[aaras]

What are your views on the peacekeeping operations? Do u believe it really brings peace? Or the opposite? What about its sideeffects like when india and the us sent peacekeeping troops to Sri lanka to stop the tamil tigers as reveange they ended up killing indrah Gandhi?

[fredg]

Hi, aaras,
At some point in time, the United State of America will have to stop trying to be the "peace-keepers" of the World. We just don't have enough money to do it.
America is fast becoming the Second greatest economy (NOT the first, as we are now) in the World. China will be First. You don't see China sending troops all over the world, and spending the rest of their lives there.
It reminds me of the old "Star Trek" episodes. They would intervene in other Worlds' issues, then leave. The only difference is, American troops don't leave! It costs money, money and more money; that we will not continue to be able to afford.
Keeping Peace should be up to any particular country, not America. Know how long American troops will be staying in Iraq? Some forever!
Best wishes.

[ScottGem]

Hi, aaras,
At some point in time, the United State of America will have to stop trying to be the "peace-keepers" of the World. We just don't have enough money to do it.
America is fast becoming the Second greatest economy (NOT the first, as we are now) in the World. China will be First. You don't see China sending troops all over the world, and spending the rest of their lives there.
It reminds me of the old "Star Trek" episodes. They would intervene in other Worlds' issues, then leave. The only difference is, American troops don't leave! It costs money, money and more money; that we will not continue to be able to afford.
Keeping Peace should be up to any particular country, not America. Know how long American troops will be staying in Iraq?? Some forever!
Best wishes.

What an isolationist point of view! Such a view may have been applicable in the 19th century, when transportation and communication were not where they are now. But no country, not even China, can remain aloof from international affairs.

However, I agree that peackeeping is not solely the province of the US. It should be the province of the United Nations.

As for China becoming the "greatest" economy, that is open for debate. Its true that China, as it westernizes its economy to a greater extent, is growing. But China is a very different entity then the US. One really has to define what is meant by "greatest" in this context.

In response to the original question, its unfortunate that terrorism has become such a weapon in today's climate. When a small group can hold a much larger group hostage, as has been done, we have to change the way we deal with it. I wish I had answer (I'd win the Nobel Peace Prize). But the answer is not to ignore atrocities like genocide.

[NeedKarma]

The UN should be the ones charged with quashing crimes against humanity, sadly it's ineffective. The US does indeed stick their noses into the business of others for the wrong reasons. A new generation of Americans needs to arise with a goal of healing the US and working on bettering their relationship with the rest of the world so the US will be viewed with less disdain. Unfortunately it won't this upcoming generation so full of delusions of self-entitlement.

[aaras]

But don't you think the US has an ulterior motive? Don't you think somehow this works best for their intreset? Do u feel peacekeeping is effective?

[ScottGem]

But don't you think the US has an ulterior motive? Dont you think somehow this works best for their intreset? Do u feel peacekeeping is effective?

What do YOU think the US's ulterior motives might be? Obviously you seem to think there are some. I'm not saying there aren't. Nor will I say that any actions are taken that are not in the US's best interests. But just because we might have some other reasons for taking some action, doesn't mean we aren't doing it to promote peace.

[aaras]

That's what I don't know

[phillysteakandcheese]

The United States doesn't do any significant peacekeeping in the manner that United Nations Peacekeepers do.

From: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/ .
Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, are the top three troop contributors to UN Peacekeeping forces. The latest report says there were a total of 312 US troops committed to UN Peacekeeping... #34 on the list - between Togo and Rwanda. (May 2006).

The US military is a stabilizing force in the world, but recent US military operations have nothing to do with world peacekeeping.

[ScottGem]

Thats what i dont know

I didn't ask you what you "know", I asked you what you THINK! You clearly have some thoughts on this. So tell us and then we may be able to tell you whether your thoughts have merit or not.

[aaras]

Neocolonialisim that's what peacekeeping is!

[ScottGem]

Ok. Lets approach this. When an outside entity sends troops into a country its usually one of two things. Its either an invasion, or its by request of the established government to help.

As I said in a previous response, the world is much more interconnected then ever before. Communications has loosened or removed a lot of boundaries that previously existed. Countries don't exist in a vacuum.

If a peacekeeping force is invited into a country, its usually because that country can't afford the cost of its own force.

Is this neocolonialsm? It may be, depending on how you define it. The entity providing the troops does exercise some influence over the presiding government. But, I point out again, that the force was invited in to support the government so it remains in place.