Why don't the USA let NATO and the UN police the world?

Question

After all isnt it the UN and NATOs job,just a thought what do you
think.

defendaro-didnt the USA break international
law when they invaded iraq?how quickly
you forget.

Answer 1

It is for a number of reasons; there are many political, economic, religious, and social events that get the US involved in many of the conflicts going on in the world today.

Answer 2

NATO has a specific mission that doesn't really exist outside of Europe. That has expanded some with the expansion of NATO into the former eastern bloc but it is still not a worldwide force.

Because the UN is almost inert. They are doing good if they can get one brigade somewhere and quite often those forces come with no teeth. Look at some of what they did in the Balkans where they just stood by and watched people get butchered. Look at the UNs lack of action in Africa. If the UN wanted to they could vote to take action to stop the murder in Africa but they can't get coordinated enough to do anything. The UN exists a lot more to serve the rich lifestyles of the diplomats than to do any effective.

The United States military is the only military in the world that can deploy and support a large force anywhere on the globe.

Answer 3

Sometimes people ask questions they don't really want to hear the answer for. This is one of those questions. Most appropriately, this question should be asked to George Bush Sr.

George Bush Sr. had a long term as US Ambassador to the UN. As a bigoted racist and well known philanderer Sr. had no time for the UN and went about emasculating the oganization at every turn. This included refusing to pay dues or contribute any other funding. No funds from a major player severely restricted the operational capability of the UN.

George Bush Sr's negative impact on the UN still restricts its capabilities to this day.

Ask a few simple questions:

1. Why didn't the US stop the genocide in Rwanda?
2. Why aren't the US stopping the genocide in Darfur?
3. Why did the US send troops into Somalia?

Discover the true answers to those questions and you will learn much that you really don't want to know about American global politics.

In the end, its all about the money. If the American public wants a functional and capable UN, pay your dues.


... and for VICTOR ... you really need to read a little bit of global political history. A few examples of UN success without US intervention:

1. The Egypt Crisis
2 .Cyprus
3. The Congo

The Egypt Crisis started the UN's reputation for peace keeping and that came about by the efforts of the Canadian Prime Minister of the day: Lester B. Pearson. Pearson won a Nobel prize for peace for his efforts on the world stage.

Any that come to mind where the US intervened got mired down:

1. Korea
2. Yugoslavia
3. Iraq

The only US President that I can think of that won a Nobel Prize is Jimmy Carter, and that came after his time as President for his work with Homes for Humanity.

Answer 4

They do such a rotten job in the UN by taking any stand to defend anything. Examples of "oil for food " in Iraq. That went well didn't it. The goals of the UN does very seldom equal the goals of the USA. In fact, it usually is in a opposite direction against the USA. Maybe with a new leadership in the UN, we will have a more acceptance to Freedom in the worlds. As far as NATO, they are the controlling force in Afghanistan right now.

Answer 5

NATO is primarily a defense organization, and does not include all countries.

The UN is more of "talking" facility, and since a consensus is required from many other nations, they hardly agree on anything, and if they do, it does take a long time (example: Darfur genocide for 3 years).

The UN does not make a distinction on ideology, and regards military governments (Taiwan, Pakistan) equal to democracies of France, Japan, etc, and equal to tyrants (Libya, etc), and equal to Communist nations such as China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc.

When the last superpower (US) has its interests to protect, its obvious why no one likes the hegemony spread across the globe. But the US has an Executive branch of government, which allows it to function efficiently (i.e.: quick decisions). It doesn't matter who's at the top (Bush), since the maximum time in power for a US President is 8 years (less than 2 years left for Bush).

It's probably time to consider a new organization for the world to do just that. In the meantime, the USA will act for what it considers in defense or protection of its interests, and the world will continue to complain about it.

The UN's ability to do anything currently borders on the laughable.

Answer 6

NATO and the UN have too many competing politcal objectives that it is impossible to build a concensus to use military force.
Look how long it took NATO to send end troops to prevent the mass-murder of Muslem Kosovars within the borders of Europe. International organizations are fine when everyone agrees on the problem and the solution. But when does that ever happen?

Answer 7

As I see it the UN is not very effective. If the US left the UN what would happen? I believe they would fall apart. Any time the UN does any major operation it seems that the US provides the bulk of the manpower and a large share of the financing. The UN is a nice idea but in practice does not really work, too many nations have their own narrow interests at heart.

Answer 8

There are a couple of issues with the UN. One, they don't have a standing military so they rely on donor nations. Those nations never send their best and most of the troops are weak and unruly. Because of that, there are many problems with sexual exploitation of children by UN troops. Also, look at the absolute failure of the UN in the Balkans.

They're worthless.

NATO is not typically a peacekeeping organization. Although much more effective than the UN, it too has not standing military and relies on European and Turkish military support that is many times diametrically opposed to the EU. The NATO forces have been extremely successful in the Balkans and are seeing everyday successes in Afghanistan. NATO is primarily to protect Europe, however.

Everyone seems to think that the US WANTS to police the world. In reality, we would love to tell you guys to fix your own problems, but we always seem to get drug into it so you guys have someone to blame.

Answer 9

Because the UN refuses to do it's job.

there is too much bureaucracy involved that the UN becomes bogged down in discussions and voting and committees that it takes years sometimes to accomplish even the simplest tasks.

Look at Africa, the issues there have been going on for years but the UN sits on their hands.

The US and Britain and the only 2 major world powers that still understand that Action is more important than committees

Answer 10

Well, the UN can barely police itself, much less the world.
NATO couldn't fight its way out of a wet paper bag. It would be nice the UN and NATO would pull their own weight, but that would be asking too much.