Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Frazzled wrote:Cool. Do we have to belong?

You helped set it up. As a charter member, surely the USA can suggest ways of reforming or ending it, or at least a graceful way of leaving.

In budget terms the USA shirked its responsibility decades ago, starting under Reagan.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems.

True.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china).

False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is. The fact that the 20th century has seen some horribly oppressive fascist states does not change the fact that, for many, many centuries, humanity got along just fine without free, democratic elections. There is this ridiculous American notion that the ideals of freedom, and liberty somehow began with the Revolutionary War. They didn't. Indeed, for the first 100 years or so the United States was not all that different from the British Empire except in that it lacked overseas colonies.

The disparity between the very bottom, and the very top, has been about the same throughout the entire course of human history. When we imagine the wealth of kings in the modern age we think they lived lives as comfortably as our own benevolent overlords, but they didn't. The average monarch in 15th century Europe lived a life roughly as comfortable as that of the average middle class American citizen. Wealth was highly centralize, but it also flowed freely throughout the various Imperial holdings around the globe such that all participants prospered, not just Imperial powers.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.

If it didn't exist the UN would be far less effective than it currently is. There is no surer way to get the modern powers that be to completely withdraw from the UN than to eliminate the Security council. And, as much as the United States might not support the UN, it is better to have some of their support than none at all. I mean really, what good is a UN resolution if the most powerful nations in the world simply ignore it?

Kilkrazy wrote:Japan is bigger than Germany.

Indonesia is bigger than Russia.

The EU is bigger than the USA.

It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.

Japan is East Asia, and subsumes under China

Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC. Besides, they're South Asia, so subsumed under India.

The EU isn't a country, it's the PC name for GrossDeutschland, so they're subsumed under Germany.

So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

Explain.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Japan is bigger than Germany.

Indonesia is bigger than Russia.

The EU is bigger than the USA.

It should be China, India, EU, Indonesia, Japan.

Japan is East Asia, and subsumes under China

Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC. Besides, they're South Asia, so subsumed under India.

The EU isn't a country, it's the PC name for GrossDeutschland, so they're subsumed under Germany.

So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).

Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.

False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is.

Except both are supposedly states with "representative" governance (not democracy, but government that represents the will and wishes of its people). In russia it's just a straight up lie, it's the united russia of putinville. chinas been improving bit by bit for years but it's moving quite slow. Both states block obvious measures in the international scene to maintain the validity of their own forms of governance (such as blocking interference in african crisis'). Both do so under the auspices of the opinion that independence of a national government from foreign bodies, including the UN is paramount. They do it so that they don't seem hypocrites when their own houses are very much not in order, and they do it so that the UN is further crippled in meddling with their own affairs. If you want strike "democracy" from my quote. The freedom of press, religion, and the legal mobility of station are much more important. As is racial, religious, and gender equality in each. Something neither the second or third most important bodies on the council have in good measure.

If it didn't exist the UN would be far less effective than it currently is. There is no surer way to get the modern powers that be to completely withdraw from the UN than to eliminate the Security council. And, as much as the United States might not support the UN, it is better to have some of their support than none at all. I mean really, what good is a UN resolution if the most powerful nations in the world simply ignore it?

The council gives the nations within it undue power unbefitting of the state of the world. It doesn't truly function as it stands now, and I agree without it the UN would cease to function. Hence my belief that the UN needs a teardown and restructuring or that in the very least the function and makeup of the security council needs to be reworked.

Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.

He does that.

ShumaGorath wrote:

The world doesn't need a global watchdog;

The hell it doesn't. The human race is by in large an idiotic mass of selfish self deluded fools. It needs someone to hold it's hand. Thats easiest done by grabbing the smartest and most representative of each tribe/nation/and religion and sticking them all in a box to work their crap out. Otherwise they just sit in their echo chambers and talk about lowering taxes to fix economic problems. The problem with the UN is the security councel. China and russia should not be represented on it. Neither nation is even close to a free democracy, and both think solely about their administrations or economy before the well-being of their people (russia much moreso than china).

The "security council" shouldn't exist, and it certainly shouldn't function as it does.

The end result is the same. Global policy means NOTHING to the extremists. It also means nothing when the U.S. wants what they want (Invading Iraq), or a unconcerned country wants a nuclear program (N. Korea), or a warlord wants to steal medical supplies (several in Africa and S. America). Economic sanctions don't mean squat when the global economy tanks; We are ALL poor now. The fact is, outside of military conquest there is simply, no way to force a country to comply. All the UN does is sit and prattle on all day.

Our global 'community' is strife with conflicting views, creeds, and religions, most of which are anathema to any other. Unless this changes, ( ) the human race is completely f$%#@d. We WILL be our own destruction.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

Explain.

