this post was submitted on 30 Oct 2024
440 points (94.5% liked)

World News

39023 readers
2488 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Well... Yeah. Who do you think would enforce any "rules"? And how would they?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

If only UN wasn't completely useless to the point of not doing anything

The UN is, like marginally more effective than the League of Nations was. Which is to say: nearly completely meaningless.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

What would it do? And how would it enforce its decisions?

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Simple, prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not here to argue a hypothetical with someone who "just asks questions".

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I'm not "just asking questions" - it's the "Socratic method". I'm trying to get you to see the answer - that there is no answer.

What you seek is impossible. You want "no wars" but you need somebody who can stop nations from going to war - which requires the ability and willingness to wage war and win. A hegemony that rules over everyone and is a super-power in itself.

This is how the police work in most nations. The state has a "monopoly on violence" to enforce the laws so that citizens don't go all "Hatfield & McCoy".

This was also the plot of the first half of the book Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke (an excellent read - I highly recommend it).

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This response from the guy who said Simple, prevent wars..

I'm wasting my time.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yours and mine. Next time don't ask questions about a hypothetical like some "ackschually" nerd.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You're absolutely right. In retrospect I should have known better than to engage with somebody saying "why doesn't the UN just stop wars?"

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -2 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

If only you could read, you would know I never said that.

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 weeks ago

Every conversation on the Internet will eventually devolve into an argument over who said what.

I was paraphrasing "Simple, prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence." Specifically the first part. If you meant something else I invite you to clarify. But so far you didn't seem to have developed your thoughts past "prevent wars" and "the UN is useless".

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago

Simple, prevent wars.

You sure did say it.

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

How do you think the UN would be able to "prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence."?

What methods would it use to achieve those goals?

"Simple. Just do it" is not an answer.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

So, UN would?

But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn't suit them, and the UN would be useless again.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

if only the UN wasn't so useless

It's actually a scam that it is pointless. All it does is it creates an illusion of discourse when there is none - the "big boys" will still do whatever suits them best - be it China, Russia, US.

[–] where_am_i@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

The whole point of creating it was so that at least everyone gets to talk.

Any union that would force any sort of rules couldn't exist. But a one with no commitments does exist, and countries talk, and sometimes things happen when it's not in a direct conflict of major powers.

Lemmy somehow always imagines some higher international power existing and also that power somehow ruling in accordance with their beliefs. I'm not sure how they imagine that would actually work and who would enforce the order.

[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah you say all that and yet the UN is still useless. It hasn't prevented wars. The peacekeepers do jack shit. It's about as effective as thoughts and prayers - after all, everything that can be done is "talk".

[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

If that same thought or sentiment grows around the world ..... then why have a UN if its just treated as a play toy by the ones with the biggest guns?

[–] atzanteol@sh.itjust.works 10 points 2 weeks ago

ALL of international politics is ruled by those with the biggest guns! There is no mommy or daddy to make the kids play nicely.

The UN is an attempt to allow for international discussions, collaboration and some sense of "law". It is and always will be flawed, but that doesn't mean its useless.