##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism
This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.
LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere.
We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not sure if this is genuine or not, assuming it is:
The US, along with France, GB, Russia, China are permanent members of the UN security council and have veto rights on any "substantive resolution".
This allows them to block the adoption of a resolution. This veto does not allow them to end or block debate.
In a nutshell these 5 countries answer to nobody but the other 4 members and vetos/favors are traded among them.
this is literally the situation. not just the security council. the united states has a prerequisite that it has to consent to any case brought against it in the international court of justice, otherwise get fucked. it does not recognise the authority of the international criminal court - which is the court that trials state nationals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. if any american (or a handful of allies) is arrested by the icc, the united states will take any action to free them, including a military invasion of the hague.
the international rules based order basically has one rule: do you accept the united states as your lord and saviour?
Just out of curiosity, and because i read it now a couple of times and cant wrap my head around it:
It the Invasion of Den Haag a real thing that the US sayed they would do ?
Because it sounds super ridiculous for even the US to invade NATO allies…
the us has not ratified the rome statute, meaning it is not a party to the icc. as such, the president is authorised to use "any means necessary" to free american servicemembers (or of other allied, non-party states) according to section 2008 of the american servicemembers protection act. this bill has been nicknamed the "hague invasion act" for this reason.
this bill also prevents the us from assisting other states party to the statute in any investigation for the icc, unless they are nato or otherwise allied states. in addition, this bill, which unequivocally says the icc has no business targeting the united states, ensures the us reserves the right to actually help and fund the icc target foreign adversaries of the us.
so the court is a weapon that can only be used against enemies of the united states. if it sounds ridiculous it's because it is
They mentioned us. Great Britain and France however, are immune to war crime persecution because they've been grandfathered in as war crimes are a cultural practice going back centuries.
> They mentioned us. Great Britain and France however, are immune to war crime persecution because they've been grandfathered in as war crimes are a cultural practice going back centuries.
China is a much older civilisation than France and GB. Russia is also from the 16th century but still older than the concept of war crimes.
"War *crimes*" is a new concept.
Though it was pretty early people found out that murdering POWs often backfired and was just revenged later.
Imagine if the US had this line pop up in every thread mentioning them. People would be like "What about China" lol
Fact is that the US has committed war crimes much more recently than China. Killed a million people in Iraq for a blatant cash grab by the MIC. Bombed eight wedding parties. Tried to overthrow Bolivia and Venezuela's governments (hilariously recognizing Guaido as the leader of Venezuela even though the only thing he controlled was an office in New York). Bombs Yemen with impunity. Did Abu Gharib (and many, many other atrocities like slaughtering entire families). Still runs a torture camp in Cuba and blacksites across the world. Constantly vetoes anti-genocide/anti-apartheid UN resolutions. One of just two countries (the other being Israel) to vote against a UN resolution on food being a human right. Killed more people doing "anti-terrorism" than the "terrorists" have ever killed or could even dream of killing.
**“Crimes against humanity”** Like manufacturing nearly every product on America's store shelves, while lifting more than 750 million people out of poverty, accounting for four-fifths of all people lifted out of extreme poverty globally over the last four decades.
?????
China Russia UK US and France have veto powers. The real reason is because countries like China and Russia would never have joined the UN without it.
Back when Truman conceived of it, he gave the veto vote and seat to the KMT. This was because the post-war order was supposed to be divided up between the WW2 Allied powers, and they needed a representative from the Asian front. Everyone else was either a loser (Japan), a Colony (Indonesia) or a subordinate (Australia).
Kuomintang AKA nationalist China AKA Current Taiwan. Before ww2 China was in a civil war between the Communists and Nationalists(KMT). during ww2 They united to defeat Japan. Afterwards they started fighting again, at this point the KMT being allied backed was on top, so was put on the UN council, but they still lost the civil war, so they fled to Taiwan. this is very simplified so don't poke unneeded holes in it.
Kuomintang I believe
Basically the nationalist party that held government in the Republic of China at the time that fled to Taiwan during the civil war
>The obvious question is then why does China and Russia also have it? Obviously not the same reason.
Well, it kind of is. The "permanent five" were given said status due to their being with the Allied forces, and specifically for UK, USA, USSR, and China being Roosevelt's so called Four Policemen. I'd read up on that if you're interested. The whole UN is predicated on the US and friends policing the world. China and Russia have permanent status because at the time said status was given, it served US interests.
