what we're saying we should have been doing all along, or people are going along with it now, because it's okay when your team does it, just not when some other person thought of it first. Now obviously Buchanan has said some things recently I disagree with like saying we should stick with Bush because he's our president (though lots of people have said that whenever they lose an election, and it's a fact that he's our president unless you can get him removed from office, which hasn't happend), so in that sense it sounds defeatist, but still, a point. Anyway, I'm rambling again... but to close with one more thought:

Some would say you can't get into politics without getting your hands dirty, but perhaps we have some choice with HOW dirty we let our hands get, and if we don't wash them now and again...

To stop this sort of thing though, one doesn't need to go in and conquer the country. Most of these genocides are because of rebellions, so one just needs to help the side opposite them.

Also, on the subject of Iraq, the UN wasn't involved, whereas I'm suggesting that the UN as a whole do something, surely the entire world could handle the logistics of one country. But, for the record, I'm against the Iraq War, we went there on false pretenses, overthrew the government because our initial purpose there was BS. Then we said we went there to fight against human rights violations, yet commited them all the while and made it possible for insurgents to commit them as well. Then after our dumbass president decided he knew more about managing a war than his generals and caused the loss of thousands of lives because of it. I'd say that if someone more competant were in charge we wouldn't be in this mess.

I just can't see how anyone could argue semantics when millions of people are dying and we have the power to help them.

I just can't see how anyone could argue semantics when millions of people are dying and we have the power to help them.

Not really.

What with our military stretched to the breaking point and our debt in the trillions.

Another important point I think you're getting at is the overall human cost. We have to be very careful to not do more harm by our action than would have occured by our inaction. Many would probably point to Iraq as a case of our actions doing more harm than good (for example by showing how we've killed more civilians than Saddam did while in office, or how we used his torture dungeons to torture people ourselves). Getting Iraqis the vote is a great idea, but these small gains compared to the instability and fear they have to live in, plus the loss of lives of our troops, was it really worth it? So not only do I think we need to regulate our philosophy of Just War, but a philosophy of "Just Occupation" as well (if such a thing is even permissable in the first place). I think Iraq has been a matter of ego as well. We were saying how "we'll go this alone, because we're the only ones who can get the job done" and then if we turn around and say "oh, oops, I guess we weren't cut out for the job after all, come bail us out" we look weak on the world stage, so other nations can say "See, I told you so." I'm all for national pride, but I think we should also admit our mistakes. National pride shouldn't trump the saving of human lives. We've wasted a lot of good people over there so far...

And the more Iraq because a quagmire, the more reluctant we'll be to enter into similar situations, even if we have the manpower and money to do so. We have to learn from our mistakes.

Do I really have to repeat myself? I said the UN, and part of their forces are our soldiers, and the rest are from other countries. Also, f*** the deficit. Even if we do owe that money, who's going to make us pay it? And, if we had someone who was qualified to handle the situation in the Middle East (i.e not kissing the Arab govenment's collective ass and doing whatever it takes to get oil), we'd probably have this situation handled in half the time.

Also, not everyone's military is "stretched to the breaking point", for the most part, the UN is just f***ing around because of antiquated laws, substituting politics for basic common sense.

Even if we do owe that money, who's going to make us pay it?

Communist China?

Was that in response to me, jmac7142? If so I must confess a few posts were made as I was posting, so maybe not... apologies for missing anything.

Communist China?
Ha. The consumer-based economy here being lost would sink the rest of the world into even more debt. We also don't owe China a hell of a lot, it's mostly to private corporations that manufacture our military hardware. And the fact that they're communist is irrelevant, "China?" would have done just fine.

You also don't seem aware of the fact that China could have collasped out economy at any time in the past 10-20 years, but hasn't.


***Edit***
@Kurgan-
It was directed at TK-8252, you just posted before I could submit my post.

Well if it's the UN handling the situation, that's fine. Your previous post made it sound like we should be going out and handling these situations on our own.

No, like I said before, our major export is ass kicking and we aren't too good at handling the aftermath of it.

The U.S. is an isolationist country. Allow me to give you a background.

*history lesson*

"Help Britain Protect America - Speed Production" WWII slogan


The truth is, we're concerned with saving our own asses.

