Reply to Re: World Police
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
Letting them take control over their own country, however, would be a good start.
The thing is, they can't. Look at plenty of African countries.
The point I was making, is that the western world (companies more than governments) are actively maintaining chaos in Africa. If they would stop doing that, I wouldn't be surprised to see the people in Africa being able to take care of themselves.
they won't and never will for any conflict of importance because of the veto rights Russia and China have.
And the US; they're opportunistically blocking stuff just as much.
Yes, the UN is one big failure and should be abolished and recreated with different rules in place.
I disagree. The UN is very slow and can't take a very active role, especially in conflicts where the "big boys" disagree. But I see that as a good thing: if the US would be allowed to overrule China and Russia, and they feel really bad about it, they'll send their armies to protect their cause. That would result in WW3.
UN priorities are simple and sensible: First, avoid global war; second, try to make the world safer.
And while it is "illegal" according to international right to invade a country without a UN resolution, it's not like there's any penalty as long as you are (backed by) a veto-holder; there wasn't a resolution when the US invaded Iraq, but that didn't stop them. And nobody is making a big deal out of it, either.
The thing is, they can't. Look at plenty of African countries.
The point I was making, is that the western world (companies more than governments) are actively maintaining chaos in Africa. If they would stop doing that, I wouldn't be surprised to see the people in Africa being able to take care of themselves.
they won't and never will for any conflict of importance because of the veto rights Russia and China have.
And the US; they're opportunistically blocking stuff just as much.
Yes, the UN is one big failure and should be abolished and recreated with different rules in place.
I disagree. The UN is very slow and can't take a very active role, especially in conflicts where the "big boys" disagree. But I see that as a good thing: if the US would be allowed to overrule China and Russia, and they feel really bad about it, they'll send their armies to protect their cause. That would result in WW3.
UN priorities are simple and sensible: First, avoid global war; second, try to make the world safer.
And while it is "illegal" according to international right to invade a country without a UN resolution, it's not like there's any penalty as long as you are (backed by) a veto-holder; there wasn't a resolution when the US invaded Iraq, but that didn't stop them. And nobody is making a big deal out of it, either.
