this post was submitted on 18 Oct 2023
308 points (97.0% liked)

World News

38979 readers
3835 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] doctorcrimson 8 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Yeah, honestly the Superpower Vetoes have been the biggest flaw in the UN since its conception.

[–] BWchief117@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Call it a flaw if you want, but it is also probably contributing to no more world wars

[–] doctorcrimson 2 points 1 year ago

I think it's less effective than it could be with the ability to check world powers and their allies with financial incentives among other things.

[–] AstridWipenaugh@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The US would veto via military action if we couldn't veto by voting. It's a bad system, but better than going to war (more than we already do).

[–] doctorcrimson 2 points 1 year ago

And then they would face massive economic repercussions as the UN could vote against them for a change.

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

No - they're why the UN exists.

The purpose of the UN is to prevent global war. The Security Council veto keeps the UN from taking sides in a military conflict against the interests of a county that can maintain that level of warfare.

[–] doctorcrimson 2 points 1 year ago

Lmao

The UN was not created to maintain peace. They were the result of a massive conflict. The ability to give financial incentives for peace by restricting powerful nations would make the UN a thousand times more effective.