Israel / Palestine
- Thread starter Beebo
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
C R
Über Member
You my want to read a bit about why the UN was created and about the UN charter before talking ou of your arse.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
If we don't take into account UN's own failings for example in preventing an terrorist organization from using their building materials to make terror tunnels.(instead providing more without asking questions)
If we don't account all the other times the UN's role is questionable
We come to the conclusion that the TLDR of that whole wikipedia page is, the UN is based upon international Laws. Which means almost nothing, for example it didn't stop western goverments from dealing with Russia as-if nothing happended after they took Crimea it took a other war before the world responded but the UN had no significant part in it.(yes there are some UN rulings against Russia but it had no effect)
So whilst i'm fully aware why the UN was created it doesn't say it is effective and in a war where their own role is very questionable with Isreal fighting an enemy that is admittingly much weaker, also harder to fight conventionally, on day 65 of this war rockets are still being fired at Isreal for example.
Then your's claim the US is best at ignoring them, i pretty sure Russia, Iran and some other regimes are far more ahead in ignoring UN rulings/directives whatever they call it.
monkers
Legendary Member
If you wish to argue that the UN isn't working, you need only say that it won't all the time it has countries like the USA, the UK, China and Russia as the permanent members of the security council, when they each have the power of veto, and any one of them can just ignore the ruling of the security council in order to invade a country to steal the oil reserves - yes I'm talking about Bush and Blair.
The only way to stop this nonsense is to give control to the other UN member states, who would quickly by majority give the order for the world to rid itself of nuclear weapons.
cookiemonster
Veteran
- Location
- Far away from the asylum
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
Your time is better spend actually reading, i already showed that multiple times.Again, I ask. What is your evidence for this.
I'll wait.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
An excellent idea, but, if those who have nukes, refuse to give them up, how do you make them do so?
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
My actual response was to a reply made by @C R saying ''No one has done more to undermine the authority of the UN than the United States.'' Which i don't agree with, sure the US has done enough but like you also point out other countries aswell.
Bush and Blair and ''oil Reserves'' is a creative take, have you forgotten about Kuwait?, the first golf war and that fact the Clinton adminitsration also send rockets towards Saddam just to warm them not to start a fight with neighbors again. Also not to mention Saddam loved to play the game of pretending To have more, be more then he actually was, does not take away that Blair and Bush still used false information, but to claim it's all about oil is what Trump would have said. But if you look at the facts from then, the US just being attacked etc. what they really desperately where looking for was looking powerful again. (in which they had very limited succes)
Something tells me taking away the ''Veto'' option won't really work. Countries big or powerfull enough will still ignore. Russia is an perfect example, under Jeltsin they where well underway to possibly even join NATO at some point. But since Putin that has been reversed and the list of ignored UN resolutions is endless. So with or without veto i don't think it will change much.
If it does we might be closer to a direct nuclear confrontation so would that be so much better?
monkers
Legendary Member
The rest of the world is a big place, they should have economically isolated them before the proliferation and arms races.
I'm ordinarily a fan of the UN especially the convention rights, but the security council has a formula and dynamic such that I can't see how it can be successful for world peace.
newfhouse
pleb
Who will give them that control? Not those that currently have it, for sure.
I wish it were so but is that true? Leaders of smaller countries are very cheaply bought.
monkers
Legendary Member
That was a famous Tony Benn point wasn't it? If you can't get rid of people in authority, then it's not a democracy. If it isn't possible for the remaining 180+ states to oust the members of the security council, then it is not the collegiate it pretends to be.
I very much want the the UN to continue and to be evermore successful, just without the nukes.
This is relevant here as there is a widely held belief that Israel has nuclear missiles and a variety of means to deliver them. The state of Israel has enemies which in turn have these weapons making the system pretty volatile. It's a job to believe that there is intelligent human life on earth when there is this huge number of weapons of mass destruction, and all pointed at ourselves. We are intelligent enough to design and build them, but frankly I don't trust other humans enough to think that they will not use them. Michael Fallon when Defence Secretary said that the UK would use them to fire first. In which case they were never a deterrent under the MAD agreement, just a warning that the Tories have mad politicians.
Edit to add: I'm sure Fallon just meant in a 'specific and limited way'.
Last edited:
dutchguylivingintheuk
Veteran
If only it would work like that graph...
First point, your graph assumes nukes are the all powerful weapons that kill everything, that is not true, they will cause a lot of suffering human death toll etc. But they are not so succesfull against objects, bunkers etc.
Second point that means the ''we retaliate, everybody dies'' claim isn't right either, everyone that can shelter can survive those who can receive treatment and are outside of the epicentre, will partly survive too.
Thirdly the biggest issue with nukes is their long term damage and the lack of knowledge thereoff yes we know what the bomb on Japan did but since lots has changed, so it isn't as clear cut.
I agree with you that in an ideal world we would have never made nuclear weapons, but we crossed that line, assuming that decommission them and hope that we don't have them is enough of an deterrent for evil regimes is foolish.
I also agree with on on the principle of the UN and security council, i just don't think every department of the UN is lead by thev right people(like the UNRWA for example)
The security council is indeed not really working but i don;t think removing the veto would change anything other then countries leaving the UN all together if they can't get their way.
BoldonLad
Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
- Location
- South Tyneside
“Should have”, but, they didn’t, so, just like the current conflict in Gaza, it is necessary to devise a solution based on where we are now, not where we might have been, had we done things differently.
monkers
Legendary Member
A further point if I may, where in the world has partition brought about a peaceful solution, or two state solutions? The rate of success must be rare? Partitioning India to form Pakistan is hardly a success.
The nearest example we have of a successful approach is the Good Friday Agreement, where the long term aim is to move from a partitioned country to a single state with an acceptance that a future referendum to establish self-determination without external impediment. But of course such an arrangement requires supervision from an umbrella intergovernmental authority.
Of course the Tories have felt the need to put peace on the island of Ireland at risk in pursuit of their petty obsessions. There can be no more pressing reason that I can think of for giving them the grand order of the boot.
multitool
Pharaoh
Yugoslavia? Cyprus? Czechoslovakia? The former USSR?