Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
They tried that. It was called the "League of Nations"; as a result we had WW2.
This is the problem when, in the idiocy of being "inclusive", the UN admitted tyrant nations which do not share goals of peace and individual liberties.
They tried that. It was called the "League of Nations"; as a result we had WW2.
This is the problem when, in the idiocy of being "inclusive", the UN admitted tyrant nations which do not share goals of peace and individual liberties.
A few tyrant nations would not matter when a 75% vote is enough. Nobody would have a veto right.
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
never gonna work. for example we invade iraq base on WMD, what happen if russia/china/india etc etc against it. there are too many country, each have different interest that not always align with EU or US.
furthermore is vote base on country # or population, for example china/india would have huge advantage there if base on pop. if base on countries #, then 1 panama = 1 US vote? in that case china/US/EU just need to bribe smaller nation for votes.
alliance have to share same interest or share same adversary.
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
The most likely outcomes of that arrangement would UN vs. Israel and UN vs. USA conflicts (WW3).
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
There are already UN Security forces, however the UN like NATO is based on individual nations being ready to commit forces rather than having it's own forces.
If anything NATO may now become a far stronger and more useful force, with increased defence spending in relation to many European nations and a move towards operational readiness.
Nobody in Europe wants to swap NATO for the UN, with the Chinese and Russians have a lot of say in terms of the UN.
Furthermore if NATO did need to be replaced it would be most likely replaced by a European defence pact and not the UN.
Last edited by Brave New World; 03-02-2022 at 04:55 AM..
Since we still have wars every couple of years, I was wondering why the whole world, represented at the UN, does not implement a rule that if any UN member country is attacked militarily or economically, the whole world has the right to hit back, militarily and economically. Whether or not an attack has occurred would have to be decided by the UN members in a public trial. A yes would require a clear vote of, say, 75%.
This way the ideological Trojan horse called Nato would become obsolete and the UN-based mechanism would be ideologically neutral, and thus not be in favor of or against anyone because of their system or whatever.
Since the response would also be of a global economic nature, even the biggest countries would be afraid of attacking smaller ones that have no military worth mentioning.
Personally, I like this idea although I recognize it’s a tall order.
To make it even ‘taller’ however more functional in achieving its purposes, i.e.
To keep peace throughout the world;
To develop friendly relations among nations;
To help nations work together to improve the lives of poor people, to conquer hunger, disease and illiteracy, and to encourage respect for each other’s rights and freedoms;
To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations to achieve these goals
it would likely make sense to group the oligarchs from all countries into 1 member state & with just 1 vote for a total of 194 member states.
The Constitution gives us our marching orders. Not a bunch of foreigners.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
