Should America be the world's policeman?

Whenever this question is asked, and it has been asked for nearly 100 years, the answer

is usually no.

Progressives will say that it suggests American arrogance, who made America the boss of the

world.

Many conservatives, especially those with libertarian leanings, will answer that what other countries

do to their neighbors or even to their own people is of no concern of ours.

But here's the question that is almost never asked, what's the alternative?

Well, one answer is the United Nations.

That's why the UN was formed after the Second World War, to maintain order and protect

human rights.

And that's why there are UN peacekeepers around the world, but their record at keeping the

peace is abysmal.

The site just one example, at least 500,000 people were slaughtered in Rwanda in 1994,

while UN peacekeepers stood by.

Furthermore, the United Nations nearly 200 members seldom agree on anything, and when

they do marshal of peacekeeping force, its numbers are always small, they are poorly

armed and highly restricted in their use of the few weapons they do possess.

They are much more likely to step aside when faced with aggression than to actively oppose

it.

What about dividing the world into spheres of influence?

Is that really a good idea?

...