SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Policy Discussion Thread

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: zonder who wrote (4894)3/3/2003 8:24:11 AM
From: Brumar89  Read Replies (1) of 15987
 
The problem is that the US is the only country which can exercise force sufficient to enforce international law and order. Gulf War I was a UN authorized war. Many nations contributed some small token, irrelevant force. But only one nation was essential. That war was authorized by the UN but fought by the US. The other nations in the international coalition combined would not and probably could not have liberated Kuwait by themselves.

Should the US not have a pre-eminent leadership role given the military facts of life?

The fact is we live in a world with only one superpower, the US. And BTW the whole world is actually pretty damn lucky that is the case.

All the talk about the UN and international law and the view of the US as just another country like say France or Canada. The reality is the UN is something the US created. I'm not entirely sure it was a good idea. It seems to lead people to think unrealistically. Without the US, there would be no effective institution called the UN - pretending for a moment it is an effective institution.

Law and order within a country exist only because someone enforces it. And the same thing is true on an international level. I see only one potential enforcer of international law and order and it isn't the UN.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext