Yes, but creating a rescession in other countries when YOUR specific country isn't doing that well can only be achieved if other countries heavily relly on your products (export) or if your has alot of their products being imported from that country. Example, if Germany does bad, so do The Netherlands because 50% of the Dutch' export goes to Germany.

Another factor could be that a country has a lot of cash lent from another country or lends a lot of money to it. As such they are heavily dependant on the other's performance economically. Example could be China having a lot of Dollars from America.

EDIT: And ofcourse, you have China, America, Japan, Germany etc... If they fall, the rest of the world will feel that, but that's just because of their huge economic power!

Yeah right. Just like America helped with the IRA, or with ETA in Spain. Just like the US defended Tibet. And how it's doing a lot to help in Sudan.

Your worldview is a complete and total delusion. America intervenes when it helps America. The earlier you learn that, the better.

I consider that more the UN's fault that the US's fault. The Sudan anyway. Same with Zimbabwe.

Why does noone help Zimbabwe. The most i've seen any country do is England. What have they done? Decided to ban Zimbabwe from some cricket tournament.

Result: Britain may lose hosting rights since Zimbabwe is one of the 8 founding members.

The real problem isn't the US acting but only when it's in the US's best interests.

It's the UN not acting. Ever. If the UN actually formed a REAL army... expelled and actually fought countries committing genocides and causing other serious hardships on it's people you couldn't blame America for picking and choosing because things would actually get done.

Perhaps the UN would of been able to get something of real worth done if it didn't extend membership to the problem nations in the first place. As much as I hate Bush the whole replacing the UN with a version that only included democracies makes a lot of sense.

The real problem isn't the US acting but only when it's in the US's best interests.

True, I agree with this. I rather see an activated participating US than an "isolationist" state

It's the UN not acting. Ever. If the UN actually formed a REAL army... expelled and actually fought countries committing genocides and causing other serious hardships on it's people you couldn't blame America for picking and choosing because things would actually get done.

The UN can never be more active than its members. As it is now its a mix of everything with a vertically nondemocratic security council and the democratic general assembly that doesnt have any real power. Its hard to blame the UN, you have to blame the states that makes the decisions. The move toward an "asserted multilateralism" during the 90s was changed into a "new realism" after Somalia in 93. None of this policys were good IMO because both were unfortunately acted out in a real imperialistic manner. I dont know what to think about AFRICOM but it doesnt feel like a step toward a more multilateral international community. Power realism rules pretty much, and it rules even more when you are strong.

Perhaps the UN would of been able to get something of real worth done if it didn't extend membership to the problem nations in the first place. As much as I hate Bush the whole replacing the UN with a version that only included democracies makes a lot of sense.

Well, then we'll come to the delicate problem of defining the levels of polyarchy, who should have the right to ban whom? I believe that majority election is a qualitatively less democratic form of election than a proportional. Is it democratc to attack another country before asking that country if you have the right to do so? Which countries would be allowd to be in the UN?

Rwanda? Indonesia? Malaysia? Bosnia? Kenya? The US?