What Should Be Done About Abhorrent Regimes?

[St Leo]

In my opinion, the UN is dead weight. It's an excellent idea, and a decent attempt at worldwide unity, but it doesn't work. it's a giant beurocracy that gets nothing done.

If it is, whose fault is that? Lester B. Pearson's UN was very much viable and active. Endless vetoes by the US and USSR are what shaped the UN into what it is now. Don't complain about a taste of your own medicine.

Paiktis:

[yavoon]

this question is massively oversimplified. its like saying what should you do w/ a girl who has a really nice rack. I mean wut if she's 300 lbs? u just need to know more than one thing=D

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Arrian


Not that I dislike the idea, but I have to ask one thing: how, exactly, do you "force the country to accept humanitarian aid under supervision" if you rule out the use of force? Or do you simply mean "no supervision, no aid?" That makes sense, but leaves open the possibility of the regime tell you they don't need no steenking aid, and trying to sell missiles and nukes to raise cash.

-Arrian

I didn't neccisarily rule out the use of force. I think that is a pretty damned reasonable sollution, and if someone where to refuse it there wouldn't be much support for them. If they refused, I think other ways of subtley changing and improving the country should be looked at (I admittedly have no suggestions at the moment) and possibly even a limited use of force - but deffinately not any massive bombing campaings or full-scale invasions. Maybe even assassination in certain circumstances, where it wouldn't just make the problems worse.


EDIT: To clarify, what I mean by limited force is puting pressure on the government or ruler of the country instead of outright blowing it to smithereans or invading - force the government to except the aid. No regime changes or pupper dictators.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by St Leo
In my opinion, the UN is dead weight. It's an excellent idea, and a decent attempt at worldwide unity, but it doesn't work. it's a giant beurocracy that gets nothing done.

If it is, whose fault is that? Lester B. Pearson's UN was very much viable and active. Endless vetoes by the US and USSR are what shaped the UN into what it is now. Don't complain about a taste of your own medicine.

i acknowledge america's role in the forming of today's UN, however i don't acknowledge the fact that it's "my own medicine" in any way shape or form. i'm very opposed to cold-war politics.

i honestly don't understand how america's saftey (debateble, yes) is in the hands of countries i never heard of (cameroon et al). it's appauling.

after the next world war i think the UN will be revamped

[Az]

You don't see any well-to-do country going about screwing around.

If the country is not governed by the will of the people in it, why not? The dictator will be stinking rich, whether the country is starving or prosperous as hell. He's not accountable to his people, who would stop him? I agree that the chance is somewhat lower, but still...

[yavoon]

actually uberkrux this is considered a very large break from cold war politics. since after WWII we set up the doctrine of containment. the idea of this much more proactive approach in the wake of 9-11 and the collapse of the soviet union.

is hardly in accordance w/ that.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by yavoon
actually uberkrux this is considered a very large break from cold war politics. since after WWII we set up the doctrine of containment. the idea of this much more proactive approach in the wake of 9-11 and the collapse of the soviet union.

is hardly in accordance w/ that.

i was responding to leo's post about how US-USSR politics shaped the UN as it stands today

[yavoon]

ahh k, then my comment was completely random.

[DaShi]

We should dump our garbage there until they shape up.