Should the US be a watchdog of world affairs?

Yet we have suported many of these "cruel dictators." Reza Pahlavi and Saddam Hussein spring immediately to mind.

"A" not "the".

America has done a lot of good, they are not "the" watch dog, but "a" watch dog. And other "watch dogs" should exist both to assist in American efforts and to keep America itself in check.

America as the "watch dog" of world affairs? It is to laugh. The other countries of the world won't accept it, nor should they. No more than the US would accept some other country in this role.

Yeah, I agree with Craven that the United States can be "a" watchdog -- although quite honestly, the United States would do better to expend its resources getting our own house in order.

D'Artagnan it right, too. The rest of the world would not accept us in this role nor should they.

In any case, in our recent history, we've probably been a part of the problem more often than we've been a part of the solution.

The USA, and frankly every other country, will only "watch" what is in its own strategic and financial interests to watch, and will only intervene when these interests are threatened.
Nations do not behave in a "moral" way, as individuals like to think they, individuals, do.

You need only look as US treatment of Saddam, at different stages in his career. No morality. Pragmatism only. Hypocrisy, sure. But to a state, that's irrelevant, it seems.

Haha you wanna be watchdogs at all?
I mean there are a million reasons out there the US should be bombed until nothing is left of it...one single thing I want to mention here (trying to keep my blood plessure down): Last night I watched a tv show reporting of Guantanamo.
Those freaks called Americans are keeping about half a dozen kids there in a high-security prison!! One of them is as old as 13!!

No the US shouldn't be anything similar to a watchdog.
A modified UN should be the watchdog...that is a UN where all nations got at least almost equal rights and powers.

This would be the same U.N that put Lybia, Sudan and China on the U.N. Human Rights commission???

The U.N. that put Syria (a known sponsor of world terrorism) on the Security Council (the part of the U.N. that is supposed to lead the war against terrorism.)

No thanks. The U.N. is good at only one thing:

Racking up massive numbers of unpaid parking tickets in New York City.

Do you remember which country the actual leader of the UN is?
Have a look at the flag I suppose to be waving in your frontyard - that'll be the answer to my question.

And now that you got the answer think about where the responsible guys for the stuff you told before come from.

Just how much watching can America continue to do. The US$ is losing value against the UK£ & the Euro on a daily basis & has a shortage of jobs as well. Surely America needs some rebalancing therapy.

Indeed, oldandknew, starting right at the top. Which will happen, one hopes, next November...

The United States is as far from being the leader of the United Nation as I am from being the King of Spain.

The U.N has for many years been a bloated, overpaid, underworked sucking tick on the rear end of the world.

They lack the stomach to do anything of substantive value. (When confronted in a 'peacekeeping' stance they invariably back down and fail to get involved.)

All they seem to do is consume money and produce no actual value.

fedral ---- you hit the nail on the head. UN is all so much goody goody 2 shoes. The spoilt brat full of methane gas.

The United Nations is the last, best hope for this planet.

Chances are we have not yet fought our last great war -- and my guess is that the next one will be a doozy.

But if there is any chance of avoiding that war -- the United Nations will be instrumental in avoiding it.

Perhaps we are going to wipe ourselves out no matter what -- but if the United Nationos fails, we have no chance.

My guess is that the United Nations is the only reason the United States is being allowed to carry on as it is. Destroy the UN -- and every nation on this planet will bond in opposition to us.

Fedral's post is full of demonstratably false statements. But let's start with where he is right.

Yes, the US is not the leader of the UN. But Fedral ignores that the US did indeed create the UN, that it holds a permanent seat on the security council and that it is by far the nation that most exercises it's power in the UN (in terms of veto, in recent years).

So the rhetorical barb about the king of Spain is false. The US is, indeed, closer to being teh leader of the UN though it's actions and power than Fedral is of being King of Spain (note that I am operating on the assumption that Fedral has no power in Spain).

Next Fedral talks about beaurocratic inefficiency. He does not validate a single one of his statements nor does he put it in teh perspective of other beaurocratic issues (his comments about this could easily be used to describe many US government agencies) but let's just assume that's true so that we can move on to the real brainfart.



