So apparently this logic doesn’t apply to the US? We’ve got folks here advocating we cut our ties with the US because of sensationalist claims they plan on invading Greenland even though not a single explicit threat has been made.Â
Rubixcubelube on
See five comments in the notifications and only two below. Shadow banned folks?
typhoonandrew on
Cutting ties formally with anyone is a bit silly. What do you get in the long term by stopping all communication? Sure change supply lines and make new deals, but keep comms open.
Danstan487 on
Is Albo going to sign us up to the Board of Peace (BoP)?
Looks like this will replace the UN
If we pay 1 bill we can get a permanent spot
Inevitable_Geometry on
Cookers continue to spout nonsense about the UN. Is it a perfect institution? No, and it needs reform, particularly how the Sec. Council is set up.
Dumping it wholesale is moronic.
Jealous-Hedgehog-734 on
I would lobby to make the following changes to the UN:
1. When you look at the the founding charter of the UN it is to “maintain international peace and security”, “develop…relations”, “achieve international co-operation”, “harmonizing the actions of nation” and not even once in its founding documents does it mention aid or food or medicine. The UN is undertaking a mission that is only peripheral to it’s charter. All of those humanitarian side-missions should be spun out to a separate entity and just have the UN focused on it’s core mission of international peace.
2. The UN passes too many resolutions that are completely meaningless in practical terms. In my view if the UN passes a resolution on, for example, ending a war it should do so with a complete peace plan outlining the steps from declaring a ceasefire to what the final settlement would be and how the UN would facilitate this. At the moment you just get the UN “calling for a humanitarian ceasefire” for month after month without any practical consideration given to actually moving towards peace. It’s like King Canute demanding the tide to not come in otherwise.
3. They have to bring back blue helmets for peacekeeping and, where they are deployed, give them authority to act accordingly. UNIFIL if a perfect example of [complete mismanagement of a UN mission](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/27/how-and-why-unifil-failed-to-keep-peace-in-lebanon). I know the UN doesn’t like it when it has to kill people but it’s sometimes essential to fulfilling it’s mission. I know UN peacekeepers have been humiliated where they’ve stood around with their hands in their pockets while genocides have happened in front of them because UN commanders wouldn’t give orders. You have to delegate authority to people so they can act to accomplish an overall mission.
The UN can exist as a positive force but it must be willing to reform, offer reasonable strategies and aggressively pursue it’s obligations as peacekeepers.
6 Comments
So apparently this logic doesn’t apply to the US? We’ve got folks here advocating we cut our ties with the US because of sensationalist claims they plan on invading Greenland even though not a single explicit threat has been made.Â
See five comments in the notifications and only two below. Shadow banned folks?
Cutting ties formally with anyone is a bit silly. What do you get in the long term by stopping all communication? Sure change supply lines and make new deals, but keep comms open.
Is Albo going to sign us up to the Board of Peace (BoP)?
Looks like this will replace the UN
If we pay 1 bill we can get a permanent spot
Cookers continue to spout nonsense about the UN. Is it a perfect institution? No, and it needs reform, particularly how the Sec. Council is set up.
Dumping it wholesale is moronic.
I would lobby to make the following changes to the UN:
1. When you look at the the founding charter of the UN it is to “maintain international peace and security”, “develop…relations”, “achieve international co-operation”, “harmonizing the actions of nation” and not even once in its founding documents does it mention aid or food or medicine. The UN is undertaking a mission that is only peripheral to it’s charter. All of those humanitarian side-missions should be spun out to a separate entity and just have the UN focused on it’s core mission of international peace.
2. The UN passes too many resolutions that are completely meaningless in practical terms. In my view if the UN passes a resolution on, for example, ending a war it should do so with a complete peace plan outlining the steps from declaring a ceasefire to what the final settlement would be and how the UN would facilitate this. At the moment you just get the UN “calling for a humanitarian ceasefire” for month after month without any practical consideration given to actually moving towards peace. It’s like King Canute demanding the tide to not come in otherwise.
3. They have to bring back blue helmets for peacekeeping and, where they are deployed, give them authority to act accordingly. UNIFIL if a perfect example of [complete mismanagement of a UN mission](https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/27/how-and-why-unifil-failed-to-keep-peace-in-lebanon). I know the UN doesn’t like it when it has to kill people but it’s sometimes essential to fulfilling it’s mission. I know UN peacekeepers have been humiliated where they’ve stood around with their hands in their pockets while genocides have happened in front of them because UN commanders wouldn’t give orders. You have to delegate authority to people so they can act to accomplish an overall mission.
The UN can exist as a positive force but it must be willing to reform, offer reasonable strategies and aggressively pursue it’s obligations as peacekeepers.