There will be a more peaceful world if America actively maintains it's hegemony

Sup korezaan, I have to go on a vacation from Friday afternoon to Sunday…so I might not be able to respond to your next round of arguments in time. I would like to ask you to postpone posting your arguments until you're near the end of your time limit, so I can respond. OK, now on to the debate: Ok, here is how I understand your argument: let America withdraw and Eurasian powers to step in as a coalition, and the world will be more peaceful, and America is ruining world peace b/c of Middle east (Iraq). They way I see it, korezaan will have to prove Eurasian powers (and/or international community) taking over will be more beneficial than the current state of affairs under the United States (in other terms, more peaceful in the future). Thus, you will have to give reasoning and/or evidence why Eurasian powers will be better equipped to solve the world's problems than the United States. This is because you took the route to suggest an ALTERNATIVE solution to my solution; thus, I would expect you to advance evidence and/or reasoning to support your COUNTERPROPOSAL However, I would like to advance a few arguments for reasons why the international community WILL not be better than the US at maintain peace 1)Internal Bickering – Ever since the dawn of time, coalitions of various nations had internal bickering and fighting. The internal bickering of the international community is clearly evident in the UN and other organizations, thus if the international community were to take over, solvency for world peace will be greatly. 2)A group never works efficiently when resolving various conflicts – one empirical example is with the league of nations and the Italian invasion of Ethiopia, and UN with Rwanda, Somalia, and just about every peacekeeping effort it's embarked on. 3)Certain factions will never corporate with each other (i.e India + Pakistan) Back to my original solution Argument 1 1)I don't see how your first arguments in R1 makes the you now claim, it merely says that America is the last barrier to wars, and my point is that should we withdraw, the whole world will go up in flames 2)China and Taiwan just one example of things that are improving – there are many others that are currently not in improvement (*points to Ethiopia, Eretria, and Somalia*) that needs American help in order to stabilize 3)Sweet, they fell from power in 20 years, yet they had 20 years of relative peace. And what happened after they fell? WORLD WAR I – a clear example of what we want to avoid. We have to stay in power far longer to facilitate the peaceful solution to the World's problems. 4)A. Yes, one more reason that they will be more aggressive when they do not face repercussions when dealing with their problem, and another reason why they can't take on the mantle of leadership after America withdraws. B. I don't see how that helps your point. 5)OK, maybe we're not getting the job done – at least we're doing something – what will the world do? What happened during Somalia in 1991 – when US forces attacked and actually took aggressive action while UN forces sat idly by. And we're actually doing something – as the recent establishment of an organized African command by the US army and the recent participation of US army in hunting down dissidents in Somalia show. Again you advocate the point. 6)Impact – if you say the world is going to do better – you have to prove it first – see my arguments why it would not be better than the US. Any current possible actors that could easily supplant America's place has either a lack of a peacekeeping and conflict resolution record, or a bad one (UN). C2 1)Things in the middle east will change – see recent middle-eastern conventions in Annapolis, moreover, conflict between Palenstein and Iseralis have lessened now, since Fatah took over the west bank. B. Yes, conflicts will arise, but the US is a better agent to deal with these problems then a whole host of other nations (again back to my point about how other nations fail) 2)Your own evidence says that they will try to stop "rising hegemon in their midst" – is this not a clear statement of the aggressive impact of what your scenario? MAD doesn't provide for much, as the numerous quasi-conflicts between US and USSR shows (i.e Vietnam, Korea ect). Your evidence clearly states that they will be aggressive when taking over power – not passive as you suggest. B) Sure we may be part of the cause of the heightened tension, but the fact is – your evidence states that they will be violent in their rise to power. 3)Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations was a complete and utter failure, it failed to settle Japan's invasion of Manchuria, Italy's invasion of Ethiopia, and the other events that led to WW2. This empirical evidence shows that Multipolarity never works as well as a single power at the helm, and many others were provided by me earlier. 4)I have no idea which Layne evidence you're referring to that states that powers will work together peacefully unless you're talking about the Eurasian quote, which clearly states that they will aggressively maintain their local hegemony and stop rising powers, and somehow still manage to keep peace? 5)Impact: Multipolarity is bad, the possible agents you mentioned that might supplant America's place are all worse off than America at maintaining peace. C3 – 1)ISn't the major conflict between Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds? So once we leave, things will magically fall into place and the three groups will magically become peaceful? I doubt it. The reason for the conflict is between the long sequestered Shiite majority's discontent at the minority Sunni's harsh rule under saddam 2)Once we retreat, the Iraq gov. will collapse – I don't understand your point – I'm saying that the Iraq gov. is unstable and will collapse soon – but mentioning saddam does not support your point it will be more peaceful. Are you suggesting we supplant another ruthless dictator instead of the US occupation? 3)Big deal – that was 50 years ago, during the height of the cold war – circumstances are different now. C4 – 1)You have to show that your Eurasian powers will somehow be better peacekeepers than the US, which I don't see happening, since they still have internal problems to deal with 2)Terrorists attack the US for a multitude of reasons - religious, socio-economic, and others. 3)Even if terrorists against the US stopped, the possible wars arising from other nations taking over will outweigh the impacts caused by terrorist actions. Just saying the Eurasian powers aren't in Iraq doesn't mean Iraq won't fall in shambles when we leave. Moreover, Eurasian powers are even more resource-hungry than the US is, and any actions they take against the middle east will probably be aggressive. To conclude: 1) Since you have clearly advocated the position that other powers will do a better job than the US at keeping peace – support it 2) While America may not be the perfect solution to world peace – we are still better than any alternatives 3) Although it may seem that my scenarios are not being solved – they are, recent developments point to a new trend to world peace – being facilitated by the US I'm really enjoying the debate up till now, and this allows me to polish some of my long-lost debating skills - if you would like to debate some other political, historical, or religious topic, we can set up another debate.