Replace the UN with something not involving Russia?

[Shofercia]

In 2003, the United States recklessly invaded Iraq; the act led to the violent deaths of over 100,000 people, and contributed to the Rise of ISIS.

And yet, today, the United States still has a role in the UN.

Iraqis, Iranians, it's not like towelheads' lifes do actually matter. Western-European lifes, on the other hand... *nod*

Really? Those specific separatists were backed by the Russian government?

Then again, I didn't see much whining about the Western-backed "Syrian rebels" and their rather reckless use of indiscriminate force (such as artillery bombings) over densely-populated areas... And no, I'm not even touching the Yugoslav Wars thingie with the proverbial ten-foot pole. Hey, how about we discussed the lovely Contras, or French behaviour during the Algerian Independence War?

Exactly! Thanks Ris

It's actually the Ukrainians who shot it down.

Given that a pro-Russian insurgent group tweeted a picture of the lovely Buk missile launchers they stole from a Ukrainian Army base they captured, then tweeted about shooting down Ukrainian military aircraft for a while, then tweeted a picture of a an aircraft crashing in the distance "lol, shot down another An-26, piss off Kiev scum" and hurriedly deleted it when it transpired what they had actually engaged was MH17...

That seems substantially unlikely.
They may have been Ukrainian nationals, but they were fighting for the pro-Russian side. They were not pro-Kiev militias, nor were they Ukrainian military personnel.

And yet, despite this part, Buk missile launchers they stole from a Ukrainian Army base, some insist that Putin personally had those Buk missiles inserted in the DonBass Region.

They have vetoes so the Security Council can't shove something past a nuclear-armed state that it might be willing to escalate to nuclear exchange over.

Realistically, the UNSC needs to be reformed anyways. The nuclear club has grown, but its role arguably declined. Nations simply go ahead without asking the SC, because everyone knows how it'll go there anyways, and bet on random nations being flattened somewhere not being worth a nuclear war for anyone.

But it can have consequences. After the Iraq Invasion, the US began losing power. The Iraq Invasion, March 20th, 2003, marks the beginning of the downfall of the American Hegemony. As far as consequences go, that one has to hurt.

[Risottia]

And yet, despite this part, Buk missile launchers they stole from a Ukrainian Army base, some insist that Putin personally had those Buk missiles inserted in the DonBass Region.

Wrong logic.

See, you seem to think "Likely Ukrainian rebels have gotten the Buk launcher from an Ukrainian base" => "Putin didn't give them the launcher".
The correct, NATO-friendly, Western way of thinking is "Putin is Russian, Russian is teh evulz" => "Putin actually fired the missile because he lusted for Dutch and Malaysian blood".

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

And yet, despite this part, Buk missile launchers they stole from a Ukrainian Army base, some insist that Putin personally had those Buk missiles inserted in the DonBass Region.

Wrong logic.

See, you seem to think "Likely Ukrainian rebels have gotten the Buk launcher from an Ukrainian base" => "Putin didn't give them the launcher".
The correct, NATO-friendly, Western way of thinking is "Putin is Russian, Russian is teh evulz" => "Putin actually fired the missile because he lusted for Dutch and Malaysian blood".

And he himself rode that Buk into the plane, killing everyone on board with his bare hands before jumping off with a parachute which had "I have Russian troops actively fighting the Ukrainian government, suck it West" written on it.

[Risottia]

Wrong logic.

See, you seem to think "Likely Ukrainian rebels have gotten the Buk launcher from an Ukrainian base" => "Putin didn't give them the launcher".
The correct, NATO-friendly, Western way of thinking is "Putin is Russian, Russian is teh evulz" => "Putin actually fired the missile because he lusted for Dutch and Malaysian blood".

And he himself rode that Buk into the plane, killing everyone on board with his bare hands before jumping off with a parachute which had "I have Russian troops actively fighting the Ukrainian government, suck it West" written on it.

You forgot to mention how he stayed bare-chested during the whole process. *nod*

[Egoman]

We should replace it with the Eurasian Union instead. *nods*

[Shofercia]

And he himself rode that Buk into the plane, killing everyone on board with his bare hands before jumping off with a parachute which had "I have Russian troops actively fighting the Ukrainian government, suck it West" written on it.