Someone mentioned FDR and the Holocaust a few posts back. U.S. government actually refused to divert military units to the concentration camps because it would weaken the forward movement and stall the conflict.

Contrary to popular belief, the U.S. did not fly into WWI and WWII ready to fight for justice and peace and equality. We fought because it was necessary to save ourselves. The Neutrality Acts of 1935, 36, and 37 stipulated that until the President proclaimed war, no American could sail on a belligerent ship, or sell munitions, or make loans. Sure, we wanted to support the democracies, but we didn't want to be sucked into a war. The American people treated WWI as a huge mistake; one they didn't want to make again.

Only after France fell did the U.S. awaken and prepare for the worst case - war. Sept 6, 1940 - The first peacetime draft. The U.S. saw that Britain was the last democracy standing between Hitler, Mussolini and the U.S.

Thus came the Destroyer Deal - an "all aid short of war" type of assistance that allowed Britain 50 destroyers from WWI in exchange for eight defensive bases in the Western Hemisphere.

When more aid was required, Congress passed the Lend Lease Act, allowing Britain to borrow tanks, guns, etc and return them when the war was over.

Then Japan came. and Pearl Harbor happened.

Isolationist Senator Wheeler "The only thing left to do is lick the hell out of them."

Thus ends our history lesson. Point? U.S. protects its own interests.



Now, is it right? That's what we have to decide. I'm all for intervention and negotiation, but the U.S. should not be taking the brunt of the work. That's what the UN is for. I definitely feel that we should be contributing to speeding the end of the African problems, though.

I agree that the military is not a policing force, nor should it be. But I also believe that policing differs from aid.

Who to aid in a civil war, though... is a choice with deep political ramifications. Chances are you're going to do a bit more damage than needed. And what happens to the side you help win? They resent you. And as we all know... that ends well..

I love my apee history book.

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off. :p

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off. :p

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.
I have a question, just for clarification...

Where, exactly, is this alleged US empire? I get really tired of hearing about US imperialism...yet as far as I know, the US 'empire' is limited to the continental US, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico, plus several naval bases around the globe...but the US doesn't exert control over nations. We're not 19th Century England (http://xenohistorian.faithweb.com/worldhis/map27.gif). The US hasn't had any real imperialist policies since 1916, when they granted the Phillipines self-rule. Political pressure & foreign involvement does not constitute imperialism.

Here's an interesting wiki article on the subject...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire)

Thanks for the history lesson, Mike, I see your high school education really pays off.

But the U.S. certainly isn't isolationist anymore. The neo-con doctrine of imperialism (or "preemption" as they refer to it) has long destroyed the past policy of isolationism.

*college* AP History = college level course. :D :D

True that the U.S. government isn't isolationist. I will say that. (Go Iraq... yaaay)

Well, history aside, I stand behind my beliefs that U.S. should be helping, at the very least, through the UN.

I generally don't think that we should go into the midst of a civil war, that the civil war should sort itself out, but I don't like the prospect of millions of people being homeless, etc. I don't like the accusations of genocide being thrown around either...

If it's proven true that all this stuff really is happening, by all means the U.S. should send aid. If it's just a civil war... stay away from it I say.

Well, history aside, I stand behind my beliefs that U.S. should be helping, at the very least, through the UN.
I disagree with that, if only because the UN has proven itself to be an extremely incompetent organization. As I heard John Bolton say in an interview last week, about all they're good at is "writing nasty letters," and not much else. Nasty letters can be ignored, as was evidenced by year after year of ignored resolutions by Saddam.

As far as civil wars go, I agree that they should be ignored - if a third party comes in and resolves the situation, it doesn't really solve the problem that led to the war in the first place. I couldn't imagine it being very productive if France or Spain or England had intervened in the US civil war, because the underlying issues would still be there...but genocide is another matter entirely, and should be stopped. The fact that it's still going on, however, is more of an indictment of the UN's impotence than the US's, particularly the US military. The US military can accomplish pretty near any task put before it, but it's a military, not a police or peacekeeping force. Police and peacekeeping functions are not the mandate of the US military, and they shouldn't be. Those functions are more the purview of the UN (hence the UN Peacekeepers).

But the UN isn't really a government or nation, and doesn't have an army of its own or the power to intervene directly. The US, among other nations, has made sure that the UN has never been able to develop any real teeth.

