|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 8:05:47 GMT
It can't be any other way. The UN doesn't have an army and there is no feasible way it could have. Everything it has is inherited (lent) from various nations who have populations that produce. I suppose my point is I dont know why we bother giving it any credibility anymore. The world should walk out in disgust and refuse to legitimise what is in short nothing more than a plaything for the yanks , and to a lesser degree Russia and china. It is soft power. It acts as a political sop / legitimising facade for the power of some nations, but deligitimising it wont remove the power (not that anyone sensible would want that). I think it would be far more sensible to face the fact that a world consensus is not on the cards and that the world is made of nations who pursue their interests. We can then stop playing an expensive pantomime with taxpayer's money |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 23, 2024 8:10:16 GMT
I suppose my point is I dont know why we bother giving it any credibility anymore. The world should walk out in disgust and refuse to legitimise what is in short nothing more than a plaything for the yanks , and to a lesser degree Russia and china. It is soft power. It acts as a political sop / legitimising facade for the power of some nations, but deligitimising it wont remove the power (not that anyone sensible would want that). I think it would be far more sensible to face the fact that a world consensus is not on the cards and that the world is made of nations who pursue their interests. We can then stop playing an expensive pantomime with taxpayer's money well said. We need to stop legitimising the UN , and accept the global mantra is might is right , as it always has been. I just laugh when folk go on about the un and international law as though its something sacred and above reproach , when its merely a tool for the global powers. I als think for us Scottish and English , we need to also accept we live under the Pax Americana , like the rest of the west , and our leaders simply do as they are told by Washington. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 8:16:39 GMT
I suppose my point is I dont know why we bother giving it any credibility anymore. The world should walk out in disgust and refuse to legitimise what is in short nothing more than a plaything for the yanks , and to a lesser degree Russia and china. It is soft power. It acts as a political sop / legitimising facade for the power of some nations, but deligitimising it wont remove the power (not that anyone sensible would want that). I think it would be far more sensible to face the fact that a world consensus is not on the cards and that the world is made of nations who pursue their interests. We can then stop playing an expensive pantomime with taxpayer's money It has more power than most think. The problem is in the self serving attitude of some of its key members to not back the ICJ. This will be seen this week as Netanyahu visits the USA and won't be arrested on an ICJ warrant for his war crimes. He'll be safe if he visits the UK too. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Jul 23, 2024 8:16:53 GMT
Why is it Israel can attack the UN with impunity? given the number of U.N staff they have killed, the number of buildings they have destroyed, the aid they have interfered with. If any other country had carried our such attacks, as Israel have, the US and I dare say us would have bombed them to smithereens but instead we are allowed to send them the weapons to kill them. The UN doesn't produce anything and so only has inherited power / authority The UN was not created to produce anything. It was created to 'do' a number of peace keeping roles. Maintaining international peace and security. Developing friendly relations among nations. Promoting international cooperation. Upholding human rights. Delivering humanitarian aid. Supporting sustainable development. |
|
|
|
Post by RedRum on Jul 23, 2024 8:20:04 GMT
No matter what people think are the rights and wrongs of the UN my post is about why Israel is the only country that can attack and kill UN structures and employees.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 8:24:42 GMT
The UN doesn't produce anything and so only has inherited power / authority The UN was not created to produce anything. It was created to 'do' a number of peace keeping roles. Maintaining international peace and security. Developing friendly relations among nations. Promoting international cooperation. Upholding human rights. Delivering humanitarian aid. Supporting sustainable development. Sure. So long as it doesn't step on its donor's toes, it can pretend to be doing anything it wants. The point is 'maintaining peace and security' would need authority (the ability to enforce). The UN itself can't have this authority because it produces nothing. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 8:25:41 GMT
No matter what people think are the rights and wrongs of the UN my post is about why Israel is the only country that can attack and kill UN structures and employees. Bad isn't it. As I said earlier it's a lot to do with self serving politics in the USA and UK |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 8:28:13 GMT
The UN was not created to produce anything. It was created to 'do' a number of peace keeping roles. Maintaining international peace and security. Developing friendly relations among nations. Promoting international cooperation. Upholding human rights. Delivering humanitarian aid. Supporting sustainable development. Sure. So long as it doesn't step on its donor's toes, it can pretend to be doing anything it wants. The point is 'maintaining peace and security' would need authority (the ability to enforce). The UN itself can't have this authority because it produces nothing. Last time I looked the last World War was over 75 years ago. Before the UN did we manage anything like that? No See also the massive aid the UN delivers It's easy to criticise the UN for not being perfect but to decry it totally for that is absurd. Always remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good' |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 8:33:22 GMT
