- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.
edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg
Well… Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any “rules”? And how would they?
If only UN wasn’t completely useless to the point of not doing anything
The UN is, like marginally more effective than the League of Nations was. Which is to say: nearly completely meaningless.
So, UN would?
But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn’t suit them, and the UN would be useless again.
It’s actually a scam that it is pointless. All it does is it creates an illusion of discourse when there is none - the “big boys” will still do whatever suits them best - be it China, Russia, US.
The whole point of creating it was so that at least everyone gets to talk.
Any union that would force any sort of rules couldn’t exist. But a one with no commitments does exist, and countries talk, and sometimes things happen when it’s not in a direct conflict of major powers.
Lemmy somehow always imagines some higher international power existing and also that power somehow ruling in accordance with their beliefs. I’m not sure how they imagine that would actually work and who would enforce the order.
Yeah you say all that and yet the UN is still useless. It hasn’t prevented wars. The peacekeepers do jack shit. It’s about as effective as thoughts and prayers - after all, everything that can be done is “talk”.
What would it do? And how would it enforce its decisions?
Simple, prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.
how?
I’m not here to argue a hypothetical with someone who “just asks questions”.
I’m not “just asking questions” - it’s the “Socratic method”. I’m trying to get you to see the answer - that there is no answer.
What you seek is impossible. You want “no wars” but you need somebody who can stop nations from going to war - which requires the ability and willingness to wage war and win. A hegemony that rules over everyone and is a super-power in itself.
This is how the police work in most nations. The state has a “monopoly on violence” to enforce the laws so that citizens don’t go all “Hatfield & McCoy”.
This was also the plot of the first half of the book Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke (an excellent read - I highly recommend it).
Uh huh, sure buddy.
This response from the guy who said
Simple, prevent wars..I’m wasting my time.
How do you think the UN would be able to “prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.”?
What methods would it use to achieve those goals?
“Simple. Just do it” is not an answer.
Removed by mod
If that same thought or sentiment grows around the world … then why have a UN if its just treated as a play toy by the ones with the biggest guns?
ALL of international politics is ruled by those with the biggest guns! There is no mommy or daddy to make the kids play nicely.
The UN is an attempt to allow for international discussions, collaboration and some sense of “law”. It is and always will be flawed, but that doesn’t mean its useless.