By all means argue that everyone should "stay out of it", but don't try and put the blame/responsibility on the UN.

In the same way that some claim that the US (and other) governments only represent their own people, the Un only represents the views of it's "people". Those people being the governments of the US, Russia, China etc... non of whom want the UN to have any power or teeth or it's own army.

IMHO it would have been cheaper, quicker, simpler and more beneficial to the world (and the US within it?) to have stopped a few genocides in africa than it has been to deal with the messes in iraq, afganistan etc..

I'm not saying to place blame on the UN; I'm just saying that it's a world matter, thus, the world should deal.

And I know the U.S. pretty much put a lockdown on the UN and/or disregarded it (yay war in Iraq)

Agreed, U.S. should have intervened in more than a few genocides in Africa..

Only thing to do is not let this become genocide. And if it is, then we must stop it.

It'd be one of the times I'd agree with overriding the U.N. in world policing. (If the U.N. decided against aid, at least.)

^^^^
Agreed. Sometimes people need to just forget about international laws or whatever bureaucratic nonsense they come up with as an excuse to not do anything.

Only thing to do is not let this become genocide. And if it is, then we must stop it.

How could we POSSIBLY do that? We can't even stop guys in Iraq from shooting up the other guy's mosque. How the HELL are we going to stop African genocide??

The U.S. can't even fix its own problems at home, so what gives you the idea that it can fix a problem like the genocide going on in Africa? If you think Iraq is a mess, just wait until we **** with Africa.

^^^^
Iraq is the fault of the current administration. They've ignored all the advice of the generals who've advised them and it's shown. The problems here are almost all the fault of the current administration as well.

Whether I like it or not the US is pretty much the sole superpower in the world right now... and with that power it can do pretty much anything it likes.

It would be nice if it used that power to push for reform and improvement of the UN into something more potent... but all who have power, are reluctant to give it away.

Alternatively it could undermine and ignore the UN, but then in 25 or so years time once it is no longer the sole superpower it may regret that it didn't fix and strengthen the UN when it had the chance.

Imho the UN will never be perfect, but its our last, best chance for peace ;)

Go US!!!!
The UN has, and will continiue to, fail......

Go US!!!!
The UN has, and will continiue to, fail......
Sarcasm?

I don't like most of the things the UN has done, however they do sometimes resolve situations without violence. And I hope your "Go US!!!!" implies some limits on what we can and cannot do and not that we have free-roam of the world...

I'm constantly confused by the way the US/US citizens keep gloating about any UN failures.... does it somehow make people feel better about the US?

There is a (not entirely unsubstantiated) belief that the concept of the United Nations infringes on sovereignity with its only real excuse for doing so being some form of international consensous... Which is arguably a fairly weak excuse, if straight up consensous was always in force the Enlightenment would be dead.

To those who think we should just mind our own business let me say this: we were doing that, and what happened? The fight was brought to us. Leaving the rest of the world to kill themselves may seem like a simple solution, but it does not work. We must help the world to stabilize where we can, or the instability will affect us. The world is more interdependent than ever. What affects our neighbors affects us.

On the original topic of the impotence of the US military: our military is the strongest, best trained force in the history of the world. What is lacking is national resolve to use the military properly and to properly support it.

The fight was brought to us.

Indeed, which is why we should be hunting down Osama bin Laden and destroying al-Qaeda, not getting bogged down in entirely unrelated business in Iraq and say, Africa.

On the original topic of the impotence of the US military: our military is the strongest, best trained force in the history of the world. What is lacking is national resolve to use the military properly and to properly support it.

Agreed. Bush has not used the military properly nor has he supported it properly, what with having the military bogged down in Iraq when the military should be focused on hunting down bin Laden and al-Qaeda.

Look to Vietnam. There the vietcong had the help of the people, whon saw the US as an invader, not a freedom giver. That is what now happens in Irak. Lot of people say thay lived better with Saddam Husein, so they will help to attack those who fighted against their dictator. Having against the people, any army will be impotent against the insurgency or the terrorists.

What I mean is that if you donґt have the help of the people, you canґt fight against insurgents. Because those insurgents need the help of the civilians.

Win the hearts of the citizens of Irak and you will finish with the insurgents. Make those citizens live with good material conditions and you will finish with the insurgents. Help them really and you will finish with the insurgents.