If America is the only nation to prosecute a war by the Geneva accord is it time to discard it?
539969
my thought on this is simple\n\nwe fight no war against any one who would follow such rules for if they follow such rules they would follow whatever the united nations requires them to do to avoid war\n\nbut for us to avoid following those rules, it would put my brothers and sisters in the military, because it would lower the standard that the world would follow, and they would presume that in going to war with america that they themselves could act as animals\n\nwe must set the highest standard of contact,\n\nbut on this note i have a few rules, what i call the rules i learned from listening to imus\n\nits called 1. do what you got to do, 2. don't take pictures, and 3. call it a day\n\nso wether its getting information from a person in cuba or me cheating on my wife, \n\ndo what i got to do\ndont take pictures\ncall it a day\n\ndo you see what im saying
984604
Currently the type of war{s} the USA is involved in can bankrupt the entire world.\nWhy?\nBecause the U.S. dollar is the worlds currency of choice, since the 1944 Bret-ton Woods New Hampshire agreement.\n\nIf and when other countries choose to use other types of money for international payments, the eventual ramifications could//would have severe consequences in the USA in the form of a depression. Many countries worldwide are apparently now opposing the U.S.perpetual war policies. \n\nAlso, since average American wages have lagged far behind the rising costs of home ownership or rental expenses it is exceedingly more difficult for the middle class American families to raise their standard of living.
453924
Educate yourself on this issue. You will find that you are wrong. It is up to the United Nations Security Council, not America.\n\nI am American and I don't want war or nukes. I also don't want to be blamed for the actions of the security system set up by the global powers.
232308
A better question would be to ask why the government of the United States sends the US military into other countries in peacekeeping roles (Bosnia, for example) while the countries in the area - who's own best interests would be served by not having their neighbor self-destruct - do nothing.
1160785
Honestly, Im dying to leave myself.  The US is becoming very hated by the rest of the world and it's getting kinda scary living here.  The government has completly ruined our relationship with anywhere outside the US.  By killing innocent people...the US has build up some very bad Karma...and sooner or later we will pay for what Bush has done and continues to do.
172323
Proves that the U.S. is nothing but a rogue state, and a threat to the world. The U.N. needs to be as tough on the U.S. as has been with other rogue states. The U.S. NEEDS to be punished for all ill it has done.
996981
The US government's foreign policy dictates that democracy be spread around the world.  The World Court did try and hold the US for war crimes.  The US told the world court to 'stick it'.  I believe it was Colin Powell they wanted to try.\n\nIf you don't like democracy.  Good for you.  Just stay out of the US.  Thank you.
279436
The United States has been reducing its nuclear arsenal since signing the Moscow Treaty of 2002.  This treaty was signed by Vladimir Putin (President of Russia), and the guy you don't seem to think is doing anything, George W. Bush.  Oh, and by the way, the treaty was written, in part, by the Bush administration, which I am guessing you won't like either.\n\nHere's the problem:  as long as other nationstates have nuclear weapons, how can we completely eliminate them?  If we don't have them, the rest of the world will stop looking to us as the global super-power we are.  We would also leave ourselves vulnerable to nuclear attack.\n\nThe US has been much maligned in it current efforts to help curtail terrorizism in Iraq, but where was all the dissention during WWII, or WWI or Korea?  That's right, everyone kept their mouths shut because they knew we were neccessary to help stop the spread of tyranny and murder.\n\nLet me ask you this:  if the US had engaged in WWII earlier, would lives have been saved?  You bet your butt they would have been.  This is what we are doing in the war on terrorism.  We are taking the fight to them before they can (again) take the fight to others.\n\nSlam the US and the President all you want but He and we are necessary, and if we don't do it, no one else will.  I guess this is the price you pay for trying to help.
