4 ms·

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert

> There are no alternatives, that is part of the problem. The UN was primarily created to prevent all-out war between the US and Russia... Please don't pervert the history. This wasn't the case. The UN was created as a reaction to the horror of WWII and the failure of the League of Nations. It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again." It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1. > There are no alternatives The alternative is here, and it's the resolution 377 action.

zozbot234 5y ago
This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.
- mschuster91 5y ago
  > It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that. This isn't possible often enough. There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival, from starving their populations (North Korea) to murdering or beating them up on the streets (Tiananmen massacre, Arab Spring revolutions) or silencing any opposition (Hongkong, Belarus). Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    > There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival These things only matter in the short run but successful, enduring democratization is a very long game. Look at Taiwan and South Korea - relatively straightforward when looking at them from the outside, and yet they took decades to become stable democracies with real respect for fundamental rights. More challenging cases might take generations. > Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support. Most often, the needed support can come from the inside, as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy. Arguably, this is even the best possible case.
    - mschuster91 5y ago
      > as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption, the elites are generally so widely despised by the population that they have to fear to be imprisoned at best and executed at worst, were they to lose power. It's even worse in countries like the Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or former Yugoslavian member states, where religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        > For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption ... religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix. I don't exactly disagree, but this is why it can make sense to pursue basic state-building ("good government") and liberalization (respect for basic rights and freedoms) well before worrying about electoral democracy, or a transfer of power away from current policy makers. In practice, the latter is essentially useless without the former - but in the long run, more freedom opens up opportunities for more democracy.
- tradesurplus 5y ago
  You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or any knowledge of Burma's history. General Hlaing's junta has already committed one genocide against the Rohingya in 2017 and given the continued opportunities will turn Burma into a failed state, cause the death of millions and destabilise the region. Just because they lack Nazi Germany's industrial capacity and sharp uniforms doesn't mean they won't continue to murder, maim and slaughter.
  - LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
    Funny that you bring the Nazis into play. I've read somewhere that the Rohingya aren't liked that much in all the regions they dispersed into, because much of them worked as the shock troops of the British Empire, protecting its interests. That seems to be true even for the time when their home was called Arakan, and they weren't so dispersed. So they are shunned where they did the shock trooping for the Brits, or tried to separate and do their own islamic thing afterwards, in multiethnic regions. Karma is a bitch, isn't it?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
mschuster91 5y ago
> It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again." That is what both you and I hope that the UN would have been, but unfortunately not much based in reality. > It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1. Without Soviet cooperation, the purpose of the UN would have been moot from day 1.

zozbot234 5y ago

This is not a Nazi Germany wannabe, it's just a garden variety tinpot dictatorship. There are a lot like it in the world, and we've figured out that outside intervention is not a good idea in such cases. It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that.

mschuster91 5y ago
> It's the responsibility of a country's own people to pursue free government for themselves, assuming that they care to. Reap what you sow, and all that. This isn't possible often enough. There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival, from starving their populations (North Korea) to murdering or beating them up on the streets (Tiananmen massacre, Arab Spring revolutions) or silencing any opposition (Hongkong, Belarus). Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support.
- zozbot234 5y ago
  > There are countless dictatorships that use any means necessary to ensure their survival These things only matter in the short run but successful, enduring democratization is a very long game. Look at Taiwan and South Korea - relatively straightforward when looking at them from the outside, and yet they took decades to become stable democracies with real respect for fundamental rights. More challenging cases might take generations. > Most freedom movements need some form of support from the outside, be it arms, money, logistic or ideologic support. Most often, the needed support can come from the inside, as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy. Arguably, this is even the best possible case.
  - mschuster91 5y ago
    > as influential groups within the country start supporting a peaceful transition to liberal democracy For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption, the elites are generally so widely despised by the population that they have to fear to be imprisoned at best and executed at worst, were they to lose power. It's even worse in countries like the Lebanon, Syria, Yemen or former Yugoslavian member states, where religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      > For that, you need influential groups that can benefit from changing the status quo. In a country that has been suffering from decades of corruption ... religion, ethnic disputes and sometimes hundreds of years worth of land disputes and squabbles come into the mix. I don't exactly disagree, but this is why it can make sense to pursue basic state-building ("good government") and liberalization (respect for basic rights and freedoms) well before worrying about electoral democracy, or a transfer of power away from current policy makers. In practice, the latter is essentially useless without the former - but in the long run, more freedom opens up opportunities for more democracy.
tradesurplus 5y ago
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about or any knowledge of Burma's history. General Hlaing's junta has already committed one genocide against the Rohingya in 2017 and given the continued opportunities will turn Burma into a failed state, cause the death of millions and destabilise the region. Just because they lack Nazi Germany's industrial capacity and sharp uniforms doesn't mean they won't continue to murder, maim and slaughter.
- LargoLasskhyfv 5y ago
  Funny that you bring the Nazis into play. I've read somewhere that the Rohingya aren't liked that much in all the regions they dispersed into, because much of them worked as the shock troops of the British Empire, protecting its interests. That seems to be true even for the time when their home was called Arakan, and they weren't so dispersed. So they are shunned where they did the shock trooping for the Brits, or tried to separate and do their own islamic thing afterwards, in multiethnic regions. Karma is a bitch, isn't it?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

mschuster91 5y ago

> It was to become a League of Democracies, an iron fist against the next Nazi Germany wannabe, a guarantor of the "Never Again." That is what both you and I hope that the UN would have been, but unfortunately not much based in reality. > It was the US who go the idea to get USSR into it, pretty much sabotaging it on the day 1. Without Soviet cooperation, the purpose of the UN would have been moot from day 1.