Does the United States have a moral obligation to mitigate international conflict?

I think that we do have a moral obligation to preserve international peace to the best of our ability, just as every other nation of power should. For instance: if you happen to know of two people who are in a conflict that may eventually lead to violence and you happen to have some influence over those parties, dont you think it is your moral duty to try to mediate and bring the situation to a peaceful solution?

We didn't create the conflict between North and South Korea in the Korean war, did we have a moral obligation to go in there?

yes we have a moral obligation to mitigate int.'l conflicts because we create them. We and EUROPE have a moral obligation to deal with the economican social problems in Africa because we raped Africa of its workforce and resources, leaving only weak, arbitrary "countries"

Honestly, I think they don't have one. I mean, yeah, they have a choice to go save a country from turmoil but that's not considered an obligation. If they don't know how to solve it, then it's not their obligation. But if they do, then that's a whole different matter. But the past has proven that we do not know how.

Peace!!

No.Not just yours...

Uh-huh.

Where's your warrent behind this?

I will offer the following definitions from dictionary.com to clarify this:

Moral obligation - an obligation arising out of considerations of right and wrong.

Mitigate - To moderate (a quality or condition) in force or intensity; alleviate.

International - Of, relating to, or involving two or more nations.

Conflict - A state of open, often prolonged fighting; a battle or war. A state of disharmony between incompatible or antithetical persons, ideas, or interests; a clash.

No.

Done right, it can be the moral thing to help. But is not an obligation and cannot be done "right" by the US (or anyone in the current system, but that's outside what the question asked).