Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Agreed - a flawed framework for international conduct is better than no framework at allFor all people's frustrations, overall I believe the world is a lot better off with the UN these last 80 odd years than without it.
Don't forget that USSR with Uncle Joe at the helm was there from the start, so I think that was envisioned.as it wasn't envisioned that one of the policemen would go corrupt as is the case here.
Don't forget that USSR with Uncle Joe at the helm was there from the start, so I think that was envisioned.
I tried having a free hand once. I had to leave the rest of her in the cemetery.No, they intended that they would have a free hand.
No, they intended that they would have a free hand.
If You're Listening with Matt Bevan - ABC listen
Matt Bevan explains this week's biggest story in world news, while hiding in his basement from assassins and authoritarian regimes.www.abc.net.au
The UN is operating in the way intended by the founders. If each nation's vote were equal, a bunch of small countries could band together against the imperial powers embodied in the permanent members of the Security Council. Seven decades later, in spite of the collapse of the French, British and Russian empires, their veto powers remain.
The US, UK, and France ended WW2 with either spheres of influence or outright colonial empires. They all wanted to make sure that the UN wouldn't interfere with, say, their actions in Central America, Iraq (basically run by the UK through a puppet government), or Algeria. While it's impossible to argue that Stalin was interested in freedom anyplace or at anytime, there were times and places when the US, UK, and France weren't terribly concerned with it, either.Right, but that doesn't encompass the entirety of the reasons for the founding countries of the UN, only one; so claiming that the UN is operating "exactly as intended" is not accurate. It's operating as intended by one nation.