Why have international organizations not been successful at preventing the reemergence of warfare?
156914
Main reason is because most international org. (such as League of Nations, United Nations, EA etc.) use diplomacy and not enforcement to enforce peace. While they have been able to maintain peace for the most part (if you think we have higher incidence of warfare today, you should read what was going on in the world in the pre-19th century era--every continent was ablaze with war, strife, looting, occupation etc.), they cannot overcome warfare caused by fanatics like the muslims in this world---these fanatics do not obey rule of law except when it suits them. They need to be vanquished only through warfare. A good example of peacekeeping is the ending of the dispute between UK and Ireland, and one between India and Pakistan--both, while still there, are dormant and mostly at peace except for the actions of the religious fanatics--in the case of Ireland, Christians, and in the case of Pakistan, Muslims.
540192
I would like to see the United Nations become an agency with more teeth to it. It seems that most of the time, they sit around and talk and then after a few months of "You really ought to not do this or that", they get around to discussing possible sanctions, and ask permission to go see what may be going on. They don't act with enough authority. It would appear that any court of any of it's members could do a faster job of resolving a problem. (Maybe not to every ones satisfaction.) Why does it take the U.N so long? They need to become a world court that you don't mess around with.
758590
Yes.  The UN is ineffective.  Look at Darfur.  They have done nothing to stop the genocide.  And the libs wanted nothing to be done in Iraq either.  I guess gassing the Kurds and torturing innocents is nothing to be concerned about
945087
The only successful wars are those won by overwhelming force.  The wars that are ended through diplomacy only always boil back over later on.  Think of the difference between WW2 and Korea.  We baked the Japanese and they are now close friends of ours.  We negotiated an end to the Korean War, and we are still dealing with the pot-bellied dog-eating dictator, and now he's pointing his puny half-a**ed nukes at us. The only final victory is a complete victory.
305566
Because it's a very effective way for weak groups to challenge much more powerful enemies. Terrorism has probably existed for as long as there's been conflict...it's just one tactic that is effective in certain circumstances.
399045
Nobody is willing to face a war.  We have so many treaties and organisations to nib it in budding stage itself.  Every nation wants to champion the cause of peace and many nations oppose the move to breach of peace.  The reason is  the big nations and developed nations will suffer great loss of life, man power, money, material, projects, food supply ,transport, communications etc. There will be no world or war thereafter.
148341
The UN is unable to manage much of anything. I doubt whether terrorism can make it sink lower since it can't go lower than it already is.
971540
Who knows? It has been done before.  There are quite a few such organizations that operate in several areas of conflict throughout Africa, Asia, and the Americas,  that do such work very effectively.
956033
the US has a history of trying to be the healer of the world.\nbut there is a line between helping and supporting.\nthere is a bigger line between supporting and suppling weapons to people
453987
Fear would deter them from getting into such a conflict. And the US would have to ensure those countries their oil supply.
333672
I would guess many NGOs would practice "diplomacy."  Same with IGOs.  They are of increasing influence in the world stage.
901021
They don't do war anymore.  It didn't work out for them the last two times.
894984
The failure has been in the neocon insistence that our PRIMARY efforts should be directed at MAINTAINING that sole superpower position at all costs. \nOur aim has been directed toward undermining our nearest economic, political, and (no real challenge) military rivals, in case they might someday want to challenge the US.  This is why our foreign relations look so incompetent - they were actually TRYING to foist trouble on other countries.  This is the true evil of preemptive actions.
1069312
Having lived in Rwanda with monthly contact in Congo along with having close contact with friends in Somalia, it would be good to get more information relating to the geneocides noted in the question.\n\nIn fact these areas of conflict have been going on for years.  The United States has not done the same in these areas with military force as in Iraq.  However the US has responded in many ways in these particular countries with military force, training, finance and rebuilding.  Yes, more could have been done, but it has been something.  Many in Rwanda are thankful for the partnerships they have with the United States.
634097
First and foremost we were not prepared for the war.  Secondly, our army was not trainned to fight in high altitude war.  Thirdly, we did not have adequate protective devices and cloths in a very cold atmosphere.
122937
The world will never be safe. Countries will still try to dominate and subjugate one another.\n\nMutual destruction only limits Nuclear action.  There are pleanty of ground wars going on.
25463
During the Cold War, many countries relied on the protective umbrella offered by the US which included troops on the ground to ensure a commitment to defend our friends if attacked.  It did keep the peace.  Now that that particular threat is over it is not surprising that many countries wish to be far more independent.  Perhaps they had to like or lump US foreign policy then, but not now.  Only time will tell whether the world is really less dangerous, especially if there is little protective cooperation against terrorism.  I believe the US has that right.