I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).

Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.

Of course I am. I'm an American, and that's the American way...

JohnHwangDD wrote:

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

Explain.

I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.
____

Kilkrazy wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:So: China (>> Japan), India (> Indonesia), USA, Russia, Germany (>> EU).

Now you're just making up rules to suit yourself.

Of course I am. I'm an American, and that's the American way...

And it's appropriate since we made up the UN in the first place

ShumaGorath wrote:
Except both are supposedly states with "representative" governance (not democracy, but government that represents the will and wishes of its people). In russia it's just a straight up lie, it's the united russia of putinville.

Eh, that remains to be seen. Putin has significant control over the outcome of elections, but that has as much to do with the complete and utter lack of political infrastructure as anything else. No one opposes Vlad the Judo Instructor because everyone that might want to already benefits from being in his system. Though it will be interesting to see if Dimitri make an attempt at holding onto the Presidency now that he has extended the term out to 6 years.

ShumaGorath wrote:
chinas been improving bit by bit for years but it's moving quite slow.

There are a billion people in that nation. The fact that it has progressed as quickly as it has is absolutely phenomenal.

ShumaGorath wrote:
Both states block obvious measures in the international scene to maintain the validity of their own forms of governance (such as blocking interference in african crisis'). Both do so under the auspices of the opinion that independence of a national government from foreign bodies, including the UN is paramount.

This has been waning of late. The Chinese actually supported UN proposals for a cease-fire in Gaza, as did Russia. True, this was not actual intervention, but it is far more than either state has been willing to do in the past.

ShumaGorath wrote:
They do it so that they don't seem hypocrites when their own houses are very much not in order, and they do it so that the UN is further crippled in meddling with their own affairs.

They also do it because correcting human rights abuses is beyond the capacity of both states. China needs its iron first to administer to its massive population across a colossal wealth gap, and Russia needs it for similar reasons only replacing the wealth gap with massive stretches of nearly lawless territory.

ShumaGorath wrote:
If you want strike "democracy" from my quote. The freedom of press, religion, and the legal mobility of station are much more important. As is racial, religious, and gender equality in each. Something neither the second or third most important bodies on the council have in good measure.

Honestly, those aren't that important in matters of development. Developed nations have the ability to open their societies as they face less internal pressure due to social inequities. Developing countries have no similar capacity. You don't get to sublimate phases of national development. It simply isn't possible.

ShumaGorath wrote:
The council gives the nations within it undue power unbefitting of the state of the world. It doesn't truly function as it stands now, and I agree without it the UN would cease to function. Hence my belief that the UN needs a teardown and restructuring or that in the very least the function and makeup of the security council needs to be reworked.

I agree the security council needs to be reworked. Though, realistically, insofar as the UN does not supply combat ready forces it really doesn't matter.

Our global 'community' is strife with conflicting views, creeds, and religions, most of which are anathema to any other. Unless this changes, ( ) the human race is completely f$%#@d. We WILL be our own destruction.

Ahh the education of the self educated. Learn history from internet forums and you end up a shriveled husk of a human without a hope to be found in you.

The end result is the same. Global policy means NOTHING to the extremists. It also means nothing when the U.S. wants what they want (Invading Iraq), or a unconcerned country wants a nuclear program (N. Korea), or a warlord wants to steal medical supplies (several in Africa and S. America). Economic sanctions don't mean squat when the global economy tanks; We are ALL poor now. The fact is, outside of military conquest there is simply, no way to force a country to comply. All the UN does is sit and prattle on all day.

Prevention of nuclear proliferation has actually been quite successful under the UN. It's just increasingly hard to do as nuclear weapons are increasingly easy to make(and north korea doesn't exactly interact with the UN much). As for global economic sanctions, they mean more than most think. You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis. Your last sentence shows you don't really understand geopolitical interaction.

Talking about the make up of the UN doesn’t matter. There's plenty of arguments that Germany deserves a permanent seat ahead of France, and Japan definitely deserves a seat of its own. Nations like India are more debatable, as the permanent seats on the Security Council represent power, not population, and India still has next to no force projection and largely irrelevant economic production (it’s about 10% bigger than Australia).

However, it’s important to note that you can gain access to the SC without being a permanent member. A permanent member gets veto, but that only stops something being passed that you find unacceptable, it doesn’t allow you anymore power to introduce law than any other member of the council.

The bigger issue, I think, is that at the end of the day, some people will disagree with UN decisions and declare the UN is hopeless and needs to be shut down. You can do whatever you want to the structure of the UN, you can have three or four or five tiers of power, you can have weighted voting based on a range of factors, whatever. People will still see a UN decision they don’t like and declare the whole thing hopeless.