This is simply false. The UN does not "invariably back down" and if asked I can cite cases.



This is a typical comment from conservatives, what they neglect to state is that they credit nations like the US for UN actions.

For example, Iraqi demilitariztion (by this I speak of the fact that the US invasion was preceeded by Iraqi demilitarization) was a UN action that was enforced by military power led by the US.

This is a direct result of the UN. Despite the desire of conservatives to credit the US for their mere participation in the enforcement.

The UN gave the demilitarization order validity and the participation of most nations besides the US and the UK is predicated on said validity.

There is just one example, of how those sweeping "the UN has done nothing" arguments are patently false.

Now one can reasonably argue that they do not do enough, but to say they do nothing is absurd. Furthermore it's said only with militaristic actions in mind, nobody could argue that the UN has not had a drastic effect on the world with their charitable works.

What people liek Fedral fail to note is that teh UN is not a military, it's a place for arbitration.

So the all too common complaint that the UN is not out kicking asses is simply absurd, the purpose of the UN IS a "debate club" as some call it.

The action taken after the decisions are made is often divorced from the UN by people like Fedral and that's absurd.

It's like saying that because the court judges themselves do not go out and apprehend criminals they have no purpose.

What the criticism fails to note is that the arbitration is necessary and has saved countless lives through the mere existence of a forum for conflict resolution.

The UN has authorized military enforcement as well, but the militaristics simply credit the US for those acts simply on the basis of the US's predominant participation.

It's childlike and simplistic thinking, they fail to note that through UN resolutions other nations often foot the bill.

The US made a profit off teh first war with Iraq. And the nations that contributed did so under the auspice of the United Nations.

People like Fedral are really just complaining that the UN is not militaristic enough for their tastes. Their arguments that the UN serves no purpose are simply idiotic.

The United Nations itself has recently released reports documenting two of its worst stumbles. According to these confessions, U.N. peacekeepers in Rwanda stood by as Hutu slaughtered some 800,000 Tutsi. In Bosnia, the U.N. declared safe areas for Muslims but did nothing to secure them, letting the Serbs slaughter thousands in Srebrenica. The organization's meddling was worse than useless: its blue-helmeted troops were used as hostages by the Serbs to deter a military response from the West. Presumably, Secretary-General Kofi Annan -- who was head of the U.N.'s peacekeeping department at the time -- hopes that an institutional mea culpa now will wipe the slate clean and allow the organization to play a more vigorous role in the future.

So what cases are YOU going to cite Craven ?

no

For the purpose of simplicity I will let you have that. For the purpose of intellectual honesty I will state that it in no way supports your assertions that the UN has done nothing.

LEt's examine your logic. You used an absolutism. To support your statement you will have to demonstrate that not once has the UN acted and that not once has the UN proved worth while.

To disprove those statements only one example of the UN not "backing down" from military action and only one example of the UN being worth while is needed. You can still argue that it isn't enough but you will still have to back down from your earlier, absolute, statements.



I'll pick an easy one. Iraq/ Kuwait. The UN did not "back down" and the UN did not "fail to get involved".

This renders your earlier comment that the UN "invariably back(s) down and fail(s) to get involved" demonstratably false.

And if you want another example for the purpose of disproving your absolutism that they have done nothing worthwhile then I'll cite a recent one with their disaster relief in Iran.

You might want to add the disarmament of Iraq (WMDs) to the list. that is also to their credit (and to the nations that enforced it).

You might also note that when you said they "consume money" you failed to note that often they provide the money for the US to engage in the militarism you admire.

Again, for example, the UN sanctioned war with Iraq (the first one) was one that did not cost the US a dime, as we were paid back in full and in excess.

In short, I will repeat that your following assertions are false.





Now sure, they are not militaristic enough for your tastes, and yes you may think that something of "substantive value" is something like invading a nation.

But the millions of lives saved by the UN are of "substantive value" to their owners. One does not have to look far to find the,. I cited the most recent example in Bam.

The Korean War comes to mind, as well . . .

Appreciated
Thank you for taking the time to counter Federal's absurd pronouncements.