- Aug 2009
- Athens, Greece
Unfortunately, you are not wrong about the UN. Let's just say that it does not fulfil its role as it should have. In a way, it is similar to the problems the EU faces, in both cases powerful nation-states prefer (understandably) to hold onto their power and not let it slip from their grasp into that of an international assembly. Not that the international community does not matter, however. No great power, not even the US can exist in a vacuum. It needs allies and partners, trade and economic, political and military ones. Imagine if Europe was an antagonist to the US, similar to Russia. Imagine if the US had to face sanctions, similar to those imposed on Russia. It wouldn't mean the end of the world, of course, but it would make things much harder. Imagine if the West didn't flock behind the US as its leader, but was itself divided. Anyway, my point is that the great powers, and the US as the current greatest, can have their way of course, but not without caring about the opinion of the international community and about their foreign relations. It is not solely the opinion of American citizens that matters to the US government, as you wrote, while the rest of the world is simply irrelevant.The UN is a joke. The international community is a joke. In a few more years, they'll get to make believe they'll constrain China from doing what it wants, those that aren't bought off. In the mean time it has to complain about what the US does. No surprise there. Nobody is exactly jumping in line to tell Borneo what to do, nobody cares. But with the US, suddenly its everyone in the world's business and everyone thinks their opinion is valid.
Let's say Trump sends in the XVIII Airborne Corps and has them exterminate the socialists. What is the UN going to do? Nothing. Not even the Security Council can do anything, the US would veto anything proposed. Its a hollow organization with no real power besides that given to it by the assembled security council permanent and non-permanent members, who ALL have to agree with one another to get anything done (the biggest joke there is).
Now, beyond pragmatism and into a discussion about principles, the question is should things really be this way? Should we endorse "might makes right" and drop all pretenses and efforts to globally behave according to international rules binding to all, or move towards the opposite direction, strengthening the sense and power of an international community and a shared future? I know that idealism is easy for citizens of small and weak countries (not much to lose anyway), while it is much harder for citizens on the side of might, but let's just discuss principles here. After all, it is rather chance that determines in which nation we were born into, humans are humans everywhere, regardless.
Anyway, before this thread gets locked (as I see it heading there fast), I'd be interested in reading your reply. You are an intelligent person and, from what I've seen, one that doesn't lack empathy either. If you were a citizen of a weak nation and not an American, how would you feel and react to the strong nation reality that you described above? How would you feel upon reading your own words:
My questioning is not argumentative, I'm genuinely curious and interested in hearing your thoughts.Venezuela? LOL, conquering them is basically a training exercise. The only thing preventing it is worrying about polls and public opinion and future elections.
Scary, huh? That the only thing stopping most of the world from being conquered is American voting habits.
But in the time being the weak will still do what the US says, or face consequences. And when the US is no longer in charge, someone else will replace them, and the weak will do what the next country in charge tells them to. Because that is what the weak do, they obey the strong or face the consequences.
So, I ask you. Are you seriously bragging that your current bully is going to get replaced some day, but other than that nothing changes?