Replace the UN with something not involving Russia?

[Kilobugya]

We are not even sure who shot that plane, and even if it's the russians, it's not like the US doesn't regularly kill civilians in its countless war. If there is one country to kick from UN, it's USA, not Russia. War is horrible, and civilians always die in wars, that's why we should do everything we can to avoid them - unlike the US who keeps invading one country after another, and stirring chaos in one country after another (even for Ukraine, the whole mess started when the CIA organized a coup against the elected president to put fascists in power).

[Benuty]

How about we replace the UN and put new headquarters in Cuba to piss off America instead?

In case you haven't heard Cuba, and the U.S have reopened their embassies with each other.

So how would that piss the U.S off again?

[Napkiraly]

We are not even sure who shot that plane, and even if it's the russians, it's not like the US doesn't regularly kill civilians in its countless war. If there is one country to kick from UN, it's USA, not Russia. War is horrible, and civilians always die in wars, that's why we should do everything we can to avoid them - unlike the US who keeps invading one country after another, and stirring chaos in one country after another (even for Ukraine, the whole mess started when the CIA organized a coup against the elected president to put fascists in power).

The tinfoil is strong with this one.

[Koritha]

Eh, I don't really agree with the idea of having a UN. I mean, it just doesn't seem right to have one. As long as humans exist, we will fight. To be honest, I wouldn't really like to be a part of the UN if I was a country like Russia. But, I mean hey, its their choice. Lol, I think that if Russia wants to stay, they should stay.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Eh, I don't really agree with the idea of having a UN. I mean, it just doesn't seem right to have one. As long as humans exist, we will fight. To be honest, I wouldn't really like to be a part of the UN if I was a country like Russia. But, I mean hey, its their choice. Lol, I think that if Russia wants to stay, they should stay.

...

The UN, an organisation of deliberation including all nations. And you want to have more?

[Novorobo]

And now Russia has vetoed investigation of MH17.

At the very least, does the UN have the authority to strip Russia of its veto power?

Difficult. Article 23 of the UN charter states the following:
"The Security Council consists of fifteen members of the United Nations. The Chinese Republic, France, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America are permanent members of the Security Counil. [...]"

Article 27 states the following
"1. Every member of the security council has one vote
2. Decisions of the Security Council of procedural matters are accepted when nine members vote for
3. Decisions of the Security Council about all other matters are accepted when nine members, among which all permanent members, vote for a proposal. [...]"

So, there is no mention of a veto in the charter. It's an implicit veto, as one might call it. Anyway, to get Russia out of the Security Council (whether that is a good thing at all is not the question) one would need to change article 23 of the charter, to exclude Russia. Expelling them from the UN is not enough, as article 23 protects their permanent membership. Now, changing the UN Charter is a right pain in the arse. A conference needs to be called for such, and 2/3rds of the member nations, together with nine votes from the Security Council. In such a matter, there is no implicit veto for the permanent members, but one would still need 2/3rds of all nations to 1. Redraft article 23, and 2. Kick Russia out of the UN. Both require a supermajority. So, yes, it's possible, but impractical. Anyway, I don't think we'd want to, anyway,

One would think it would be in most countries' own interests to make examples out of countries that cause plane crashes involving people and airplanes that are not from those countries. Otherwise an airplane from their country and/or carrying people from that country could be next.

[Neoconstantius]

Other countries not doing what we want? Let's just kick them out! Israel would be gone in a heartbeat.

Yeah, but, you know, great plan OP.

[Luziyca]

No. I prefer Russia as a suitable counterweight to American dominance.

[Novorobo]

Other countries not doing what we want? Let's just kick them out! Israel would be gone in a heartbeat.

So be it. I've never really known for sure what to make of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but if those not involved have only precedent set at their incentive I would assume they have a good reason.

[Imperializt Russia]

Difficult. Article 23 of the UN charter states the following:
"The Security Council consists of fifteen members of the United Nations. The Chinese Republic, France, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America are permanent members of the Security Counil. [...]"

Article 27 states the following
"1. Every member of the security council has one vote
2. Decisions of the Security Council of procedural matters are accepted when nine members vote for
3. Decisions of the Security Council about all other matters are accepted when nine members, among which all permanent members, vote for a proposal. [...]"

