You could make an argument that its usefulness has decreased the way it is set up right now. Reform seems unlikely as some of the big guys would have to give up on their vetoes. The fact that France and Britain continue to sit permanently in the Security Council yet no one permanently from Africa or South America says everything.
So it’s not impossible that some countries will leave frustrated but I think this will be a rare occurrence. Most sober heads will still value diplomatic channels even if they are imperfect.
These international organizations kind of need a world war to reform themselves. WW2 was sort of the end of the League of Nations and the UN took its place. So what we need now is WW3 to get the UN to adapt better to our world today. That sounds great, doesn’t it.
You started out strong on your first half. But we don’t need war, we need wise leadership. The power really is in the voters here. But decades of infighting (in each nation) over political stances have allowed scumbags to control all our nations’ UN interactions. We need to eliminate veto, or extend it to a three or four nation minimum (you need three nations voting to veto to block something) that is available to all nations.
Down voting because war is always stupid and no one should ever sell the lie that innocent people need to suffer.
I think we only differ in optimism here. You think good leaders can still turn it around. And I doubt it. Either way, I wasn’t foretelling the UN’s demise.
I appreciate your sentiments in italics and bold text concerning war. I understand that tone is hard to decipher here. If you have taken from my text that I’m pro-war then allow me point out that I am not. I’ve merely pointed out historical precedence and extrapolated from there. I thought it obvious that the scenario I drew is undesirable. I guess I was wrong, wasn’t I.
You could make an argument that its usefulness has decreased the way it is set up right now. Reform seems unlikely as some of the big guys would have to give up on their vetoes. The fact that France and Britain continue to sit permanently in the Security Council yet no one permanently from Africa or South America says everything.
So it’s not impossible that some countries will leave frustrated but I think this will be a rare occurrence. Most sober heads will still value diplomatic channels even if they are imperfect.
These international organizations kind of need a world war to reform themselves. WW2 was sort of the end of the League of Nations and the UN took its place. So what we need now is WW3 to get the UN to adapt better to our world today. That sounds great, doesn’t it.
You started out strong on your first half. But we don’t need war, we need wise leadership. The power really is in the voters here. But decades of infighting (in each nation) over political stances have allowed scumbags to control all our nations’ UN interactions. We need to eliminate veto, or extend it to a three or four nation minimum (you need three nations voting to veto to block something) that is available to all nations.
Down voting because war is always stupid and no one should ever sell the lie that innocent people need to suffer.
I think we only differ in optimism here. You think good leaders can still turn it around. And I doubt it. Either way, I wasn’t foretelling the UN’s demise.
I appreciate your sentiments in italics and bold text concerning war. I understand that tone is hard to decipher here. If you have taken from my text that I’m pro-war then allow me point out that I am not. I’ve merely pointed out historical precedence and extrapolated from there. I thought it obvious that the scenario I drew is undesirable. I guess I was wrong, wasn’t I.
Not sure how to convince a sovereign power to give up its power over others without war, any suggestions?