Thing is, when our own governments form policy we don’t like very few of us say ‘therefore we shouldn’t have a government’. When someone does say that we pat them on the head, offer them a biscuit and return to adult conversation.

Yet the same thing isn’t true when people say the UN should fold because they passed a resolution people don’t like. It’s a weird thing.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

I recommend you stop talking.

dogma wrote:False. A free, democratic state isn't that much more disposed to looking after its people than a well run dictatorship is. The fact that the 20th century has seen some horribly oppressive fascist states does not change the fact that, for many, many centuries, humanity got along just fine without free, democratic elections. There is this ridiculous American notion that the ideals of freedom, and liberty somehow began with the Revolutionary War. They didn't. Indeed, for the first 100 years or so the United States was not all that different from the British Empire except in that it lacked overseas colonies.

The disparity between the very bottom, and the very top, has been about the same throughout the entire course of human history. When we imagine the wealth of kings in the modern age we think they lived lives as comfortably as our own benevolent overlords, but they didn't. The average monarch in 15th century Europe lived a life roughly as comfortable as that of the average middle class American citizen. Wealth was highly centralize, but it also flowed freely throughout the various Imperial holdings around the globe such that all participants prospered, not just Imperial powers.

It was quite an awakening when I was in China to see that life was pretty much just like life elsewhere. I had these assumptions in the back of my head about how life must be in China under that government, and when I went there they just weren’t true. But that doesn’t mean life there is just the same as elsewhere.

There are human rights abuses, challenging government is likely to land you in jail. Corruption is rampant, and government will quickly close ranks to protect their. There is a large amount of crime that is allowed to flourish because it target the poor and minorities.

But none of that means China shouldn’t be a permanent member of the UNSC. They represent significant power, are going to become more powerful. Human rights aside, its important for the UN to represent basic power, and that means China needs a permanent seat.

ShumaGorath wrote:You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis.

The threat of sanctions presumes that those impacted will have some say in being able to right things. The sanctions in North Korea aren't having any effect aside from impoverishing the people. Kim Il Jong is still quite fat, so he personally isn't suffering. Only the people governed suffer. I swear, if the CIA could sanction just one assassination or coup by force, the human misery to be averted in North Korea would be tremendous...

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.

Right, bigot, I forgot.

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

I recommend you stop talking.

I recommend that you spend some time in a Muslim country.

Especially if you're married / have a daughter / love your mother.

Even a day would do.

I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.

I would far rather live in "communist" China or Eastern Europe than any Muslim state.

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
I think I just did, clearly and succinctly.

Right, bigot, I forgot.

Not all bigotry is wrong.

I have no problem with being labeled anti-Muslim-statist. Indeed, I don't support *any* religious states, and that includes Israel and the Vatican.

I think that religious states are an abomination as far as human rights and human freedoms go.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Not all bigotry is wrong.

I have no problem with being labeled anti-Muslim-statist. Indeed, I don't support *any* religious states, and that includes Israel and the Vatican.

I think that religious states are an abomination as far as human rights and human freedoms go.

Haven't you argued for the use of Judeo-Christian morals as guiding principles in American lawmaking?

Either way, all bigotry is wrong. It is the assumption that your worldview is the only acceptable one, and that you could never be mistaken, or misinformed.

Also, Indonesia just has a majority Muslim population, it is not a Muslim state.

I have probably stated that American / Western law comes from a society that is historically derived from Judeo-Christian principles. I have never argued that Judeo-Christian morals should form the basis for any American law. There is an important distinction to be understood between the two points above.

Again, I see nothing wrong with certain forms of informed bigotry, and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

sebster wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:Indonesia is Muslim, so they cannot ever be part of the UNSC.

I recommend you stop talking.

I recommend that you spend some time in a Muslim country.

Especially if you're married / have a daughter / love your mother.

Even a day would do.

I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.

I would far rather live in "communist" China or Eastern Europe than any Muslim state.

Yeah, there are serious problems with core freedoms in those states. But there all sorts of things wrong with core freedoms in Russia and China as well, but you seem alright with giving them permanency on the UNSC.

More than anything, you need to stop talking because you seem to have no idea what permanency is about. It isn’t about being a shining beacon of human rights and progress. It’s about being big enough and scary enough that if the UN started passing SC decisions that you don’t agree with, then either there’d be a war or the UN would collapse. Or probably both.

Being a muslim state has nothing to do with anything relevant to the issue. When combined with the pass you give to other states, it’s just a bizarre thing to bring up.

I know full well what permanancy is about (veto power), and I'm very well aware that human rights has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I also know that having any Muslim-friendly state on the UNSC would pretty much bring things to a grinding halt.