So, there is no mention of a veto in the charter. It's an implicit veto, as one might call it. Anyway, to get Russia out of the Security Council (whether that is a good thing at all is not the question) one would need to change article 23 of the charter, to exclude Russia. Expelling them from the UN is not enough, as article 23 protects their permanent membership. Now, changing the UN Charter is a right pain in the arse. A conference needs to be called for such, and 2/3rds of the member nations, together with nine votes from the Security Council. In such a matter, there is no implicit veto for the permanent members, but one would still need 2/3rds of all nations to 1. Redraft article 23, and 2. Kick Russia out of the UN. Both require a supermajority. So, yes, it's possible, but impractical. Anyway, I don't think we'd want to, anyway,

One would think it would be in most countries' own interests to make examples out of countries that cause plane crashes involving people and airplanes that are not from those countries. Otherwise an airplane from their country and/or carrying people from that country could be next.

It would be nice if you could demonstrate Russia's direct involvement in the MH17 incident, because I'm pretty sure it doesn't exist.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence that suggests an indirect role, but most evidence suggests that (Russian-backed) Ukrainian separatists used a Ukrainian Army SAM launcher to shoot down an aircraft they mistook for a Ukrainian Army An-26 transport aircraft.

[Neoconstantius]

Other countries not doing what we want? Let's just kick them out! Israel would be gone in a heartbeat.

So be it. I've never really known for sure what to make of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but if those not involved have only precedent set at their incentive I would assume they have a good reason.

The purpose of the UN is to provide a platform for international dialogue and thereby try to prevent military confrontation. You're saying it would be better to just kick nations out. Ending the dialogue. Why have a UN at all then?

if those not involved have only precedent set at their incentive

wut.

[Omega America II]

Eh, I don't really agree with the idea of having a UN. I mean, it just doesn't seem right to have one. As long as humans exist, we will fight. To be honest, I wouldn't really like to be a part of the UN if I was a country like Russia. But, I mean hey, its their choice. Lol, I think that if Russia wants to stay, they should stay.

...

The UN, an organisation of deliberation including all nations. And you want to have more?

Yeah, but nations can leave, right? I don't really like the UN, but you know, I think nations should leave if they don't like the UN. Not all nations should be a part of the UN.

[Olthar]

That would be a terrible decision. The best path towards peace is through mutual economic dependence. Greed is stronger than hatred.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Difficult. Article 23 of the UN charter states the following:
"The Security Council consists of fifteen members of the United Nations. The Chinese Republic, France, the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the United States of America are permanent members of the Security Counil. [...]"

Article 27 states the following
"1. Every member of the security council has one vote
2. Decisions of the Security Council of procedural matters are accepted when nine members vote for
3. Decisions of the Security Council about all other matters are accepted when nine members, among which all permanent members, vote for a proposal. [...]"

So, there is no mention of a veto in the charter. It's an implicit veto, as one might call it. Anyway, to get Russia out of the Security Council (whether that is a good thing at all is not the question) one would need to change article 23 of the charter, to exclude Russia. Expelling them from the UN is not enough, as article 23 protects their permanent membership. Now, changing the UN Charter is a right pain in the arse. A conference needs to be called for such, and 2/3rds of the member nations, together with nine votes from the Security Council. In such a matter, there is no implicit veto for the permanent members, but one would still need 2/3rds of all nations to 1. Redraft article 23, and 2. Kick Russia out of the UN. Both require a supermajority. So, yes, it's possible, but impractical. Anyway, I don't think we'd want to, anyway,

One would think it would be in most countries' own interests to make examples out of countries that cause plane crashes involving people and airplanes that are not from those countries. Otherwise an airplane from their country and/or carrying people from that country could be next.

Well, throwing someone out of the UN is not really a punishment, it's a rash move akin to putting your fingers in your eyes and pretending you're not listening. The UN gives a voice to many nations, and silencing the nation does not mean the problems magically disappear. You wouldn't make an example of anything. And remember, 2/3rds of the UN. Nations like Syria, North Korea, Belarus, Russia itself and many others need convincing before you can get away with a supermajority. And then? You'll be stripping nations until you end up with NATO 2.0. No, it doesn't work like that.

...

The UN, an organisation of deliberation including all nations. And you want to have more?

Yeah, but nations can leave, right? I don't really like the UN, but you know, I think nations should leave if they don't like the UN. Not all nations should be a part of the UN.

Nations can leave at their own behest. But Russia isn't against the UN. on the contrary, for them, it's a good tool as well. The UN is a body of deliberation all nations should be a part of. A democratic body for all the nations in the world. It's like the democratic government of a country. If you don't agree, you try to change it from the inside.

