Replies

Because that is what the UN security council does.

Whenever there is a conflict the UN security council always calls for an immediate ceasefire. If they’d been in existence in 1939 when the Nazi’s invaded Poland they would have called for an immediate ceasefire. They’d have called for one when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and probably one when the allies landed in Tunisia to topple the Vichy French.

To be fair, how actually could they do anything else? Can you imagine “The UN security council calls for the war between country A and country B to continue, with all the attendent loss of life, money and infrastructure. One fall, one submission or a knockout to decide the winner?”

For sake of argument...

Because that is what the UN security council does. Yes, that is what the U.N. does, but it shouldn't. In most instances there is a good side and a bad side. Where there isn't, I would sign off on a resolution urging a ceasefire. In the instance of the bad side winning the conflict, I would also sign off on a call for a ceasefire. If the good side is winning, I would not call for a ceasefire. Good must be allowed to conquer evil.

Whenever there is a conflict the UN security council always calls for an immediate ceasefire. In line with my comments above, the U.N. shouldn't always demand a ceasefire.

If they’d been in existence in 1939 when the Nazi’s invaded Poland they would have called for an immediate ceasefire. In line with my comments above, I would have approved of a call for a ceasefire here immediately upon Germany forming at Poland's borders. After the incursion I would sign on to the call for a ceasefire, but demand a quick exit. That exit not forthcoming, I would withdraw the call for a ceasefire and advocate Germany be crushed.

They’d have called for one when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and probably one when the allies landed in Tunisia to topple the Vichy French. If the U.N. had called for these ceasefires, the NAZIs and the Empirical Japanese forces would have been allowed to remain in place, holding vast territorial gains in Europe, in the Western Pacific and Asia. In line with my comments above, I would not have signed off on any call for a ceasefire in these matters.

To be fair, how actually could they do anything else? Quite easily actually.

Can you imagine “The UN security council calls for the war between country A and country B to continue, with all the attendent loss of life, money and infrastructure. One fall, one submission or a knockout to decide the winner?” Of course I can. The only alternative is to allow a nation like NAZI Germany to continue to exist, continue to torture, inhialate, and occupy. The U.N. needn't call for a war to continue. It should demand that the aggressor nation withdraw and return to humane treatment of all civilians, foreign and domestic. Failing that, the U.N. should declare the aggressor nation to be a criminal state to be beaten into submission, and returned to international standards.

Let's not kid ourselves though. The U.N. is corrupt as any organization has ever been. It is time for it to be disbanded. Some international body could take it's place, but it would only address diplomatic issues in times of crisis, and remain out of any other global matters.

Its efforts in UNESCO would cease. It's nation building would cease. Its massive diplomatic core in NY should be jetesoned A.S.A.P. One diplomat from each nation could remain for consultations in times of conflict. Other than that, the organization has proven itself too dirty to contine on in a leadership role.