Actually, I could not care less if others help us or not.  And it probably is not the reason you expect.

To me, this is a perfect reason why the UN should get involved.  But as I have said in here before, the UN is an impotant organization.  They will issue statements and condemnations and sanctions, but they will not actually do anything.

And on the occasions where they do something, it is half-assed and poorly done.  Then at the first hint of resistance, they pull out and run away.

I wish the UN would take it's goals seriously, and step into areas like Iraq, Afganistan, Somalia, Syria, Rwanda, and other such places.  Sadly, unless somebody else "takes command", the UN will not get involved.  And even then, the UN does little but stand there and watch if the "take charge" forces get slapped around.

This just shows me more and more how apathetic the world truely is.


Ok, so the UN is a bit inept.  Does that mean that the US should be the world's policeman?  By who's authority and under who's oversight?  Our own?  Isn't that like asking the fox to guard the hen house?  On the other hand, I understand that some times intervention is necessary.  One of my problems with unilateral US intervention is that we are so lousy at it, and those chickens always come home to roost, to our disadvantage, like in Iran and the CIA's first successful covert operation - the Shah - which got us to the Iran we have today.  I suspect the Middle East would be vastly different today had we not engineered ther overthrow of Mosadeck.