Quote:
Originally Posted by angus58
Originally posted by Shasown
Lol - with a bit of paraphrasing that would make a good recruitment poster!
Seriously though your point that we should intervene in other countries' internal affairs to stabilise certain regions is a fair point, but it still begs the question "In whose best interests" would a certain outcome be? I don't think it's always about doing the moral thing, but the expedient thing and not all parties would see events in the same way. It is no surprise that the West are so hated in the Middle East, since it cannot be denied that some of the wars in which we choose to involve ourselves are more to do with self interest than altruism.
I would also dispute whether it is our moral duty to try and impose western style democracy, (which has taken centuries to evolve), virtually overnight onto cultures whose people have lived under very different political regimes.
I agree that the cost for involvement in a conflict should be footed by the UN in some way, particularly if that involvement is going to benefit all members.
|
I didnt mean to suggest that we, the UK, be involved in every dispute in all areas, there are enough relatively stable countries in the world for a sizeable UN peacekeeping force to include members that would be far more acceptable to certain cultires, races or religions.
Nor should western style democracy be introduced into any area, thats a politicians viewpoint. any sort of force introduced into an area should work with all sides after securing the peace, in order to determine what works best in that area.
I dont feel it should be left to politicians to decide which countries we should send forces to either. The UN should assess all countries armed forces capabilities then decide what assets they should pretty much hand over to UN authority. The UN itself would decide who goes where and why.