Your vote in the U.N. resolution

[Jayavarman 129]

49 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar, @Reagan04, @wolves, @Jayavarman, @Sunnymentoaddict

 

Now, before Anthony locks this thread, I'm going to give my answer to the thread question. Unfortunately, it's none of the options in your poll. I've come to believe the vote, or most upcoming Security Council don't matter. I'm of the belief the UN is quickly headed to being no more than the symbolic, toothless, and terminally-ill lion the League of Nations was when the 1930's came around. I believe, regardless of this vote, Netanyahu will have the same response to UN condemnation as Kim Jong-un does when he gets UN condemnation - giving the organization the finger, ignoring the resolution, and doing as he pleases. We saw the same thing when the League of Nations made their last two official condemnations of any nations' actions in that organization's history - when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931, and when Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935. So, frankly, I don't think it matters at all what the UN says or does anymore. As George Orwell cynically said when the UN was first created, "If you want something truly effective there, you need a World Government. Otherwise, don't bother with such a sham."

Let's also not forget the past few years that China has been literally building (and arming) new land in the Pacific Ocean and that Russia has militarily seized land in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

[Patine 469]

52 minutes ago, Jayavarman said:

Let's also not forget the past few years that China has been literally building (and arming) new land in the Pacific Ocean and that Russia has militarily seized land in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus.

As I said, I believe the UN has been thoroughly neutered as a meaningful, and thus this Security Council Resolution, like many others recently, and no doubt, are pretty much meaningless gestures.

[Patine 469]

@vcczar, @Reagan04, @CalebsParadox, @Conservative Elector 2, @TheMiddlePolitical, @VanMav, @jvikings1

Anyone have any comments on my thoughts on the practical state of affairs of the UN's relevance as I see it. I've changed the subject from the minefield topic of religion.

[Reagan04 658]

27 minutes ago, Patine said:

As I said, I believe the UN has been thoroughly neutered as a meaningful, and thus this Security Council Resolution, like many others recently, and no doubt, are pretty much meaningless gestures.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Patine said:

@vcczar, @Reagan04, @CalebsParadox, @Conservative Elector 2, @TheMiddlePolitical, @VanMav, @jvikings1

Anyone have any comments on my thoughts on the practical state of affairs of the UN's relevance as I see it. I've changed the subject from the minefield topic of religion.

 

Yes, let's swerve to this, a better topic, I agree the UN has been rendered useless, the way I like, never been a fan of it or any sort of international body. I just agreed with you twice in the same post! I guess the North Carolinian supply of BBQ is gonna go down!

[vcczar 1,224]

2 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

 

Yes, let's swerve to this, a better topic, I agree the UN has been rendered useless, the way I like, never been a fan of it or any sort of international body. I just agreed with you twice in the same post! I guess the North Carolinian supply of BBQ is gonna go down!

I'm the opposite. I want the UN to be much stronger, and I want the vetoes to be reformed to not include only a few countries. They should either be randomized every year or so, or eliminated. I think the votes should be balanced towards population, however, similar to the US House of Reps. 

[Patine 469]

59 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm the opposite. I want the UN to be much stronger, and I want the vetoes to be reformed to not include only a few countries. They should either be randomized every year or so, or eliminated. I think the votes should be balanced towards population, however, similar to the US House of Reps. 

Understand that my statement is a belief of how I see the state of affairs of the UN in practice. However, I would like some sort of organization ideologically like the UN in spirit, I think it's just that the UN (and before it, the League of Nations) were set up in a way that didn't work, was flawed from the start, and, indeed, favoured certain powers over others, effectually into perpetuity, in it's decision-making process, and had a problematic setup with enforceablilty of many of it's decisions.

[VanMav 0]

The UN is a waste of space and money. Hopefully the right wing nutjobs manage to defund it.

[Patine 469]

2 hours ago, VanMav said:

The UN is a waste of space and money. Hopefully the right wing nutjobs manage to defund it.

The problem with your idea is the US Government does not single-handedly fund the UN or plan it's budget. The funding for the UN comes from annual contributions from most of it's member nations (some of the most destitute members, or ones in states of civil war or anarchy are given bys on requests for dues) as well as numerous NGO's and private philanthropists. There is a subsidiary organ of the UN with multiple nations represented on it that hammers out it's budget every year.

[admin_270 845]

Off-topic and closed.