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:You're just sitting fat and happy in arizona rather than starving and terrified in North Korea. The threat of sanctions causes an economy to act, just look at russia and ukraine in the recent euro gas crisis.

The threat of sanctions presumes that those impacted will have some say in being able to right things. The sanctions in North Korea aren't having any effect aside from impoverishing the people. Kim Il Jong is still quite fat, so he personally isn't suffering. Only the people governed suffer. I swear, if the CIA could sanction just one assassination or coup by force, the human misery to be averted in North Korea would be tremendous...

Sanctions work the same way as any international punitive measure. They only work insofar as the country is connected to the international community. Thinking they don't work at all because they don't work in extreme situations is idiocy.

I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.

And what were you doing in said countries?

ShumaGorath wrote:

I've been to a few, and I'll go on record as saying that these are horrible, horrible places that I would never, ever live.

And what were you doing in said countries?

Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.

Of course, in such countries, there's not a whole lot to do aside from seeing the self-proclaimed glory of the "king", due to imposed restrictions.

Coming from the egalitarian, "free" West (or even China), it's really horrible.

It is the closest thing I can think of to living under the Ecclesiarchy in the soul-destroying grimdark of the Emperor's 40k.

Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.

And which countries were these?

JohnHwangDD wrote:I know full well what permanancy is about (veto power), and I'm very well aware that human rights has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I also know that having any Muslim-friendly state on the UNSC would pretty much bring things to a grinding halt.

Hang on, what? You say you understand how permanency is different, but then go on to say that having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt. Do you mean having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt, because there are currently two Islamic nations on the UNSC and they seem to be doing about as well as ever.

Also, what on Earth has a poor record on women’s rights got to do with being able to function on the security council? I don’t think Indonesia should be given permanency but you’re not making any sense here.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
Again, I see nothing wrong with certain forms of informed bigotry,

Bigotry, by definition, is uninformed.

JohnHwangDD wrote:
and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.

I dearly hope this was intended to be sarcasm.

sebster wrote:You say you understand how permanency is different, but then go on to say that having an Islamic state with permanency will bring things to a crashing halt.

Quite simply, I do not believe that an Islamic state of any sort should ever have the veto power that comes from being a permanent member of the UNSC.

That is my personal opinion based on my personal observations and experiences, nothing more.

____

dogma wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:
and I see nothing wrong with starting with the premise that I know it all. Remember, I *am* an American.

I dearly hope this was intended to be sarcasm.

Well, what *else* could it be?

After you called me a bigot, the only other responses I could make would degenerate things into tit-for-tat "so's your mother" exchange that I want no part of.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.

And which countries were these?

Why, does it really matter that much?

Where I went, they're more progressive places, but the grimdark is always in the background like metastasized cancer.

"Not a bad place to visit, wouldn't ever want to live there"

JohnHwangDD wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Visiting as a tourist. I think I learned a lot just walking around and observing.

And which countries were these?

Why, does it really matter that much?

Where I went, they're more progressive places, but the grimdark is always in the background like metastasized cancer.

"Not a bad place to visit, wouldn't ever want to live there"

I'm dissecting your story in order to help you actually form a complete sentence rather than "I've been to the dark muslim apocalypse". I'm also at least making the attempt to see if you're lying(kind).

JohnHwangDD wrote:Quite simply, I do not believe that an Islamic state of any sort should ever have the veto power that comes from being a permanent member of the UNSC.

That is my personal opinion based on my personal observations and experiences, nothing more.

Yeah, but they’re personal observations that have nothing to do with how the UN works. Permanent SC members don’t have powers beyond ordinary SC members other than veto.

What this veto power means is that you recognise certain countries around the world are big enough and ugly enough that if they disagree with a SC resolution, and the SC pushes it through anyway the result is either war or dissolution of the SC, probably both. So instead you give those big countries veto power, so when the UNSC passes a motion declaring Chechnya a human rights disaster and orders Russia out under force, Russia says ‘no you don’t, we have the bomb so here’s a veto’. It doesn’t matter what religion the country is, what life is like there or anything else. It’s an acknowledgement of their power. Or at least the perception of their power. Or the perception of their power in 1945 that’s just kind of hung around despite massive changes to the world.

Now, you might say in terms of second and third tier powers accessing the UNSC other factors also count (and I guess Indonesia could be a third tier power, probably fourth). But that’s not what we’re talking about. We’re talking about permanent members, and it’s all about power, and has only ever been about power. Russia and China are there, and were there during the worst moments of their governments.

In that case, it doesn't actually matter which countries specifically, even if you've actually toured their yourself.

Each person brings their own perspectives in and takes their own lessons out. So what I find horrible, may not matter to you in the least.

That's why I consider the experience as more of a personal thing.