Should the U.S. the the monitor for world peace?
Death, destruction, and war torment the populations of many countries on this planet. There is a cry for peace that must be heard and the leaders of the United States have heard it. The United States' military forces have intervened when their help was requested, but what gives them the right to be the monitor for world peace? In this paper I will show how the U.S. has contributed to peace in the world, illustrate why the United States should not act as a global peace enforcer, but also show several benefits that there are in the role that the United States is playing. Since the foundation of the United Nations (UN), the United States has been the strongest supporter for peace on this planet. It has given more time, effort, money, and manpower than any other nation to secure the safety of weaker nations. When Korea was invaded by communist forces, the United States offered to help the Koreans. When the Korean government accepted the U.S. moved their forces in. Together, with several other nations, the United States was able to stop the communist advances, but was never able to regain the territory that had been lost in the early stage of the war. The U.S. again lent their help in Asia when China invaded Vietnam. This
Through all this a conclusion must arise, but what will it be? The United States does not have the right to interfere with any conflict unless their help has been asked of or the conflict effects them in any way. Yet the U.S. does not want to remain immobile while people and nations go through wars they can not fight. According to Nelson Mandela, "No country is entitled to assume the role of policeman." The United States does not have any rights to interfere in any conflict, even if it deems the intervention to be in the best interest of people or nations that it is assisting. We are separate nations with separate rules and laws. Let us not have the United States dictate to us what is right and what is wrong. The president of Kosovo refused to cease the ethnic cleansing, thus NATO moved into neighboring Albania and started planning an offensive attack against the army of Kosovo. NATO realized that the best way to effectively hinder their opponent was bomb raids. U.S. assistance was requested on behalf of NATO since non of the other nations in NATO had an air force capable of an offensive bombing rain. In the early part of the 1990's, conflict arose between Iraq and Kuwait over oil. Saddam Hussein, president of Iraq, gave the order to invade Kuwait. Within four hours, Iraq took control of Kuwait and about one fourth of the worlds oil supply. Saudi Arabia, fearing that it would be Iraq's next target, pleaded for U.S. intervention. The United States set a deadline by which all Iraqi troops had to be evacuated from Kuwait before they would move any military forces in. When Iraq did not respect the deadline, the U.S. forces moved into action and confronted the Iraqi armed forces. The war lasted only a number of days, until Iraq was forced to surrender and evacuate Kuwait. A great controversy arose when the U.S. agreed to help NATO. The U.S. was a part of both NATO and the UN. The UN did not support the actions that NATO was taking in the Kosovo conflict. Since the conflict was located in Europe and did not pose a threat to
Some common words found in the essay are:
Saudi Arabia, Kosovo European, Europe Unfortunately, Kosovo Malosovich, South Africa, Albanians Kosovo, Australia Pope, Nelson Mandela, Asia China, United States', united nations, ethnic cleansing, country entitled assume, united able stop, world peace, nations united, people nations, bomb raids, able stop, iraqi troops, entitled assume role, assume role policeman, save lives, located europe,
Approximate Word count = 1389
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
