FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > United Nations
United Nations
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
The UN Security Council is supposed to be having a chat (today or thurs). It's non binding but no one can veto it. I think it is a discussion to halt the Russian attack/immediate withdraw from Ukraine /stand down nuclear weapons/halt propaganda to military..? Pretty much everything, though I don't know how effective it is |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing "
There's very little point, given that the major powers can ignore any of its Resolutions.
That said, even they, at times, try to do good, through UN programmes, in the wake of natural disasters.
Probably to make up for their inaction when it comes to man made ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing "
Yeah coz trying to promote peace is a bad thing  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Its complicated its probably better that it exists ensuring at least some baseline for how nations should be and interact.
That being said it is pretty much split apart in different directions depending on how open a country is or not. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
This just announce in The Guardian could give Putin an out if he needed one:
Ukraine and Russia to face off at World Court over genocide claim
Ukraine will ask the United Nations’ top court on Monday to issue an emergency ruling requiring Russia to stop its invasion, arguing that Moscow’s justification for the attack is based on a faulty interpretation of genocide law, Reuters reports.
Although the court’s rulings are binding and countries generally follow them, it has no direct means of enforcing them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s “special military action” is needed “to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide” - meaning those whose first or only language is Russian - in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine’s suit argues that the claim of genocide is untrue, and in any case does not provide legal justification for invasion.
The case it has lodged at the World Court, officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), centres on the interpretation of a 1948 treaty on the prevention of genocide, signed by both countries. The treaty names the ICJ as the forum for resolving disputes between signatories.
Last week, the executive board of the International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a statement saying that Putin was “misappropriating and misusing the term ‘genocide’”.
“There is absolutely no evidence that there is genocide going on in Ukraine,” the association’s president, Melanie O’Brien, told Reuters.
The hearings are set to start at 10am (9am GMT) with Ukraine presenting its case. Russia is due to respond on Tuesday.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"This just announce in The Guardian could give Putin an out if he needed one:
Ukraine and Russia to face off at World Court over genocide claim
Ukraine will ask the United Nations’ top court on Monday to issue an emergency ruling requiring Russia to stop its invasion, arguing that Moscow’s justification for the attack is based on a faulty interpretation of genocide law, Reuters reports.
Although the court’s rulings are binding and countries generally follow them, it has no direct means of enforcing them.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has said Russia’s “special military action” is needed “to protect people who have been subjected to bullying and genocide” - meaning those whose first or only language is Russian - in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine’s suit argues that the claim of genocide is untrue, and in any case does not provide legal justification for invasion.
The case it has lodged at the World Court, officially known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), centres on the interpretation of a 1948 treaty on the prevention of genocide, signed by both countries. The treaty names the ICJ as the forum for resolving disputes between signatories.
Last week, the executive board of the International Association of Genocide Scholars issued a statement saying that Putin was “misappropriating and misusing the term ‘genocide’”.
“There is absolutely no evidence that there is genocide going on in Ukraine,” the association’s president, Melanie O’Brien, told Reuters.
The hearings are set to start at 10am (9am GMT) with Ukraine presenting its case. Russia is due to respond on Tuesday.
"
Anything that goes through the UN in this regard would need passing by the UN security council of which Russia is a member and has a Veto. Hence paralysis. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
I tried to follow this and I don't think Russia turned up. They could have used it as 'clarification' for their operations in coming to a ceasefire agreement - instead they are obviously not bothered about pulling out any time soon.. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing "
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless."
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying""
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The UN Security Council is supposed to be having a chat (today or thurs). It's non binding but no one can veto it. I think it is a discussion to halt the Russian attack/immediate withdraw from Ukraine /stand down nuclear weapons/halt propaganda to military..? Pretty much everything, though I don't know how effective it is "
Anything is worth a try to end this god awful fucking conflict |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point..."
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
International Court of Justice to give verdict Weds 16th:
...
"Russia declined to turn up to a hearing at the United Nations court on March 7.
The court in The Hague, in the Netherlands, said in a statement it would announce its judgment on Wednesday at 1500 Greenwich Mean Time (GMT).
The ICJ was set up after World War II to rule on disputes between UN member states, based mainly on treaties and conventions.
Although its rulings are binding, it has no real means to enforce them". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
"
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying."
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance "
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing... "
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *oodmessMan
over a year ago
yumsville |
The UN’s international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to stop its invasion, saying it had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin’s justification for the war, that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the east of the country, Julian Borger writes.
The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.
The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.
The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
The UN’s international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to stop its invasion, saying it had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin’s justification for the war, that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the east of the country, Julian Borger writes.
The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.
The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.
The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.
