Calls are growing for the UN Security Council to be reformed after the US became the only member to use its veto power to block a Gaza ceasefire resolution, a move welcomed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The UN chief says he will keep pushing for peace.

    • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      66
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Th UN gives all countries the ability to have a voice on the world stage, yeah the security council can suck sometimes but not having the UN would be so much worse than having it

      • xenomor@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand this logic and I’ve made this argument in the past. As time goes on, however, I’m coming to the understanding that the major thing the UN actually provides is deniability. It creates an aura of accountability without actually accomplishing it. The pageantry of rhetoric around the UN’s mission would have us believe that merely shining light on the wrongdoing of powerful nations will lead to some kind of justice. It never does. It actually breeds complacency in the same way that ranting about politics online does. You feel like you are changing something, but you aren’t. I think we need something like the UN, but the UN as currently constructed is fatally flawed and may be making things actively worse in some important ways.

        • intensely_human@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A government without an army can’t govern.

          Not that I’m in favor of a single government over all humanity. But the UN can’t govern anything because it’s got no teeth.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        41
        ·
        1 year ago

        If only we had some global communication system that allowed people to post their opinions. Maybe a packet based one.

        • Otter@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          28
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          We already had world leaders tweeting their opinions at other, but they still meet in person to discuss issues and form agreements.

          A structured system is necessary when you have meetings with representatives for nearly every person on the planet

            • Otter@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              25
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Instead of replying with that same comment again, why don’t you explain what alternative you have in mind. Don’t just vaguely mention ‘packets’

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                20
                ·
                1 year ago

                Oh I am sorry I wasn’t aware that I had to come up with a solution if I point out the current solution isn’t working. Shit. Better say nothing ever again and just keep giving my money to a corrupt institution that fucks up everything it touches. Sorry for pointing out the emperor has no clothing here is free fucking money

                • Otter@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  22
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s kind of the point here

                  We all agree that the current system has issues.

                  You’re saying the next move should be to disband it, and others are saying that we need an alternative first. I don’t think anyone here is saying the UN is perfect the way it is

                • kurwa@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  15
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  An imperfect system doesn’t mean we need to throw out the whole system. And if we did throw it out, you can’t just not have a replacement for it.

                  People making posts on the Internet is not equivalent to real people meeting and being forced to at least give an answer.

                • Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  11
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  We can all agree homelessness is a problem, what matters is the solutions to the problem

                  Some want to house these people, some want to build more homeless shelters, some want dedicated camping sites in the city, some want dedicated camping sites outside the city, some want to simply ban them from existing in a city, etc, etc

                  If all you do is focus on the problem and not coming up with solutions then the problem will never be solved

                  This is an example of why coming up with solutions is important when discussing issues

                • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  What you need to do is define “working” in order to point out that the current solution isn’t working.

                  To define “working” you either need to come up with a standard for how such organizations should operate, or barring that name some alternative solution that it can be compared to.

                  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I see. So if I see an airplane burn on the ground after falling from the sky unless I am a professional pilot, have done an indepth analysis of what happened, have a solution to prevent future problems, and have a master’s degree in aerospace engineering I am not allowed to say that there is any issue and should assume the airplane is fine.

                    Sorry YOUR UN sucks

              • intensely_human@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Nuclear war is prevented by nuclear deterrence. Nothing published by the UN has the ability to stop a nation from firing its nuclear weapons at another nation’s cities.

                As for world wars, let’s wait a year and see if we’re willing to define this interconnected set of conflicts as a world war.

                • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  No, MAD seems to be a failed philosophy as it assumes that aggressive actions are attributable to clearly defined parties. MAD got shook the fuck up as soon as we realized dirty bombs could exist.

                  I hope that our long standing mostly peace is due to the UN and media innovations… I cynically suspect that it’s due to neoliberalism and globalization making a grand war too economically costly.

                  • kurwa@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I wouldn’t be surprised at money being the reason. It’s too bad some conflict can still be seen as profitable unfortunately.

    • GutsBerserk@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I used to think the same way. But with UN, at least someone “official” has a responsibility to “raise the voice”. It is better than nothing, I guess.

    • xmunk@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      1 year ago

      In the global scheme of things the UN is so fucking cheap. I can’t understand your point at all.

      • intensely_human@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or have some conception as to its value? I mean we could save so much money if we never paid for anything. And yet we do pay for things. The question is, why? If we could save money by never paying for anything, why not?

        Oh right. Things have value.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah but like, what’s the ‘value’ in their expensive forums? I’m sure there is a lot of fat to trim that only exists so the public servants get to live like kings.