1002821
Very well thought out question.  I commend you for putting some brainpower around framing the question.\n\nThe answer, in my humble opinion, is complex and multi-dimensional.\n\nLet's start with the underlying intent of your question which is really whether the USA has a MORAL obligation to work with the United Nations to prevent the collapse of third-world states.\n\nThe preliminary and qualified answer is; "NO"; the USA is not morally obligated to save poorly governed states.  At least not by virtue of being a world superpower nor by virtue of having the means to resolve violent conflict with powerful military.\n\nNor is it always best served to promote its' self-interest by working with an amorally neutral world organization such as the United Nations which cloys to its' own narrow ambitions and realities of global politics.  Remember, this is the same organization that put Cuba and Libya in the chairman's seat of their Human Rights Commission.  And as the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown, no less susceptible to corruption.  Generally, it is not wise to put American lives in the hands of such people (the Kuwaiti liberation, certainly being a notable exception).\n\nBut here are some hard realities...\n\nLawless states are prime breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists to grow and strengthen their organizations.  This is as true in the day of the Barbary Pirates as it is with Al Qaeda today.  Afghanistan and Iraq stand as certainties on this model.  Sudan and Somalia qualify as well.\n\nBy ignoring these situations, we do so at our peril and national self-interest and security.  It is a truism, that democratic states are more peaceful than despotic ones.  The great democracies of the world evolved from values generated during the Enlightenment which threw off the tyranny of religious and the rule of monarchs.  In general, we refer to these as Western values.  India, Japan and South Korea are "eastern" countries which have successfully embraced Western values.\n\nFor third-world peoples to overcome the plight, they must be willing to embrace Western values and willing to make great sacrifice for them.  Sending in troops can only serve to keep the peace temporarily until there is a national resolve and interest in succeeding as a nation-state. \n\nThe reality is that many small third world nations cannot expect help from the West unless it is in the national interests of their own countries.  Iraq gets focus because of oil; while Darfur suffers further.  Rwanda and the Hungarian Rebellion were great moral failings of the West and the United States.\n\nThe US can't fix everything and should focus on its' national interest and security, but it should be willing to help when others are willing to make the same moral sacrifice.
1018947
No.  I've got nothing against either country - I'm just getting tired of US soldiers being sent to bail out other countries.  Our soldiers die and the US gets nothing but criticized.
834540
If I can say this loosely, retaliation (or vengeance) when standardized justifies those who carry it out. They are not guilty in any way. So after this, anyone who retaliates is unlawful. Which legalizes their condemnation.\nThere must be some way for society to see the civilized end to a conflict. If not-there can be war. I know of no war that was not the result of someone not yielding to some standard of conflict resolution that would be fair to all.
678103
not sure i agree 100%,  taliban was a threat to world peace,  there were un resolutions authorizing use of force,  but we did botch up iraq and should have turned authority over to UN a lot more then we have, but it wasnt imperalistic since there was "some" legal basis.\n\nim not a lawyer of world law but just you know, jim darwin, opinion like a0hole ive got one
448322
I would stop trying by different ways 2 establish USA as the only power in the world by making treaties with other countries .id stop betraying other countries askin others to stop warfare but continuing secret weaponery making. I would lend a helping hand to countries for imports n exports\nTHUS TRYING TO MAKE A PEACEFUL,AND A BETTER PLACE 2 LIVE IN.\n(NOTE:im not tryin 2 point out bush)
601080
Well, there's two ways of looking at it.\nFirstly, as you say, in an increasingly globalized world no nation--no matter how powerful or wealthy--can afford to be selfish or motivated by narrow, self-centered interests. Thus, the USA too must adapt to the new realities and requirements of this age. It must strive to be more friendly and sympathetic towards other nations and generally develop a more positive attitude in its dealings with the rest of the world.\nThe other aspect is, that all nations have their own interests at stake, ultimately. And the USA also has its interests to watch and protect. But even if this is the case, it doesnt mean that it can ride rough-shod over other nations and interfere indiscriminately in their affairs.\n There is a dire need for it to strike the right balance between (a) national self-interest and (b) global needs, concerns and relations.\nIf the US wants to play a greater, more responsible role in world politics, it should do so with legitimacy i.e., by being a part of international organizations and acting in concord with them not by trying to usurp the role of the UN or other, similar agencies.
436172
No.\n\nThe US can do it to itself.
1071384
I doubt it, the USA have proven time and again they are rubbish at fighting wars. All they do is throw money and youngster lives away for nothing.....\nThey haven't managed a decent result since WWII and that was because they picked the right team to play with.
1024581
No, especially when the US is no longer in the tournament.