534
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
534 points (95.3% liked)
World News
32289 readers
694 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
We need to expel Israel from the UN. These religious fanatics have no place in the civilized world.
Removing a country from the UN for doing horrible things would defeat the UN's entire purpose.
IDK, FRY was de facto kicked out of the UN in 1992.
Which is keep the current world order of countries doing such dominating?
The UN was created after WW2 to prevent another world war and have a diplomatic channel between all countries that is always open. It's far from perfect, but it's definitely better than what we had before.
Part of any international sanctions is to leave something for the perpetrator to lose.
Otherwise, they can do literally everything without any further consequences whatsoever - it won't get worse for them.
Also, as rightfully mentioned, part of UN's goal is restoring peace between nations, which is harder to do when they are not members. That's the problem with Palestine, and it will get worse if Israel leaves too.
Good time to expel Iran as well
Israeli fanatics have killed more people in a year than Iran has in decades. Israel is a terrorist entity.
Whilst I disagree with your earlier point about expelling Israel from the UN (or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody) I wholehartedly agree with this one.
Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and ... Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some "proof of sovereignty" while it's not even in UN's own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won't get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it's not.
I'd argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.
I don't disagree with your criticisms of the UN. They're not a perfect organization, and UN membership shouldn't be some standard of sovereignty. However, diplomats have always been able to talk whenever they want, the problem that the League of Nations and then the UN tried to address was all the backrooms conversations nations used to have that were part of the causes that lead up to the first world war. Having an international platform every nation needs to at least listen to is better than the alternative. Arguably, untill now the UN has succeeded, there hasn't been a WWIII.
It sounds a lot like you're letting Perfection be the enemy of Good Enough.
Should there be no UN because in a small proportion of situations it's actually shit and is it really realistic to have no talking shop like that at all for as long as it takes for the World to somehow get together and make a perfect entity for that?
I've given some thought to it over the years and I think that the UN still does more good than bad, even whilst being shit at some things and having no real power other than that of influencing nations in general and the World's public opinion.
Further, even if in the balance of things tearing down the UN and creating something better turned out to be the best thing to do, I don't quite see how arbitrarily kicking countries from the UN that were deemed "badly behaving" at the moment would help us create the something better since those countries would need to be there too (it would certainly help tear down the UN, just not help with the actual primary purpose of getting something better to replace it).
A talking shop for everybody using the penalty of kicking members out only ever succeeds in turning itself into an exclusive club, and at the time when the only thing that existed were such clubs (which were naturally made up of nations allied with each other) was before and at the start of WWI and lead to it and to WWII.
That small proportion of situations is those where it was simply impossible to live oppressed, because there only were options to fight or die. A much larger proportion of people in this world live oppressed.
And then we can do US
Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.
Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I'd sign under. It's just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.
Have you seen what happens to Muslims in India? Hindu nationalists are using Gaza as a model for how they should run Kashmir.
There are much more Muslims living in India than just those in Kashmir. They also have regions where Muslims treat Christians that way. India is big. That said, yes, it sucks, but Kashmir is a situation where "both sides" can be used honestly. It's just that somehow Europeans and Americans like to consider Muslims the oppressed group number one. Usually they are the oppressors.
Locking people up for their gender, sexuality or for listening to pop music is okay with you?
You fool.
As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.