Do the world's superpowers have a moral obligation to stop genocide?

[Very_Boring_Name]

Poll question: Do the world's superpowers have a moral obligation to stop genocide?

[JustAnotherGen]

1. If they are party to

the 1948 UN Conventions and subsequent statutes. I believe the last time the U.S. (maybe 2000 - I'm rusty on this though) signed off we then played 'takesy backsey'. That was the Rome Statue.

BTW - we the US were ultra slow to the 'party' started by Raphael Lemkin so many years ago. I kind of would like to see a world wide recognition that the most horrific genocide of all time took place in the 'new world' at the hands of many countries - not just the U.S. It's like we have this sickness 'globally' where we can't admit the Truth and therefore prevent in the future - Until we globally and collectively acknowledge the murder of the native peoples in North, Central, and South America – as well as in the Caribbean.

Sorry - I'm a bit passionate on the topic of genocide.

[Philippine expat]

2. Not only NO

but HELL NO
NO COUNTRY has the moral or legal right to be the worlds policeman

[AndyTiedye]

4. It is the Job of the UN

[bemildred]

3. They ought to at least refrain from doing it themselves.

Lead by example.

[Vinee]

5. I think we have a moral obligation to oppose it. Forcibly stopping it is another story.

Good people should not stand by and let obvious evil run amok; however, circumstances do not always allow one to single-handedly destroy all evil through violent action. and let's face it, evil never dies. It's like a never ending game of whack a mole.