Here's my thought.
Throughout history, there have been instances where a country has reached global hegemony. As global hegemon, it was their duty, and indeed in the world's best interests for them to act as a world police force in the global commons, to protect the interests of people. Greece, Rome, the Mongols, the Mughals, Spain, Great Britain, and now the United States have reached the position of global (or regional) hegemon. Don't look at what these countries did on the way to hegemony, but look at how they instilled peace onto the regions they oversaw. It was their duty to do so. Pax Romana, Pax Britannica, etc. Each of these nations oversaw a time of peace a prosperity when the world collectively moved forward. Even the Mongols kept bandits off the trade routes and stopped feuding between the princes they ruled over. In aggregate, there was less death in the world due to these "global police forces."
Now you may point that each of these powers failed due to over-extension, because they were the global police force. I disagree. I believe the rise of other powers is a natural thing, and power can be a zero-sum game, so as one's power increases, another must decrease. It is a cycle that cannot be stopped.
That said, the U.S. Is currently the global hegemon. In twenty years or so, we will be matched by China and the world will fall into a similarly stable bi-polar power region. This will be the case until the U.N. develops its capabilities to become the global police force.
We must stop thinking about ourselves in terms of countries and races, but in terms of one race, the human race. Syrians are dying and we are doing nothing to prevent it, so yes, the blood is on all of our hands. The western countries and the Arab countries are doing what they can do short of military intervention, but it is Russia and China who are keeping anything productive from happening. If there were not killings, but still mass protests and riots, then I would agree with Russia's proposal, but the situation is not so. Tanks and artillery shelled the city of Homs yesterday. Over 200 died. Something must be done, and quickly, before the country descends too far into civil war, as Libya did.
On a side note, I 'd like to mention two things. Libya is how it is due to the tribal nature of the country's population. Right now there's a standoff since each tribe is vying to get more power in the new government. Syria is not tribal and thus would be a different outcome. Leading to my second thing, which is due to the sectarian nature of this conflict, Syria will end up like Iraq. I feel sorry for the Alawite and Christian populations in the country, because Assad created this conflict along sectarian lines. It didn't start out sectarian, but due to the totalitarian nature of the state, the structure of its military command, etc. he made it into a Sunni vs. all minorities battle, which is very sad. The whole Middle East is sad when you think of the amount of diversity it has lost in the last 60 years
free book "How Non-violence Protects The State"
. Perhaps PPSC, Anon 1 day 12 hour phase. If anyone is interested please let me know.
)
)
)
)
)