"
And the usual 2 suspects exercised their veto or abstention. What more is there to say |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"
The UN’s international court of justice (ICJ) in The Hague has ordered Russia to stop its invasion, saying it had not seen any evidence to support the Kremlin’s justification for the war, that Ukraine was committing genocide against Russian-speakers in the east of the country, Julian Borger writes.
The court ruled by 13 votes to two for a provisional order that “the Russian Federation shall immediately suspend military operations that it commenced on 24 February 2022 in the territory of Ukraine”. Only the Russian and Chinese judges on the court voted against the order.
The order was in response to a Ukrainian appeal to the court on 26 February, asking for a urgent ruling on Russian unsupported claims that Ukrainian forces were committing genocide in Russian-backed enclaves in Luhansk and Donetsk, regions in eastern Ukraine, as a justification for the attack.
Russia did not attend an initial hearing on the case, nor did its lawyers turn up to hear today’s ruling. Instead they sent a letter to the court claiming the ICJ did not have jurisdiction over the case. The court’s president, Joan Donoghue, rejected Russia’s argument, pointing out the frequent occasions that Vladimir Putin and other senior Russian officials had claimed the alleged genocide was the reason for the attack.
The ruling is unlikely to influence Putin’s choices, but it does provide an authoritative refutation of his pretext for starting the war.
And the usual 2 suspects exercised their veto or abstention. What more is there to say"
That is not a veto. The Court ruling stands. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing...
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact"
Well done. You have confirmed an uncontested point and simultaneously missed the point made. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing...
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact
Well done. You have confirmed an uncontested point and simultaneously missed the point made."
How does the UN enforce this??? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing...
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact
Well done. You have confirmed an uncontested point and simultaneously missed the point made.
How does the UN enforce this???"
You seem obsessed with "enforcing" things for some reason.
I will reiterate what I wrote previously, as you appear to have completely ignored it.
"The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally." |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing...
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact
Well done. You have confirmed an uncontested point and simultaneously missed the point made.
How does the UN enforce this???
You seem obsessed with "enforcing" things for some reason.
I will reiterate what I wrote previously, as you appear to have completely ignored it.
"The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.""
And as I'm trying to point out, talking doesn't always work. A in peace keeping force would be ideal but.... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *asyukMan
over a year ago
West London |
"Can someone explain what the point is? Toothless. Irrelevant. All the while Russia and China have vetoes. The UNESCO and UNICEF arguments mean nothing
The point of the United Nations is to provide a forum in which to talk.
Whatever batsh*t craziness is going on.
It also provides coordination for global events.
Disease, famines, pollution, climate.
It will always depend on the individual nations involved actually making an effort to work together and resolve issues.
The alternative is arbitrary conflict and piecemeal bilateral negotiations.
You would complain if it had teeth just as much, if not more so than it being toothless.
No, I wouldn't. The UN security council is pointless. If you can establish why that statement is incorrect, I'm more than happy to be persuaded. In the words of Dave mustaine "peace sells, but who's buying"
Should the UN have more power?
Should It force the UK to pay compensation to tortured Kenyans?
Should it impose fines on us for breaking international laws?
Do you know why there are permanent members of the Security Council? If you do, then perhaps you can understand its point...
Your final question sums it up. You assume everyone wants the same thing IE peace in our time, when clearly they don't. The very presence of Russia, China, UK and USA means you will never get security council agreement on such issues. Therefore there is no point in this ideological group. Doomed to failure like it's predecessor.
You didn't actually answer the question, did you?
The answer is nuclear weapons.
The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally.
In all sorts of non-critical and critical ways.
From cooperating with the things that it is possible to agree on and pausing before pressing the global annihilation button because the family of the guy you had coffee with is on the the other end.
Not doomed to failure unless you give up without trying.
In answer to your question, it makes no difference because all the while you have a security council with each member having the power of veto they can do nothing if any relevance
Each member does not have a veto. The permanent members do die to the fact that they possess interballistic nuclear weapons.
In the UN and the Security Council they talk.
If your read what I wrote previously, you would understand why that might be a good thing...
The 5 members of the UN security couyeach have a veto. That is a fact
Well done. You have confirmed an uncontested point and simultaneously missed the point made.
How does the UN enforce this???
You seem obsessed with "enforcing" things for some reason.
I will reiterate what I wrote previously, as you appear to have completely ignored it.
"The United Nations exists to provide the maximum opportunity to keep talking both formally and informally."
And as I'm trying to point out, talking doesn't always work. A in peace keeping force would be ideal but...."
Nuclear weapons mean that if a country doesn't want to do something, it will not.
What would you do with a peacekeeping force in those circumstances? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
