4 ms·

>>If not, it should be of global interest to crush the dictators As a species, we have evolved institutions such as the UN to effectively convey and act upon

>>If not, it should be of global interest to crush the dictators As a species, we have evolved institutions such as the UN to effectively convey and act upon those global interests in a civilised manner. This happened after humanity suffered the horrors of two world wars. If anyone, anywhere decides to wage a war supposedly to guard global interests, they should at least get a global consensus, no? That democracy that you speak of. Because other wise self defence would be justified, honourable even. The problem with Iraq and Libya isn't what you described post-war, it is that they got invaded in the first place. A perfectly good country would turn into Iraq and Libya if you invaded and dismantled its government.

mschuster91 9y ago
The UN is an empty paper tiger, I am afraid. As long as the veto power of China and Russia in the security council stands, there will be no ousting of any dictator, no matter how brutal he acts. The Russians will continue to veto anything that might endanger their claim to Crimea or their naval base in Syria. The Chinese will continue to veto against anything that might impact North Korea (due to their land border), and also likely against anything that might disrupt their infrastructure and other investments in Africa. The US will veto anything that endangers whatever business interests Trump has or what could endanger Israel (and, IMHO, rightly so). Also, there are no consequences for failing to adhere with UN resolutions, as the UN does not have an independent standing military force, so as long as you as violating country have one supporter in the SC (it usually is either US, China or Russia), you don't have to fear anything. What's worse is that the UN is not at all democratic. The representatives are not elected democratically, they are not bound to the will of the people, and there is no proportional voting according to population size.
- inb4dangshitban 9y ago
  Wow, way to absolve US from it's shitty UN voting/vetoing over the years. It was Trump business interests!

mschuster91 9y ago

The UN is an empty paper tiger, I am afraid. As long as the veto power of China and Russia in the security council stands, there will be no ousting of any dictator, no matter how brutal he acts. The Russians will continue to veto anything that might endanger their claim to Crimea or their naval base in Syria. The Chinese will continue to veto against anything that might impact North Korea (due to their land border), and also likely against anything that might disrupt their infrastructure and other investments in Africa. The US will veto anything that endangers whatever business interests Trump has or what could endanger Israel (and, IMHO, rightly so). Also, there are no consequences for failing to adhere with UN resolutions, as the UN does not have an independent standing military force, so as long as you as violating country have one supporter in the SC (it usually is either US, China or Russia), you don't have to fear anything. What's worse is that the UN is not at all democratic. The representatives are not elected democratically, they are not bound to the will of the people, and there is no proportional voting according to population size.

inb4dangshitban 9y ago
Wow, way to absolve US from it's shitty UN voting/vetoing over the years. It was Trump business interests!