You forgot to mention how he stayed bare-chested during the whole process. *nod*

While riding a telepathic bear-dolphin hybrid, so that he could command minks to attack Swedish submarines

[Qart chadast]

Honestly, why cry so much about that plane? War is war and things like that happen in a war, the incident was tragic indeed but it wasn't the end of the world nor was it really that important as more people die in alot of parts of the rest of the world. There's also no proof that Russia was involved in taking down the airplane as it where most likely the rebels with a BUK which can easely have come from the Ukrainian army.
If nations should be kicked out becouse of reasons then the UN would be left with just Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Iceland ect. ect.

So to your question, No.

[Saiwania]

But it can have consequences. After the Iraq Invasion, the US began losing power. The Iraq Invasion, March 20th, 2003, marks the beginning of the downfall of the American Hegemony. As far as consequences go, that one has to hurt.

I'm sure people said the same thing about the US at the end of the Vietnam war, but the US recovered quite well by the Gulf War and gained the most power from the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure the Iraq war isn't as damaging to the US as people like to think. The benefit from all the US interventions overseas is that it is the country with the most experience at fighting modern conventional wars and insurgencies than any other nation today bar none and has developed better equipment and tactics from the experience.

The main reason why the US seems weaker now is because Obama is at the helm. Once he's gone and a Republican is in- there can be a new pursuit of a "peace through strength" platform.

[Hollorous]

But it can have consequences. After the Iraq Invasion, the US began losing power. The Iraq Invasion, March 20th, 2003, marks the beginning of the downfall of the American Hegemony. As far as consequences go, that one has to hurt.

I'm sure people said the same thing about the US at the end of the Vietnam war, but the US recovered quite well by the Gulf War and gained the most power from the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure the Iraq war isn't as damaging to the US as people like to think. The benefit from all the US interventions overseas is that it is the country with the most experience at fighting modern conventional wars and insurgencies than any other nation today bar none and has developed better equipment and tactics from the experience.

Nah.

You'd have to look at the Sri Lankan military for that. AFAIK, they're the only ones to successfully defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. Granted, they most probably committed a ridiculous amount of war crimes in doing so.

[DBJ]

No. It's useless. Regarding Russia the goal should be to politically and economically isolate them, while boosting the defense capacity of it's potential victims.

[Shofercia]

No. It's useless. Regarding Russia the goal should be to politically and economically isolate them, while boosting the defense capacity of it's potential victims.

You cannot isolate Russia without China's support. China has stated, explicitly, that they're not going to help you isolate Russia. Ergo, your proposal is the very definition of a useless policy.

But it can have consequences. After the Iraq Invasion, the US began losing power. The Iraq Invasion, March 20th, 2003, marks the beginning of the downfall of the American Hegemony. As far as consequences go, that one has to hurt.

I'm sure people said the same thing about the US at the end of the Vietnam war, but the US recovered quite well by the Gulf War and gained the most power from the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure the Iraq war isn't as damaging to the US as people like to think. The benefit from all the US interventions overseas is that it is the country with the most experience at fighting modern conventional wars and insurgencies than any other nation today bar none and has developed better equipment and tactics from the experience.

The main reason why the US seems weaker now is because Obama is at the helm. Once he's gone and a Republican is in- there can be a new pursuit of a "peace through strength" platform.

And how long did the US need to recover from the Vietnam War? My point was that the Iraq War was damaging to the US, and it marks the point from which America's foreign policy began a rapid decline. Did America's foreign power decline after LBJ's Invasion of Vietnam, but before Nixon's Visit to China? The answer is yes. I'm not saying it's irreversible; I'm saying it's extremely harmful.

I'm sure people said the same thing about the US at the end of the Vietnam war, but the US recovered quite well by the Gulf War and gained the most power from the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure the Iraq war isn't as damaging to the US as people like to think. The benefit from all the US interventions overseas is that it is the country with the most experience at fighting modern conventional wars and insurgencies than any other nation today bar none and has developed better equipment and tactics from the experience.

Nah.

You'd have to look at the Sri Lankan military for that. AFAIK, they're the only ones to successfully defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. Granted, they most probably committed a ridiculous amount of war crimes in doing so.

*cough* Second Chechen War *cough*

[The Old South Africa]

Screw the United Nations as an organization.

However, expelling Russia would probably cause all countries friendly to Russia to view the UN as illegitimate.

[Chestaan]

But it can have consequences. After the Iraq Invasion, the US began losing power. The Iraq Invasion, March 20th, 2003, marks the beginning of the downfall of the American Hegemony. As far as consequences go, that one has to hurt.