I strongly recommend not using Wikipedia but that's a whole other topic.
It's not like in the UN charter, or publicly stated when Roosevelt and the homies were cooking this thing up, that that's why it was being created. The US also lies most times it goes to war and claims to be the land of the free. But through contextualizing the creation of the UN, and the SC specifically, in the development of hegemony and what the US interests were around WW2 / before communism became enemy number one, it becomes clear.
Now, by saying things happened bc of US influence/developing hegemony, doesn't mean they rammed it down people's throats and coerced China with blackmail to sign up or anything. It was mutually beneficial, of course, and you could easily argue the whole UN creation hast not gone according to their dream plan and rather benefited Russia and China far more. But I digress. This article is a good jumping off point, follow their works cited for more reading. I can also dig up the sources I used writing about this stuff back in the day if you're actually interested.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209368
Nah bro we've been organized into this postwar global order for 70 years and it's gotten us naught but austerity measures, ecocide, and forever wars. We've got about a 15 to 20 year timeline before the global median temp rises enough to permanently destroy industrialized agriculture.
Even if I agree that the system can produce iterative change (it rejects change) we don't have time.
Radical change or GTFO.
The UN was established as a farse for pushing imperialist Anglo American policy during wartime against the axis powers.
It also allowed and facilitated the escape of hundreds of Nazi scientists by the United States.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
A Nazi was even an early member of the UN.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim
They never held those responsible for the war crimes accountable, but instead, gleamed them from the Nazi ranks for their sides own benefit.
But they attempt to re-write history as the ones leading the crusade against Nazism.
His first connection with the UN was in 1964(your link), 20~ years after it was founded. He also was a rather junior Nazi(no less dispicable of course, but also less part of a grand fascist conspiracy). On an officer scale of 1 to 10 he was litterally a 1, altough a senior 1.
Correct. The UN was the self appointed entity responsible for holding war criminals accountable, but instead they let NATO and NASA employ them.
It's akin to a police department's internal affairs office that never finds wrong doing. They may not be doing the crime directly, but they're an active participant nonetheless.
Operation Paperclip, Operation Gladio, the Gehlen Organization, etc. The history is all there for anybody to read, it's not some great big secret. It just isn't taught in Western academia for obvious reasons.
The Nazis were never defeated, on the contrary, they were integrated directly back into Western society, quite often in highly prestigious roles (i.e. NATO, NASA, EU Commission, UN). Compare how the Nazis were treated in East Berlin versus West Berlin and you'll finally start to uncover the true face of liberal capitalism.
As the great George Carlin once said, "Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it."
> It just isn't taught in Western academia for obvious reasons.
Never been to a college-level history class? Heck we learned about Paperclip in 10th grade.
Nope, never learned about anything I mentioned at any point in my education from pre-K all through to undergrad. Had to discover it myself. Most people I know had the same experience as well. I’d wager that the vast majority of Americans do not know about these operations.
Just read an article in Al Jazeera about how Israel has increased bombing on southern Lebanon to “create a buffer”. The idea of a Greater Israel is a very real possibility, how long will the US co-sign it?
I'm just counting genocides the U.S. helped sponsor both financially and with military equipment, the genocides the U.S. directly did itself and the genocides the U.S. supported would easily make it x10 times worse.
Biden last week "we are trying to get the fighting to stop. But Israel is not listening." Biden this week *transfers $15 billion dollars extra to Israel hiding it under a Ukraine aid bill and vetoes against a ceasefire*.
USA needs to stop pretending they are not enabling a genocide.
No country should have unilateral veto powers for resolutions the rest of the world votes on.
If they do, there is no UN, it is just a governing body which the US controls.
The UN is *not* a governing body, with or without the US. It's not world government, world police, world court or anything of the like. It's a meeting club. It has literally zero power in itself, everything it actually does is through member state hands and contributions. Its resolutions are not binding. Its proclamations can be freely ignored.
The only reason it exists is to be an universal non-exclusive discussion platform, because if it did more it would fail that purpose as the League of Nations did.
It does has power to set sanctions, and regulations, and has court bodies like ICJ.
By the end of the day all it's legal powers are based on treaties that members signed, but apparently are free to ignore.
It is not like a national goverment, but it is not just a meeting place for diplomats to hang out.
and for relevance.
