Just a moment...
peoplesdispatch.org

On more than 30 occasions, the United Nations Assembly has discussed the blockade against Cuba, which costs the island 5 billion dollars annually, according to some estimates. Every year the resolution is proposed and the whole world, through the vote of the absolute majority of the member countries of the United Nations General Assembly, has condemned the imperialist attitude of the United States towards Cuba.

edit: result of the vote: https://mastodon.nzoss.nz/system/cache/media_attachments/files/113/398/372/180/881/996/original/82c4d1f509e933fa.jpg

  • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
    32·
    2 months ago

    If only UN wasn’t completely useless to the point of not doing anything

      • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        2 months ago

        Simple, prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.

          • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            2 months ago

            I’m not here to argue a hypothetical with someone who “just asks questions”.

            • atzanteol@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
              21·
              2 months ago

              I’m not “just asking questions” - it’s the “Socratic method”. I’m trying to get you to see the answer - that there is no answer.

              What you seek is impossible. You want “no wars” but you need somebody who can stop nations from going to war - which requires the ability and willingness to wage war and win. A hegemony that rules over everyone and is a super-power in itself.

              This is how the police work in most nations. The state has a “monopoly on violence” to enforce the laws so that citizens don’t go all “Hatfield & McCoy”.

              This was also the plot of the first half of the book Childhood’s End by Arthur C. Clarke (an excellent read - I highly recommend it).

                  • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    13·
                    2 months ago

                    Yours and mine. Next time don’t ask questions about a hypothetical like some “ackschually” nerd.

                • TachyonTele@lemm.eeEnglish
                  21·
                  2 months ago

                  How do you think the UN would be able to “prevent wars. Kick leaders in the balls. Lessen human suffering and violence.”?

                  What methods would it use to achieve those goals?

                  “Simple. Just do it” is not an answer.

    • where_am_i@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      32·
      2 months ago

      So, UN would?

      But then all the major powers woukd exit cuz this doesn’t suit them, and the UN would be useless again.

      • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        2 months ago

        if only the UN wasn’t so useless

        It’s actually a scam that it is pointless. All it does is it creates an illusion of discourse when there is none - the “big boys” will still do whatever suits them best - be it China, Russia, US.

        • where_am_i@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          31·
          2 months ago

          The whole point of creating it was so that at least everyone gets to talk.

          Any union that would force any sort of rules couldn’t exist. But a one with no commitments does exist, and countries talk, and sometimes things happen when it’s not in a direct conflict of major powers.

          Lemmy somehow always imagines some higher international power existing and also that power somehow ruling in accordance with their beliefs. I’m not sure how they imagine that would actually work and who would enforce the order.

          • Maalus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            1·
            2 months ago

            Yeah you say all that and yet the UN is still useless. It hasn’t prevented wars. The peacekeepers do jack shit. It’s about as effective as thoughts and prayers - after all, everything that can be done is “talk”.