Sure. So long as it doesn't step on its donor's toes, it can pretend to be doing anything it wants. The point is 'maintaining peace and security' would need authority (the ability to enforce). The UN itself can't have this authority because it produces nothing. Last time I looked the last World War was over 75 years ago. Before the UN did we manage anything like that? No See also the massive aid the UN delivers It's easy to sriticise the UN for not being perfect but to decry it totally for that is absurd. Always remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good' The point is that, whatever it does, it does using resources given to it and with the attendant permission that implies. Ie it can't be doing anything that these donors wouldn't have done anyway. People are getting paid - which i guess is also part of the balance of interests |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 8:47:10 GMT
It is soft power. It acts as a political sop / legitimising facade for the power of some nations, but deligitimising it wont remove the power (not that anyone sensible would want that). I think it would be far more sensible to face the fact that a world consensus is not on the cards and that the world is made of nations who pursue their interests. We can then stop playing an expensive pantomime with taxpayer's money well said. We need to stop legitimising the UN , and accept the global mantra is might is right , as it always has been. I just laugh when folk go on about the un and international law as though its something sacred and above reproach , when its merely a tool for the global powers. I als think for us Scottish and English , we need to also accept we live under the Pax Americana , like the rest of the west , and our leaders simply do as they are told by Washington. Yes - and it is observation rather than advocacy. Power has always worked like this and there is no point pretending otherwise. The only thing that would constrain an evil dictator is the power of those who he upsets. One thing that bothers me about these facades is that it masks what is going on and who is doing what and so it disables democracy |
|
|
|
Post by montegriffo on Jul 23, 2024 9:09:02 GMT
Sure. So long as it doesn't step on its donor's toes, it can pretend to be doing anything it wants. The point is 'maintaining peace and security' would need authority (the ability to enforce). The UN itself can't have this authority because it produces nothing. Last time I looked the last World War was over 75 years ago. Before the UN did we manage anything like that? No See also the massive aid the UN delivers It's easy to criticise the UN for not being perfect but to decry it totally for that is absurd. Always remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good' I support the ideals of the UN and certainly don't want to see it have even fewer powers but let's not make the mistake of attributing the 'peace' since WWII to it. That peace has been secured by the threat of thermo-nuclear destruction. That is also the reason Britain and France get their seats at the big boy's table at the UN. As Putin is happy to demonstrate, if a country has no nuclear weapons of its own or is not a member of NATO the UN is powerless to protect it. It can't prevent a war that involves a nuclear power attacking a non-nuclear one. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,633
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 9:12:29 GMT
No Monte, we got those big boy seats by being the countries that made the big sacrifices to win WW2. And except for the USA we got those seats before we got nuclear weapons
|
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 23, 2024 15:27:57 GMT
No Monte, we got those big boy seats by being the countries that made the big sacrifices to win WW2. And except for the USA we got those seats before we got nuclear weapons could you define what you mean by sacrifices? Plenty of countries made great sacrifices , but they aren't on the UN Security Council like uk and France. Can "sacrifices" 80 years ago , in a long gone war that has no reflection on the world today really be deemed as the reason why certain states remain on the security council? |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 23, 2024 15:33:56 GMT
Last time I looked the last World War was over 75 years ago. Before the UN did we manage anything like that? No See also the massive aid the UN delivers It's easy to criticise the UN for not being perfect but to decry it totally for that is absurd. Always remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good' That is also the reason Britain and France get their seats at the big boy's table at the UN. see I dont understand this monte. If this is the case , regarding being a nuclear power , then why are the uk and France on it but not Pakistan and India? Both are nuclear powers , and Pakistans population alone dwarfs the uk and France combined. Im told in national politics here in the yookay , the reason England gets to call the shots is Englands population dwarfs scotland irelands and Wales. Why isnt this rule then in place outside the uk ? Are the goalposts being moved? I think the excuses for the old European world powers , who are nothing more than regional powers in military terms now , are wearing thin. Its laughable. Britain and France are there as they are useful lap dogs to the Americans , nothing more . Economics , population , military power , are excuses that dont stack up. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 16:21:50 GMT
That is also the reason Britain and France get their seats at the big boy's table at the UN. see I dont understand this monte. If this is the case , regarding being a nuclear power , then why are the uk and France on it but not Pakistan and India? Both are nuclear powers , and Pakistans population alone dwarfs the uk and France combined. Im told in national politics here in the yookay , the reason England gets to call the shots is Englands population dwarfs scotland irelands and Wales. Why isnt this rule then in place outside the uk ? Are the goalposts being moved? I think the excuses for the old European world powers , who are nothing more than regional powers in military terms now , are wearing thin. Its laughable. Britain and France are there as they are useful lap dogs to the Americans , nothing more . Economics , population , military power , are excuses that dont stack up. It's a combination - A spread of interests - ie splitting interest off into several camps USSR(Russia), China, US, Europe Soft power - The UK or France (believe it or not) has far more credibility than Pakistan - even for nations that might seem more aligned with Pakistan Large areas of the word were left out because they were / are basket cases who have no credibility and no power. The victors of ww2 If the US pulls out the whole thing will fold into a total joke. |
|
