Quote:
|
Obviously NATO disagrees, given that they're not going in there. Its nice to know there's a difference between what you believe should happen, and what will happen. The reality is more what I'm interested in debating.
|
And given the history of the conflict, do you really think the UN, without the massive participation of the US, will be able to solve 'anything?'
Quote:
|
Any other organization that has a collective security aspect would face the same issues the UNSC does. The reason these states have vetoes is to ensure their participation, and its gone a long way in getting them permanently at the same table. The UN was the scene of many Cold War debates, and the forum of communication between the US and USSR (ie, useless).
|
Regardless, the veto power is what has made the UNSC useless on many occasions.
Quote:
|
As long as powerful states like China, Russia, UK, and US disagree, no multilateral organization will be able to provide an effective global security force. NATO isn't going in. The US isn't going in. The UN is the best option available, which is too bad, because as I've said a number of times, they peace-keep, they don't peace-make. (I can feel the vibration of these words hitting deaf ears....)
|
Yep...
