ok so the middle east cant deal with its self. so who should rule it for world peace?

Question

there seesm to be sovereign countries that have religious problems with other countries
and seek there destruction.no one has found a way to regulate the violence in a few of them,so once world peace is threatned no one country should be allowed to take it over or attack it. if it attackes and the un steps in. whom would have the most experience in controlling the disorderly countries. but then as free societies we have to wait till they actually do something against world peace to do it dont we.
where is the resolution on action towards this means if it is attempted to avoid a total free for all world war,and then who oversees the process.
in simple terms if iran does try to totally destroy israel through nuc means. the world will have no choice but step in or fight a total world war among many countries.
a resolution between the main nations of the un may off set the action of the smaller ones.to thios end if it is done and the un sends in force to stop the violence.

Answer 1

Me, choose me......or my little girl Fluffy.

Answer 2

The solution to the problems in the Middle East is self-evident.
A. The creation of Israel, (against the will and wishes of other Middle Eastern countries) is the main issue in the Middle East.
This is the common denominator for most of the dissatisfaction in the region, and anybody who doesn't recognise this is an ostrich. To 'dismantle' Israel now is not possible without a lot of carnage and slaughter, (they have a 'nuclear capacity' remember?) so Israel MUST be forced to seek some kind of 'acceptance' in the region. Israel must be made to apply its superior technology and skills to the 'betterment' of the region, not its destruction.
B. As for Iraq, it must be split into three autonomous regions, (Kurds, Sunni and Shiite) with the distribution of income from oil done in a fair way. The creation of Iraq as it is today is another failed 'experiment' by European bureaucrats who didn't know much of the history of the region. Only a total and ruthless dictator like Saddam could effectively rule and 'unite' Iraq, under a 'democratic system' there will always be strife and dissension.
C. Iran must be allowed to have nuclear 'power', but not nuclear 'capability'. (Nuclear power plants not nuclear weapons) This is what they say they want, and they have a perfect 'right' to have it. This 'right' will have to be strictly monitored to assure that they don't try to acquire nuclear weapons.
D. To my way of thinking, Pakistan seems to be the 'main instigator' in the region. They pretend to be our allies, but at the same time offer refuge to loonies in their country. These 'guests' they protect in their northern regions are the real danger to the West, and must be eliminated, by force if neccessary. Pakistan is the nunber one enemy of the West. (A real wolf in sheep's clothing)

Answer 3

If a region doesn't want peace, peace cannot be enforced upon it.

Tyrants can try, but all that does is limit the violence to what the tyrant regime must do to keep everyone else in line.

And we've seen how effective UN peace-keeping forces or US nation-building missions have been at stopping violence.

The only real solution is to bottle up those who hate and try to limit their ability to harm anyone else. But that still is using force and violence, which only breeds more hatred and violence.

Answer 4

There are some smart leaders in the region who don't want any more messes. Don't blame the "nomal" countries over there for the radical terrorists in the other countries. Yes, Iran, Iraq and Syria are all troublemakers, but those are only a few of the countries over there.

Answer 5

the international players have already entered the mid east region and wrecked its peace... how can they pullout now? its their responsibility to bring peace to the region...

Answer 6

It's imperial to me, I can insure you!!!!