We need something a lot like the UNSC, except without China and other foreign fucking wogs to prevent USA from getting its way.
Which is NOT what you just said. Your implication is that the only point of this new body would be to maintain US dominance.
You forgot to mention the implied accusation of nationalism and racism.
I'm just trying to get people to look at this from a non-North American perspective. How do you guys think China would feel if we just cut them out of the process altogether for no reason other than we don't agree with them sometimes. Also, how legitimate would a security council be that does not include China which is basically the Number Two power today?
Which is NOT what you just said. Your implication is that the only point of this new body would be to maintain US dominance.
Well, I mean look at what you are suggesting. Look at the criteria. Obviously the Americans would be on the veto list. Obviously they would do the exact same shit they do on the UNSC, which is veto anything they don't like and pressure smaller veto countries to vote in line with their interests. Obviously whatever other countries end up on the veto list would be little progressive socialist middle powers with American-ish values and outlooks, who would cave to American pressure and manipulation in virtually any circumstance.
From a Chinese or Saudi or Russian perspective, that looks like the UNSC, except without China and Saudi Arabia and Russia.
I'm not exactly seeing the bad here.
The bad is that the US is eeeeevil, so we must make sure to exclude them and everyone who shares their values.
Being as objective as I can, the US has a lot of flaws, but if you stick it on the same spectrum as the other 200 nations on this planet, it's pretty far towards the good end. Especially if you exclude dubious "human rights" like universal health care, high taxes, lightning fast broadband, ubiquitous public transportation, and the like.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Which is NOT what you just said. Your implication is that the only point of this new body would be to maintain US dominance.
Well, I mean look at what you are suggesting. Look at the criteria. Obviously the Americans would be on the veto list. Obviously they would do the exact same shit they do on the UNSC, which is veto anything they don't like and pressure smaller veto countries to vote in line with their interests. Obviously whatever other countries end up on the veto list would be little progressive socialist middle powers with American-ish values and outlooks, who would cave to American pressure and manipulation in virtually any circumstance.
From a Chinese or Saudi or Russian perspective, that looks like the UNSC, except without China and Saudi Arabia and Russia.
I'm not exactly seeing the bad here.
The bad is that the US is eeeeevil, so we must make sure to exclude them and everyone who shares their values.
Being as objective as I can, the US has a lot of flaws, but if you stick it on the same spectrum as the other 200 nations on this planet, it's pretty far towards the good end. Especially if you exclude dubious "human rights" like universal health care, high taxes, lightning fast broadband, ubiquitous public transportation, and the like.
I absolutely agree with you there, I think the US should be at the head of any international body (especially the security council). I am saying that no security council can be called legitimate when China is not just as influential over the proceedings as the United States. Regardless of how shitty China is we have to at least make them feel like they are being being paid attention to or else they will withdraw from international relations.
We need something a lot like the UNSC, except without China and other foreign fucking wogs to prevent USA from getting its way.
Which is NOT what you just said. Your implication is that the only point of this new body would be to maintain US dominance.
You forgot to mention the implied accusation of nationalism and racism.
I'm just trying to get people to look at this from a non-North American perspective. How do you guys think China would feel if we just cut them out of the process altogether for no reason other than we don't agree with them sometimes. Also, how legitimate would a security council be that does not include China which is basically the Number Two power today?
What about Iran's feelings? They'd be sad if we told them they can't chair the Human Rights Commission!
The point is not to give autocrats a warm fuzzy. The point is to place responsibility for the world's security in the hands of the most responsible people.
I wouldn't have a problem with having two organizations, one based on size and clout, and another based on human rights adherence. It could be sort of like the House and Senate - two groups with equal power based on different metrics. Not to say we should turn the UN into a World Government Lite, but that we should recognize there are different means of determining who we should listen to. The UNSC is good for matters of world security, and for resolving international disputes. The HRC sucks at pretty much everything, though, because it's non-binding and is run equally by democracies and despots.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
World Government Lite is an exceedingly ignorant way of looking at it, hopefully nobody thinks that is what I or anyone else in this thread is suggesting.
Azio is completely right. If nations like Russia and China are shut out of high-level UN decision making, what incentive do they have to participate? The point of the UN is to provide a forum for nations to discuss issues in public (and hopefully prevent them from nuking each other), not to form a world government.
Azio is completely right. If nations like Russia and China are shut out of high-level UN decision making, what incentive do they have to participate? The point of the UN is to provide a forum for nations to discuss issues in public (and hopefully prevent them from nuking each other), not to form a world government.
That's why I and others are suggesting not something to replace the UN, but to supplement it.
Posts
The bad is that the US is eeeeevil, so we must make sure to exclude them and everyone who shares their values.
Being as objective as I can, the US has a lot of flaws, but if you stick it on the same spectrum as the other 200 nations on this planet, it's pretty far towards the good end. Especially if you exclude dubious "human rights" like universal health care, high taxes, lightning fast broadband, ubiquitous public transportation, and the like.
That's why I and others are suggesting not something to replace the UN, but to supplement it.