Quote:
Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45
Yes, they are my opinions but it goes deeper than what we've said. I never said we should go to other countries without that country's consent (I'll go more into that later). If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on. You scratch their back and they will scratch ours. The biggest problem is that these "peacekeeping" missions are used much more frequently then needed. Peacekeeping missions should only be used when both groups will work and sacrifice to begin and keep peace. These situations are rare but they do show up.
The second situation is true one-sided genocide, when one group takes complete control of another and starts methodically murdering them. The oppressed group wants help but there is nothing they can do to stop it. Even though this is obviously opinion, I think it is the UN's responsibility (note I didn't say US) to step in and put an end to it.
You don't have to have a higher authority to do either of those. Both times an outside source is asking for help, not where we say they need help.
|
Please tell me of a historical situation, esp one in the case where the world knows that there is a genocide, and both sides want us to come in and keep peace by force?
"If two countries think they need help keeping peace then we should go help them because they can help us later on." In fact the opposit is more true. One side wants our help and we believe that we should help them because we have current or future interests in the region. This is one aspect of power projection used by every government in the world.