The UN Security Council is a disgrace

by fukitol 8 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  fukitol

  The Syrian conflict and lack of action by the UN basically proves to me the UN is a failed model.

  That prick Bashar's army is dropping barrels bombs on schools, hospitals, killing little children etc, but Russia and China with their vested geo-political interests just veto any resolution proposed by the UN Security Council to intervene.

  Circa 5 years of suffering by millions of women and children living in deprivation and misery in refugee camps, with all manner of atrocities and war crimes still occurring in Syria itself. All the meanwhile this disgusting asshole Bashar and his military cronies continue in power and live in luxury.
  

  It absolutely breaks my heart and makes me sick to my stomach. I don't give a toss about all the rationalisations and counter-arguments people may make defending the Bashar regime.
  

  As far as I'm concerned, the UN Security Council is a broken and failed entity, a spineless, essentially corrupt model with grossly conflicting vested interests that are blockading fundamental moral and humane principles and obligations enshrined in it's Charter. It has grossly FAILED the millions of refugees, innocent little ones and women mostly and all the civilians still trapped inside Syria suffering the hell they are enduring daily with no end in sight.

  SHAME on the UN Security Council. You are a disgusting failure!
  
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  I broadly agree with the OP - the UN Security Counsel is an unfunny joke and Bashar Al Assad is a monster who targets his own civilians.

  But removing Assad is only half the problem - who would rule in his place? The strongest opposition group in Syria is currently ISIS.

  It sounds racist to say it but, generally speaking, Arabs and democracy don't go together well.
• 

  The Searcher

  I'm not qualified to debate world politics generally or the middle east specifically, in view of the "dark side" which is almost certainly controlled and manipulated by people who treat human lives as no better than laboratory rats - simply the means to achieve a result, and dispensable.

  However, when looking at Iraq, Afghanistan, & Libya, it becomes fairly clear that such civilisations with rival power/money hungry tribal factions will never unite under an enforced "democracy" by nations viewed as infidels.

  And the more I see "democracy" in action, the less I see "democracy" in action!
• 

  ivanatahan

  Indeed, the UN's model is less than exemplary. Unfortunately, no change can be made with the UN because any change of how the UN Security Council runs, like making it only possible to veto by a majority vote, will be vetoed by any power currently in the Council. The United Nations hold almost no purpose now, except that of providing a single place for world powers to show off how selfish they are. As much as I would hate for a third World War to happen, perhaps the UN will suffer the same fate as the League of Nations if it does. This will surely bring JWs around the world to try and deal with the bunch their panties had become. That is, assuming the GB doesn't release "new light".
• 

  John Aquila

  And yet 8 million people believe:

  Watchtower 12/9/2012

  How This World Will Come to an End

  A study of the book of Revelation shows that the wild beast refers to the United Nations (UN). “The ten horns” represent all present political powers that support this scarlet-colored wild beast. How devastating will the attack be? The nations of the UN will plunder the harlot’s wealth, expose her real character, devour her, and “completely burn her.” Her destruction will be final. 7. What will trigger the attack by the “wild beast”?

  7 Bible prophecy also indicates what will trigger this attack. Somehow Jehovah will put it into the hearts of political rulers “to carry out his thought,” namely, to devastate the harlot. Warmongering religion continues to be a disruptive force in the world; hence, the nations may feel that destroying the harlot is in their own national interests. In fact, when the rulers attack, they will think that they are carrying out their own “one thought.” In reality, however, they act as God’s tool for obliterating all false religion. Thus, in a stunning reversal, one part of Satan’s system will attack another part, and Satan will be powerless to prevent
  
• 

  Vidiot

  ivanatahan - "This will surely bring JWs around the world to try and deal with the bunch their panties had become. That is, assuming the GB doesn't release 'new light'.

  Yeah, the WTS would probably try and retcon WW3 into their eschatology.

  Not sure just how they'd spin it, though.
• 

  redvip2000

  @OP

  Yes, it's true, but it would be a terrible idea to remove Bashar by force. We would have another Iraq on our hands. Saddam Hussein did the same to his people, we removed him.... result? You can arguably say it's worse now, we no order whatsoever, and a bunch of rogue groups killing the population.

  Instead of removing him, we should support the groups that are trying to remove him, which we are not doing as well as we should.
  
• 

  ivanatahan

  Yeah, the WTS would probably try and retcon WW3 into their eschatology.
  Not sure just how they'd spin it, though.

  They'll probably be trying to secure their neutral position and think the witnesses who get persecuted because of it are proof that the big A has started (much like how many were concerned WW2 might be the end). Maybe they'll teach that the final peace treaty will result in a ban on religion (assuming the war resulted after something that involved religion heated up). This was actually an old theory of mine that I came up with when I still believed in the "truth".
• 

  krejames

  The mess in the middle east is largely of the West's making (US and UK). We financed what became ISIS during the Afghan war to fight the Russians. We interfered with Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein for our own economic interests (interestingly Saddam Hussein protected Christians) now the place is one bigger violent cess pool than it ever was under Saddam. We helped the Libyans to rise against their government, creating a power vacuum, giving ISIS another territory in which to flourish. When the terrified population try and make their escape to Europe, from the hell we helped create, we have journalists like Katie Hopkins saying those immigrants are cockroaches and we should set the gunships on them (at least the UN waded in on that one and rightly pointed out that this was the same kind of language used in 1930s Germany and 1990s Rwanda).

  And then, as you say, there's Syria who shares an interest in defeating ISIS, so to that extent Bashar is useful to the West, though they can't officially be seen to work with him to defeat them.

  The whole thing is one big tsunami of violence with no obvious solution. Yes the UN model is not working in this situation, but I think the problem is too big for it to deal with when the cause of the problems are its most influencial and powerful members. The hell that the people of Syria are going through is probably seen as being the lesser of the evils when taking ISIS into consideration.

  I guess none of us know the true story and all of the causes - we only know what we read and watch - but I don't see this as something for which the UN can realistically do anything to bring it to an end - and until someone comes up with an alternative model to the UN, there isn't an easy answer. (This is where the JWs would say "what we need is one big world government" ). Meanwhile we feel distressed and impotent at the suffering we see in that region and, if we're from the US or Europe, more than a little ashamed that the lack of solution probably has something to do with protecting the lifestyle we currently enjoy.