George, Of The Jungle Wrote:The UN is just an arm of US foreign policy, you can't do squat in the UN without the US agreeing. I'm not only talking about the voting system in the Security Council, you should see what happens 'behind the scenes'. The US is the empire of this age, just like the Roman Empire was at one point. You could compare the current world system, with the UN and NATO (dominated by the US) with the Metternich system of the Austrian Empire.
It may be fucked up that it is all this calculated and cold but that's just the way it is. I'd rather live in a world dominated by the US than in one dominated by Saudi Arabia, but that's just maybe because I live in Belgium and the 'US collateral damage' doesn't affect me.



Don't know, is a strong military involvement the best option in those cases? Half warm commitments like in Rwanda or Bosnia (Srebrenica) are a terrible option. If you don't have a strong mandate, your opponents will know and exploit that and it usually makes things worse (think about Syria). On the other hand you could commit yourself to a big military operation. But are you gonna put out every fire in the world (Darfur, Congo, Rwanda, Yugoslavia,...) with an operation that costs a lot of money, effort and lives? Are you gonna free every country of its oppressive leaders (too much to name) ? It just doesn't seem possible. Those politicians are not 'pure evil', most of them care (there are exceptions), but they can only commit to 'save people' when their country has something to gain as well.

That fact is that the US got involved in Yugoslavia because it was an opportunity to get influence in that area, after years of domination of the USSR. Russia was weak in that area in the 90's so they took the chance.
They didn't got involved in Darfur because it was something they saw too risky with few advantages.
Etc, etc...


And about Ron Paul's foreign policy ideas. His ideas about a defensive postion for the US are a big break with current policy. The US tried that after WWI. What happened? End thirties Germany and Japan were on the brink of 'taking over the world', and the US got involved. If the US would abbandon its involvement in the Western Pacific and the Middle East, there are other countries ready to take their place. And believe me, human rights won't be their first priority. Would the US like to lose its number one position and to get pushed around on several issues? I'd like to see that.

Don't get me wrong, excesses must be strongly criticised, otherwise power rolls over everyone. But it's not as simple as it seems.

And what exactly happens "Behind the Scenes" ? I've been doing Model United Nations for 5 years and am very aware that most of the funds that get allocated in the UN originates from the US and therefore that gives them a very easy bargaining position but I don't think they are running the show as much as you are entailing. NATO, on the other hand, yes.

And involvement in the Rwanda genocide was definitely justified but never happened. I asked the exact same rhetorical questions you asked on the first page.

Comparing the world today to the world post-WWI is quite a leap imo. I can't think of any other country that would "take its place" like you are saying except maybe China.