[Omega America II]

One would think it would be in most countries' own interests to make examples out of countries that cause plane crashes involving people and airplanes that are not from those countries. Otherwise an airplane from their country and/or carrying people from that country could be next.

Well, throwing someone out of the UN is not really a punishment, it's a rash move akin to putting your fingers in your eyes and pretending you're not listening. The UN gives a voice to many nations, and silencing the nation does not mean the problems magically disappear. You wouldn't make an example of anything. And remember, 2/3rds of the UN. Nations like Syria, North Korea, Belarus, Russia itself and many others need convincing before you can get away with a supermajority. And then? You'll be stripping nations until you end up with NATO 2.0. No, it doesn't work like that.

Yeah, but nations can leave, right? I don't really like the UN, but you know, I think nations should leave if they don't like the UN. Not all nations should be a part of the UN.

Nations can leave at their own behest. But Russia isn't against the UN. on the contrary, for them, it's a good tool as well. The UN is a body of deliberation all nations should be a part of. A democratic body for all the nations in the world. It's like the democratic government of a country. If you don't agree, you try to change it from the inside.

Should be, that's an opinion. But does it really help? I don't agree with it. But it exists so.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Well, throwing someone out of the UN is not really a punishment, it's a rash move akin to putting your fingers in your eyes and pretending you're not listening. The UN gives a voice to many nations, and silencing the nation does not mean the problems magically disappear. You wouldn't make an example of anything. And remember, 2/3rds of the UN. Nations like Syria, North Korea, Belarus, Russia itself and many others need convincing before you can get away with a supermajority. And then? You'll be stripping nations until you end up with NATO 2.0. No, it doesn't work like that.


Nations can leave at their own behest. But Russia isn't against the UN. on the contrary, for them, it's a good tool as well. The UN is a body of deliberation all nations should be a part of. A democratic body for all the nations in the world. It's like the democratic government of a country. If you don't agree, you try to change it from the inside.

Should be, that's an opinion. But does it really help? I don't agree with it. But it exists so.

That's an opinion. But that's also the way the UN charter has been written. Here's the preamble.

And it does really help. The UN played an instrumental role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, among others. You need all nations to be part of the body for that to work. You might not agree with it, but that's more your issue than that of the UN.

[Omega America II]

Should be, that's an opinion. But does it really help? I don't agree with it. But it exists so.

That's an opinion. But that's also the way the UN charter has been written. Here's the preamble.

And it does really help. The UN played an instrumental role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, among others. You need all nations to be part of the body for that to work. You might not agree with it, but that's more your issue than that of the UN.

Actually, saying they should all be in it is still an opinion. I have my opinions, you have yours.

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

That's an opinion. But that's also the way the UN charter has been written. Here's the preamble.

And it does really help. The UN played an instrumental role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, among others. You need all nations to be part of the body for that to work. You might not agree with it, but that's more your issue than that of the UN.

Actually, saying they should all be in it is still an opinion. I have my opinions, you have yours.

Yeah... So? They are opinions. That's right. Well spotted. And how does that matter? Does that magically invalidate the discussion?

[Omega America II]

Actually, saying they should all be in it is still an opinion. I have my opinions, you have yours.

Yeah... So? They are opinions. That's right. Well spotted. And how does that matter? Does that magically invalidate the discussion?

No, I'm just saying, you know what, never mind.

[Socialist Tera]

How about we replace the UN and put new headquarters in Cuba to piss off America instead?

In case you haven't heard Cuba, and the U.S have reopened their embassies with each other.

So how would that piss the U.S off again?

Then put in North Korea.

[Washington Resistance Army]

In case you haven't heard Cuba, and the U.S have reopened their embassies with each other.

So how would that piss the U.S off again?

Then put in North Korea.

Why in the hell would we do that?

[Prassia]

Surprise, surprise, democracy is failing.

This is why we need monarchy.

[Grave_n_idle]

A year ago, Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine shot down a civilian airplane, killing hundreds of people.

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

I'm not privy to the details...

And there, realistically, is the end of the discussion.

[The Carlisle]

Yes. They are at fault for shooting it down, they apologized for it. Why bring it up?

Just because the US did it doesn't mean that I'm gonna put less blame on them for killing civilians. "It's hard' is not a excuse for me.

Well, if that's the case, you can't excuse any act of war either offensively or defensively, so why condemn one particular perpetrator among all others?

How did you get that out of my post?

[Socialist Tera]

Then put in North Korea.

Why in the hell would we do that?

It would show America is not controlling the UN or at least put it in a neutral country.