Is the United States Really an "International Peacekeeper"?

I want the public's opinion.

 

In reality, it tries to be.

However I'm not sure what kind of answer you want to illicit.


America tries to solve all the worlds problems, when most of the worlds problems root from America.

 

this sums it up pretty well.

If you have not already, watch the movie "Team America".

that does a good job of explaining it

 

Define "solve" in this context, America does absolutely nothing unless they stand to gain something from the situation.

Prime examples- Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya all countries rich in oil and other natural substances. Think of all the countries in the world at the moment who have dictatorships and have had so for a very long time which America refuse to interfere with them.

Peacekeepers, definatley not. A very smart and calculating country.

 

You just admitted that they do, do something. While it may not be out of purely altruistic motives, doesn't mean they don't do anything, which you've just inferred that they do.

Iraq and Afghanistan was the war under false pretenses for God knows what.
Libya, America was merely a spectator in the decision making process, with France leading it (I think it was France).

List 6 examples please of dictatorships that America has turned a blind eye to, wherein the people are uprising against their leader. Use Libya as a scale.

Does that mean peace keepers can only reside from dumb and uncalculating countries?

 

First point, I admitted they did something, correct, I never stated whether those actions were right or wrong. Just because a country acts that does not make it right, especially when those actions are primarily money orientated without the best interest of the people they are supposedly "protecting".

Second point, merely a spectator? Does that make it ok? They are still a big part of the mission and inevitabley will be involved without any doubt.
- http://www.planetrulers.com/current-dictators/
Palestine, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain are just a couple of examples where the people have uprised against governments yet no intervention by US forces.

Have a look for yourself at the amount of the countries that are governed by dictators many of whom have shocking records against human rights. Yet I don't see much action being taken by US forces?

Your last point, I don't really know how to respond to that. They're job is to keep the peace, they shouldn't be recieving any financial gain out of it, that's what I'm trying to say. The US are painting a picture of peacekeepers when in reality they are only there for their own financial gain.

 

An active attempt is better than no attempt.
You've clearly accepted the hidden premise that there IS a problem, and the US IS trying to fix it.

They have no choice but to be involved, it's the UN committee.

China is not a dictatorship as such, and therefore I'll discredit that website. There is no sole dictator in China.

http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/31987.pdf

The US is so over extended that it cannot account for all the worlds problems.

So peace keepers are only there for their own pockets?


I'm not going to defend the US, they cause many of the worlds issues, as well as try to prevent some. However everyone looks to the US specifically in regards with the UN as the 'International Peacekeeper' as such.
Also, whats so wrong with money being a motive?

 

Question is, if there was no money or no "self-benefit" would the US bother helping anyone at all?

And the only reason people look to the US for help is because of their economy and military might.

 

You guys are focusing to much on the military side of things while neglecting the economic aid side of it.

Remember that the only reason why Europe has a half-way decent standard of living is because of a little aid package called the Marshall Plan that was given to them by the US right after WW2.

The fact is that many nations would simply collapse or not exist at all if it wasn't for the generosity of America.

 

What so your admitting that they only get involved in situations where they seem to profit or gain advantage? Seeing as that's the only time I see them intervening.

How is China not a dictatorship?! They have an undemocratic regime where the population of the country do not get to decide who runs it.

You never adressed the countries that I stated above, like you asked for? I'll take that as an acceptance that those were countries which America could not profit via and therefore did not bother to "peace keep".

What's wrong with money being a motive?!

The fact that I stated above, there are places such as Palestine which are screaming out for international help and condemnation of the Isreali action against them. Yet they do not recieve help why? Should a country simply be first in line to recieve help because the US or any other peace keeping force believe it will financialy benefit them? That's a shocking attitude to have.

That's a whole different arguement/debate, if you want to start issue regarding the economic help of America then begin a new thread. This one is about "peace keeping".

 

International Peacekeeper? No. Regulator? Yes.

The US hasn't been keeping peace lately, instead we've been provoking other countries..

 

We are international idiots at this point, all we do lately is piss of other countries and expect them not to care, one day someone will stand up and do something about it. And it will not be a small oil filled country.

 

Theres been many arguments at the UN meetings about the US defying rules and laws made to keep peace. Small countries receive help from countries like China but are kept secret. I believe we're on the brink of a huge war honestly.

 

I'm sure they have good intentions, but it's not our job to police the world. We simply can't afford all of the foreign policy, and global policing we've been doing. Countries can defend for themselves, they don't need Americans to do it for them, and Americans need to worry about themselves first.

 

I believe Isreal is, because their far worse then US lol.

 

It was NATO, which the United States is apart of.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace

America only creates violent conflicts. How in the hell is peace suppose to be an end to a mean such as violence. I honestly can't believe any sane human being can think that way.

 

How can you create peace with violence? It's such an illogical sollution to the problem.

Also, the US only "keeps peace" if there is financial gain for them there. You ask what's wrong with that. What is right about it? You shouldn't be offered support just because you can pawn off some of your natural resources.

Also, America has done some very shady things in the past. Such as funding the Afghans with money when the soviets invaded.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_–_Osama_bin_Laden_controversy

How can they be seen to be keeping peace when they do things such as this?

 

If the US was truly a peacekeeping nation then they would intervene with certain atrocities that would bring them no profit such as the Rwanda genocide or other African civil wars.

The US only acts when there is money to be made, almost specifically in regards to oil.

 

Exactly what I'm saying!

 

Do they? Maybe in some cases. So what? At least they do something.

You don't know what a dictatorship means.

Hardly, I stated that the US does not help all countries, however, look at the amount of money they give for as International Aid. Is it some sort of investment I'm missing?

Money is the primary motive for most western civilians. Theres nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

It's human nature.
Is it perceptually wrong? Sure, but it's what we as humans do, it's inbuilt in our physiological process.