Comments by "" (@indonesiaamerica7050) on "“Genocide”: Top U.N. Official Craig Mokhiber Resigns, Denounces Israeli Assault on Gaza" video.

  1.  @WileCoyoteMoncure-Smith  What is that gibberish? What if you're one of the baddies?
    3
  2.  @Smekkel17  Well, in some cases the UN members themselves want never-ending "proportionate" conflict. Guess who that would be?
    2
  3.  @sarahmurphy-nf4yl  New Zealand? Try China, France, Russian Federation, the United Kingdom, and the United States. I mean, you really think this is all English speaking UNSC permanent members? Where on earth did you get that idea? Australia and New Zealand are not even in NATO, officially. But they are in a different coalition that overlaps. The US, UK, New Zealand and Canada share a lot of "security" information and material. But they don't meet in halls and issue proclamations.
    2
  4.  @Kewlstorybro101  I really don't understand people like you who ask questions with such obvious answers. The UN is an NGO. It has no "governing" or "sovereign" role. The UN was established to bring nations together for negotiation and propagation of values and so forth. Even building "consensus" for NATO or whatever is somewhat mendacious politically. It creates the impression that the UN represents some kind of 'democracy' when at its best is replicates the Peace of Westphalia, but worldwide and without regional bigotries. There's no such thing as "international human rights" other than aspirational declarations. To expect more than this is to fall in to the trap of Utopian promises and give power to Stalinists and Maoists. Which is their goal since the beginning of the UN itself. I just don't understand how anyone with access to well stocked libraries can be confused about this. And the people of Palestine that want to build an independent sovereign State are only going to get endlessly stabbed if they think that the UN itself can help them achieve this sovereignty. Never mind whether you trust Israel. If Egypt and Jordan feel they can't help what do you expect from the UN? Someone needs to purge the people inside that are coopting the movement towards sovereignty for their own aims. I know why China wants to play "peacemaker" while poking all sides in to war. Communist regimes are super easy to understand if you just crack open a few history books guided by critical thinking rather than Critical Theory. And no matter how much you might hate Putin or Russia they no longer have the same "global" ambitions that the CCP now has. Russia is far more inclined to support the Westphalian paradigm than the CCP. The Soviet Union of course saw the Westphalian paradigm as a bulwark for "Reactionary Capitalism". Good intentions are not enough. You have to actually understand all of the various forces and what tools are available to competent people that want to promote Westphalian sovereignty.
    1
  5.  @Montezuma0  It's supposed to replicate the Peace of Westphalia process with no end date. Treaties can of course be signed, ideally, but the purely diplomatic mission/institution itself remains open for business. That's all it can be.
    1
  6.  @richardkuzan8849  He wrote that those 5 sovereigns would leave the UN because it's only useful for them if they possess that veto. If you took the veto away from all 5 they would still show up but the Security Council vote would have even less meaning than it does now. When you get all 5 to agree on something it shows that the most powerful militaries in existence are all in agreement. Sorry, that's how power operates.
    1
  7.  @linute14  It's diplomacy only. It should have zero to do with "-cratic" anything. International relations are sovereign to sovereign affairs. He can you even dream that the UN is "democratic" when the CCP has never held elections at all?
    1
  8. BTW, the "text book" shows "genocide" as being something like rounding people up and either slaughtering them by religious and or ethnic identity or first rounding them up and working them to death, harvesting organs, performing experiments and then liquidating them. Promoting free abortion is also a "genocidal" program. That's what the textbooks say. Until Critical Theory propagandists started "colonizing" and "occupying" Occidental institutions. And guess where actual genocide is occurring today? Lawyers are supposed to bring relevant case evidence to the courts and public. Not use dramatic and even fallacious labeling in place of real case evidence. Lawyers like this only get people that already agree with them to get even angrier. They take people away from solving problems. Lawyers like RFK were pilloried for citing "disparate outcomes" of the Coronavirus pandemic to imply "genocide" and rightly so. Stop trying to get people to cultivate their own anger and close their minds to problem-solving diplomacy.
    1
  9.  @pwrofmusic  Wait a minute. Indians are yada yad to themselves. You can make that argument about any war whether internal or bilateral. Where does it say that suddenly the UN can intervene in bilateral sovereign affairs but not internal affairs? You're dreaming, actually.
    1
  10.  @pwrofmusic  "first you need understand what the UN is for. " I already told you what it is for. If you have a better explanation then spit it out. "Why does the UN give aid to places if it doesn't has nothing to do with internal conflicts." The UN has no collective motive or emotions. Get real. If you want to discuss the motives of those that pay out versus those that collect that might be an interesting conversation that I doubt you could even follow. "Why does it have humanitarian assistance?" What was the first assistance that "it" handed out? Whatever the answer it has nothing to do with what I laid out. The UN is a diplomatic institution. It is a place where sovereigns are invited to meet according to a sort of pecking order and it has "subcommittees" that are also not understood at all by casual commenters like yourself. At the end of the day it is where nations come together to avoid war and under certain theories this involves preaching to each other and handing out money when the sovereign feels they can afford to do that with such a fat tax base to manipulate for its own ends. And the truth is that the UN itself was formed in the aftermath of WWII and the birth of Communist imperialism. So that complicates matters if we're to discuss whether it adheres to its original mission. In a lot of cases the nations that come in good faith as believers of the General Assembly have lots of good conversations and it has turned in to a way to get together and suggest emergency responses and so forth. That still falls under good faith diplomacy. The UN is not itself a bank or wealth store that people vote in concerning a UN fund unless nations voluntarily contributes to those dedicated funds. This has nothing to do with perceptions of "democracy" or "international justice" or whatever except that each nation can add commentary along with their donations and so forth. There is nothing wrong with this use of the UN. The UN and other institutions are premised on good faith dialog and good faith dialog requires a shared worldview where the participants understand the conflicts of interests and interests in common. That's never really existed at the UN because Marxism is a cult that turns all good faith discourses upside down and wants to endlessly confuse everyone else. Even their own allies. Again, if you have something that you think has value you should just state your theory and or explanation rather than ask "smart" questions.
    1