Im having trouble understanding why UN backing is necessary for action, or important in the minds of some.
The US will field 90% of the troops, 90% of the money, and 90% of the total effort. Why dont we get 90% of the decision making ability?
Such has been the case in almost every major UN sponsored action since its inception.
What others outside this country percieve as egotistical, "take over the world" attitutde, we see our resources and money being used by the UN for aims that we may not always agree with and the first time we see a threat to our own security, the public outcry against action is strong.
All we're asking for is a little respect. The "World Policeman" description is fine on the surface, but if you look at it a little closer, the behavior from other nations fits this bill perfectly.
When youre assaulted, robbed, or raped, the police are your best friend. But when you get caught speeding, stealing, or parking illegally, the Police are pigs, abusing authority, who do they think they are?
I guess what Im wondering is - why all the anti-US sentiment? It seems to me that people both inside, and outside the US are quick to forget what we've done in the past to better this world, and incapable of determining what the world would be like without the United States keeping people like Hitler, Malosevic (sp?), and Saddam in check.
The United States and the United Kingdom have brought stability to the world in the last 50 years - why are we now hated for it? Is it simply a case of other countries not wanting to have their own policies dictated by the US/UK?
Without the political and military action of the US/UK during the latter half of the 20th century, the Middle East would be a constant Jewish/Muslim war, Pakistan and India would both be glass, South Korea wouldnt exist, Africa would be a warzone, Eastern Europe would be a mercenaries paradise, and Western Europe would still be rebuilding after WWII.
