Global Comradery, or lack of Options

[Comptine]

Generally, a country (or the United Nations as a whole) is expected to NOT be involved in another country's domestic affairs (keep out of my country and I'll do the same). I believe that this rule was set after World War II but I'm not sure.

Is this a good rule? To a degree, I think so because other countries don't impede on another's right to self rule. While America is evident in many countries, it doesn't take a direct reign. In fact, America has had a long history of isolation.

However, in instances such as Africa (where many countries are ravaged by disease, famine, and warloads) and India (where AIDS is growing), I think it's the duty as fellow humans to help them.

I'm aware that countries do help places in Africa and India. However, a majority of these efforts are voluntary and based completely on donations. When it comes to warloads, the response is sort of...lacking.

[fameONE]

The lack of global comradery can be blamed on the fact that the most powerful nation on the globe is despised internationally.

While we're "liberating" Iraq, there's a civil war in Haiti, genocide in Rwanda, and a drug war thats killing thousands of people a week in Mexico.

With that being said, the meddling in foreign affairs by the US has further increased tension with other countries. Just take Afghanistan for example, we provided Osama with weapons in the 80s during the turmoil (Pre-Gulf War I) between Iraq and Iran. We even gave Sadaam anthrax so he could defend his country against Iran's attacks. The list goes on.

Its as if you don't know who to trust. I'm sure every country in the middle east has their guard up when it comes to the US. We have a track record of screwing other countries over. Maybe thats why we don't give a shit about whats going on in France; they failed to give us what we wanted (troops and a bombing of key landmarks in Iraq) and we turning our back on them.

Its a dog-eat-dog world.