The United States has a moral obligation to mitigate international conflicts

The first point I would like to make is that the argument the instigator presents is very much a US-centric point of view, which I consider to be problematic. For example, he presents the Roaring Twenties as a period of great stability and economic growth. I agree with this assertion: the 1920s were indeed a period of great prosperity and stability " in the United States. The European States which had hitherto been the world"s premier great powers however, did not experience this prosperity, nor the accompanying stability. Russia, for example, was embroiled in a bitter civil war following the Bolshevik Revolution which would eventually result in the Soviet Union. Germany too, was in chaos with the Weimar Republic having no less than 22 different governments in a period of just over a decade. The entire central slab of Europe from the Baltic in the north to the Adriatic Sea in the south, an area formerly occupied by the now vanished German, Austrian-Hungarian and Russian Empires, was now a "wild east" of emerging states desperately seeking global recognition while at the same time trying to defend their slowly forming national borders. The victorious European powers, Britain and France, were, despite their triumph, utterly exhausted and in debt. The same point could be made about the Pax Romana or the 90s boom, that, despite being a period of stability for one, it can equally be seen as a period of great upheaval for another. International stability in the instigators view seems to equal preserving the status quo for (in this case) United States. But the US is merely one state, whereas all states seek to maintain their national security as defined by the instigator. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example, sees the current Syrian conflict as a threat to its foreign relations (that is to say the Assad government) and the balance of power within the Middle East. There is no argument [not] derived from personal opinion which says that Iran"s "needs" in this respect are subservient to the US"s, who would prefer a democratic country to emerge from that civil war. The reality however, is that the United States is the world"s only remaining superpower with a clear material, industrial, economic, technological and military superiority over every single other existing nation. Which means it is in the position to exert influence (or more) in every corner of the globe if it so pleases, at the cost of nations with conflicting desires. Which is a luxurious and privileged position " for those in the United States. That the United States [can] do this, doesn"t automatically mean that it [should] as what is to be considered "moral" is utterly subjective. If the US has any obligation, it is to safeguard its citizens. If that requires anything from political pressure to the invasion of a foreign country, then so be it, but the US is not obliged to play the part of a global policeman or mediator. Every nation on earths seeks to achieve what they consider the best for their country. That is the least the citizens of any state should expect, to do more than that under the cover of something as personal as "morality" is illogical at best and pointless at the worst.