What does maintaining or restoring international peace and security entail in contempory global politics?
465365
do your own homework!
1092186
in·ter·na·tion·al·ism    (ntr-nsh-n-lzm) KEY  \n\nNOUN: \n\nThe condition or quality of being international in character, principles, concern, or attitude. \nA policy or practice of cooperation among nations, especially in politics and economic matters
1107548
There is more hope now that things will start to settle down. But don't count on it happening immediatly. Anything concerning politics local to global is like breeding elephants. There's a lot of work, lot of noise, and it's over two years before you see any results.\n\nAnd thanks for the blessing.
134423
Brinksmanship diplomacy. They hope that even just the threat of their having nukes will cause other countries to bow to their demands.\n\nIt's no different than was the Cold War between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R.
63498
Well, peace is always good since it prevents the unecessary death of others.  War would be good if you run a major corporation and can profit off it.
540759
1) convincing the people who have not experienced it that it is a good thing.\n2) making sure that power mongers don't taint it or try to take it over.\n3) making sure the neighboring aggressive countries don't see it as a sign of weakness and attack.\n4) making sure the older democratic countries who are "helping out" don't stick their business all over your country.
1002821
Very well thought out question.  I commend you for putting some brainpower around framing the question.\n\nThe answer, in my humble opinion, is complex and multi-dimensional.\n\nLet's start with the underlying intent of your question which is really whether the USA has a MORAL obligation to work with the United Nations to prevent the collapse of third-world states.\n\nThe preliminary and qualified answer is; "NO"; the USA is not morally obligated to save poorly governed states.  At least not by virtue of being a world superpower nor by virtue of having the means to resolve violent conflict with powerful military.\n\nNor is it always best served to promote its' self-interest by working with an amorally neutral world organization such as the United Nations which cloys to its' own narrow ambitions and realities of global politics.  Remember, this is the same organization that put Cuba and Libya in the chairman's seat of their Human Rights Commission.  And as the Oil-for-Food scandal has shown, no less susceptible to corruption.  Generally, it is not wise to put American lives in the hands of such people (the Kuwaiti liberation, certainly being a notable exception).\n\nBut here are some hard realities...\n\nLawless states are prime breeding grounds for terrorists and extremists to grow and strengthen their organizations.  This is as true in the day of the Barbary Pirates as it is with Al Qaeda today.  Afghanistan and Iraq stand as certainties on this model.  Sudan and Somalia qualify as well.\n\nBy ignoring these situations, we do so at our peril and national self-interest and security.  It is a truism, that democratic states are more peaceful than despotic ones.  The great democracies of the world evolved from values generated during the Enlightenment which threw off the tyranny of religious and the rule of monarchs.  In general, we refer to these as Western values.  India, Japan and South Korea are "eastern" countries which have successfully embraced Western values.\n\nFor third-world peoples to overcome the plight, they must be willing to embrace Western values and willing to make great sacrifice for them.  Sending in troops can only serve to keep the peace temporarily until there is a national resolve and interest in succeeding as a nation-state. \n\nThe reality is that many small third world nations cannot expect help from the West unless it is in the national interests of their own countries.  Iraq gets focus because of oil; while Darfur suffers further.  Rwanda and the Hungarian Rebellion were great moral failings of the West and the United States.\n\nThe US can't fix everything and should focus on its' national interest and security, but it should be willing to help when others are willing to make the same moral sacrifice.
109704
To control the world thru "democracy"
77050
I disagree with your premise that war has been the only means.  There has been many, many disagreements that have been worked out and resulted in treaties.\n \nTo me, it seems the world has been moving closer and closer to peace over time, until we (U.S.) were attacked.  That brought a realization that there is a different type of enemy lurking.  \n\nI wouldn't demonize you for wanting peace.  I would demonize you for not recognizing that war can be necessary from time to time, and that war now could bring about peace later.
165930
Hmmmmm, this is a tough one.  Peacekeepers keep the peace.  Peacemakers make the peace.  You'll have to excuse me but it's Sunday morning and I am not fully alert yet.  I can't think deeply enough to really indulge your question.
639961
Peace\nProsperity\nUnity
437892
I agree that killing is the last thing we should be doing.  Ideally, most political problems should be solved by diplomacy.  At present, the world situation has gotten so bad, that it's hard to get people to sit down together and think rationally.  There are so many hidden agendas, concerning religion and business.  Let us hope that the people we elect to solve world problems will continue to have successes, and be able to prevent the daily killings we all hate so much.
1158182
First it is freedom.  True freedom, personal, religious, and political is the solution. With out that your country will continue as it is forrever.  No amount of international help (food, money, pats on the back) will help. Those things only keep those in power stay in power.
279210
That mind set is exactly why we don't have peace. War should only be considered as a last resort peace win/win negotiations should be the stratergy
168580
How is promoting democracy and fighing terrorism equivalent to wanting to rule the world?  And why should we respect the U.N.?  Respect is earned and the U.N. is a marginal organization at best.
221928
Find a common goal to work toward, such as improving the conditions of farms along the borders.\nBribes. This sounds like something bad to most Western ideologies, but in many parts of the world, they are a part of life, like wedding gifts and dowry. \n\nFirst priority should be an objective view of the dispute. Possibly a mediator from a mutually respected country.
17549
have faith in humanities willingness to survive, the depletion of fossil fuels is but a bump in the road, we may get a flat tire but surely the wheel will survive. Humanities ingenuity is probably its only saving grace. I would be more worried about the current state of international politics in regaurds to humanities ability to exist anywhere.....