Barkey and other American soldiers are in Iraq trying to help Iraqis and they do the best that they can. That doesn't change statistics of the number of deaths and refugees. They're pulling out now but lacking international support was one of the point of failures in holding Iraq stable after Saddam was toppled. Without Europeans or other groups to assist in rebuilding, there was a lot more violence due to insurgency because of the lack of legitimacy in the government (plus money, as rich as America is, having others footing the bill with you is a lot easier). It's easy for them to paint it as pure American imperialism when they took unilateral action, against the wishes of the UN, to press into the country.
I named off the 5 powers that have veto strength in the UNSC because that's what matters. Germany can talk really loudly but France can still veto them.
MAD has a deterrence effect on large scale war but nothing on low-scale war. The number of deaths due to war dropped significantly after the fall of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. No more proxy wars, means less wars. If you didn't have a Cold War at all, we'd have a much better time today. A lot of the conflicts that America is embroiled in right now are direct effects of the Cold War. For instance, American soldiers in Afghanistan are only there because the CIA were told to support the mujahadeen, the precursor elements to the groups we're fighting today.
The UN today deploys tens of thousands of peacekeepers. You state they do nothing. How many does your nation deploy? Really you should be asking why your government is doing nothing. Ten thousand from Nepal. Ten thousand from Pakistan. Ten thousand from India. Ten thousand from Bangledesh. America deploys 300 non-combat personnel.
edited 27th Jan '11 11:23:12 PM by breadloaf
Well you are also the richest country in the world. By proportion, USA contributes far less than other countries, especially Japan. In terms of troop contributions, you wouldn't be in those wars if you didn't go against the wishes of the UN, so that's not a valid excuse. You don't contribute to peacekeeping but you state that it is because you're going to war? That's the defence? You're busy making war so you can't help out peace operations?
You give about 2x as much as Japan, and around 7x Canada, which doesn't line up with GDP size. So either we're overcontributing, or you're undercontributing. Either way, overall, USA isn't doing it's fair share of the work. Don't get me started on Russia.
Predictably, I agree with breadloaf. Although I'm anticipating that some people would like to argue that it's unfair to expect countries to provide support relative to their size and power, I feel like the focus on the US being "the largest financial contributor" is an diversion from the real issue.
As a Security Council member, the US' lack of (popular/political) support for the UN and our complete reluctance to support the UN taking action on anything is measure of responsibility that should have nothing to do with how much money we contribute, and is the real source of the problem. The same is true of each of the other permanent UNSC members, and I'm of the opinion that, put together, those five are what make the system dysfunctional. You can't have a democratic system in which five members have independent veto power, because it results in a lack of faith in the system itself.
GM: AGOG S4 & F/WC RP; Co-GM: TABA, SOTR, UUA RP; Sub-GM: TTS RP. I have brought peace, freedom, justice, and security to my new Empire.If the UN pulled its head out of its ass and did something we wouldn't to be there in the first place.
Fact of the matter is we provide the majority of the funding, we also send large amounts of gear and other support. Our troops are bit tied down in case most of you have forgotten with with the recent conflicts which have dragged on because the U.N. refused to take any meaningful action. The U.N. drags when something needs done so we step up to do it for them in a lot of cases.
Mogadishu: U.S. Marines quelled the region and made sure food and supplies were distributed not the U.N. A lot times the U.S. lends its active resources to the U.N. on as needed basis. Kosovo and Serbia conflict comes to mind. U.S. Naval and Air support. Your welcome. U.S. is helping patrol the coast of Africa your welcome.
The U.N. spends more time twiddling it's thumbs and arguing then acting. They were created to act when action was needed not bicker constantly.
edited 28th Jan '11 3:18:28 PM by TuefelHundenIV
Who watches the watchmen?> They were created to act when action was needed not bicker constantly.
UN Created to act when its member AGREE to act
read breadloaf comment
many times UN failed to act because one of its member refuse to act,
China defending Burma, islamic nation defending Sudan, France participates in Rwanda, US keeps blind eye on Kurds Genocide and East Timor, etc ![]()
and Peacekeeper are only small part of the UN
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialized_agencies

I dont like the idea of the world becoming "Every country for themselves."
I dont know the exact reasons, but it scares me. Maybe I dont like the idea of America going even more gung-ho into 'world police'.
We cant even keep our own shit in gear.