I'm sure people said the same thing about the US at the end of the Vietnam war, but the US recovered quite well by the Gulf War and gained the most power from the collapse of the USSR. I'm sure the Iraq war isn't as damaging to the US as people like to think. The benefit from all the US interventions overseas is that it is the country with the most experience at fighting modern conventional wars and insurgencies than any other nation today bar none and has developed better equipment and tactics from the experience.

The main reason why the US seems weaker now is because Obama is at the helm. Once he's gone and a Republican is in- there can be a new pursuit of a "peace through strength" platform.

A Republican might want to get more, shall we say, "hands-on", but will they be able to do so? The rest of the world is sick of the US throwing it's weight around and nobody is forgetting the fuck-up in Iraq any time soon.

[Pope Joan]

When I hear many intelligent people all asking at once "Why can't we do anything about [fill in the name]?" I immediately suspect that the disinformation processes of the BBC and the NY Times have been busily at work.

How long will we continue to be fooled by (admittedly plausible) propaganda?

[Bojikami]

Um, because the UN was created to allow all nations in the world to come together somewhat for the common good.

Hell, the USSR was in the UN, it was a founding member! Many other nations that have done far worse than Russias "crimes" in Ukraine have membership in the UN.

Plus, making a whole organisation just to exclude Russia is extremely petty and simply childish on the part of the nations that would do this.

[Free Missouri]

Yes I'm not exactly pleased with the UN, it'd be better if they changed the entire thing.

Yes, we all know that the UN is ineffective and is a sham.

Please, tell us how you plan to remake the UN to make it more effective. And no, NWO is not an applicable idea.

My plan would be this:
Remove VETO Rule, make it so the countries on the Human Rights Council HAVE to have a good track record on human and civil rights, and actually state in the charter that one of the missions is to act almost instantaneously for human rights offenses such as in Sudan, Rwanda etc. etc. (Other places the UN has totally forsaken)

[Hollorous]

Nah.

You'd have to look at the Sri Lankan military for that. AFAIK, they're the only ones to successfully defeat an insurgency in the 21st century. Granted, they most probably committed a ridiculous amount of war crimes in doing so.

*cough* Second Chechen War *cough*

I knew there was something very obvious that I was missing.

[Camelza]

No, just no. You can't kick a state representing a good chunk of the world population(or any state for that matter) that you disagree with, or you consider it to act in a non-humanitarian way.
Newsflash; the US hasn't been an angel either and neither have been many nation-members of the UN; since being a well-behaving, neighbour-loving, populace-respecting state is not a requirement for UN membership - it is rather the organisation's target into turning any member it can into such a state.
Plus, How kicking a country most relevant to world stability, like Russia, out of the largest diplomatic organisation on Earth would help keep the peace on Earth?

[Risottia]

If nations should be kicked out becouse of reasons then the UN would be left with just Switzerland, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Iceland ect. ect.

Well, that would be awesomely cool.

Especially if the Blue Helmets were replaced by Swiss Guards. The sheer awesomeness of someone charging along with a halberd in one hand, an MP5 in the other, while wearing Renaissance garb...

[Cinnabarra]

The UN was created in order to maintain peace.Negotiating is a key part of that.The UN allows such things to occur, on neutral grounds besides.I think we should keep Russia.As for an allied organization without that country, there's already the G-7 for economic problems and NATO.

[Imperializt Russia]

Honestly, why cry so much about that plane? War is war and things like that happen in a war, the incident was tragic indeed but it wasn't the end of the world nor was it really that important as more people die in alot of parts of the rest of the world.

Uh, because over a hundred civilians who weren't even part of the warzone were killed?

[Colorful Bund]

What about kicking out the US since they are the only ones vetoing any criticism of Israel?

[Planita]

Then it would just be "Mostly United Nations".

That…..was honestly one of the most beautiful quotes I've seen on this forum.

It has hardly united in the first place.

[MERIZoC]

Um, because the UN was created to allow all nations in the world to come together somewhat for the common good.

Hell, the USSR was in the UN, it was a founding member! Many other nations that have done far worse than Russias "crimes" in Ukraine have membership in the UN.

Plus, making a whole organisation just to exclude Russia is extremely petty and simply childish on the part of the nations that would do this.

Welcome to NSG, where the petty hate boner lives on forever.

[Bojikami]

Honestly, why cry so much about that plane? War is war and things like that happen in a war, the incident was tragic indeed but it wasn't the end of the world nor was it really that important as more people die in alot of parts of the rest of the world.

Uh, because over a hundred civilians who weren't even part of the warzone were killed?

Well perhaps if those in charge of the company decided to not fly the goddamn plane over an active warzone then those civilians would still be very much living.