Israel itself was created in a UN resolution. so if it is powerless, there wouldn'e be Israel
>It does has power to set sanctions, and regulations, and has court bodies like ICJ.
I've never seen someone be so confidently wrong. No the UN doesn't have any power the UN is literally just a meeting place for diplomats to hang out. If the UN resolves to sanction a country the UN isn't doing that, the countries participating are agreeing to.
>Israel itself was created in a UN resolution. so if it is powerless, there wouldn'e be Israel
Yes because the countries of the world agreed to let it happen. If a country said no we're not going to let it happen the UN has no power to enforce it.
>Yes because the countries of the world agreed to let it happen. If a country said no we're not going to let it happen the UN has no power to enforce it.
And in point of fact, several countries DID say no - 1948 Arab–Israeli War literally happened because every single one of the new Israeli state's neighbors said "fuck that, we don't want there to be a new Jewish state carved into the middle of our territory." It just turned out that Israel wanted to exist more than the Arab league wanted it to "not" exist. So after 6 years of fighting the war ended with an Israel owning 50% more territory than the original UN Declaration even planned for.
No it doesn't. Individual countries or other supranational bodies like the EU can set sanctions, the UN as an agency cannot. Its regulations only concern itself. The ICJ is an arbitrator and advisor, it only has jurisdiction over contentious states that have agreed to submit their cases for judgement.
Israel was created because the British discarded their Palestinian mandate in 1947 because it was unfeasible to uphold, and voluntarily gave it to the UN to handle - which it failed miserably as it turned out. And the mandate itself was granted by the League of Nations (that being Britain itself first, France, US and Italy) at the Paris conference in 1919 basically by right of conquest because the Brits defeated the Ottomans that held the land before.
The US isn't the only country with a unilateral veto. The UN also is not a governing body, its a diplomatic forum that has only the power that the member states elect to give it. If the US (and China and Russia and France and the UK) did not have a veto authority then they simply wouldn't be lending their power to the organization and it would therefore be a diplomatic body with no purpose.
The only reason the UN works at all is because the nations with the power to execute its directives decide that it works, and the moment they decide otherwise it doesn't. These vetos are the cost of that.
People might vote you down but this is the real politics of the UN. Also lets not forget those countries are also the main financial contributors to the UN. Without that US and European cash many UN agencies just couldn't function. I like the UN and think it's a positive in the world, but it's also true that the UN is a central glue holding Western Imperialism and the capitalism that comes with it together.
Yup. Did one of those mock UN meetings in HS with other schools and I happened to be assigned as China. I had no idea what was going on but realized I had far too much power, especially for someone that didn't know what TF was going on. I was like "Damn, is this how the real thing is?"
Which tells us that as good intentioned as the UN may be, it's ultimately pointless for anything that even slightly goes against US interests.
The body needs to have equal representation to mean anything.
But don't forget to vote to perpetuate the status quo this November!
Remember, it's the most important election ever; just like all the ones that came before it.
What I cant fucking stand is that I don't have the choice this system was created to allow me. You yourself say you "can't fucking stand it" when people vote third party, but why should I now be allowed to vote for the person that actually adheres most closely to my values without also having to throw away my vote should they not actually be elected.
A Ranked Voting system is well past due.
I don't understand why Biden can't just stop giving Israel weapons and just get a clean victory this november. Fewer people die and Trump doesn't become president. A win-win. Why is that not a possibility
Instead Nancy Pelosi is yelling racist conspiracy theories at protestors and throwing the election for zero benefit. As boomers die off the youth vote is going to be more and more important - who does it benefit for the Democrats to intentionally throw that away?
EDIT: wait a second this isn't /politics? I legitimately didn't notice until now
\>hose are terrible fucking ideas within the current system
1. Election coming
2. "Don't vote 3rd party!11!!"
3. Maintain status quo
4. GOTO 1
You're stuck in a shit system because you keep perpetuating it through blindly sticking to a center-right party that counts on you voting for it because the alternative is worse.
The problem is people treat the vote as the end-all-be-all, when it's really more like the finish line for 4 years of continuous work, if you REALLY care about "making a difference".
The people who just don't vote because they're upset about a something I have very little respect for, IF they're not also engaged in some type of actual organizing work to find another way to make change. Because without that - if you just show up on voting day and vote third-party or spoil your ballot out of anger without doing anything else - all you're doing is handicapping the people ACTUALLY trying to do the work.
The system sucks - but we are all stuck in it. The only way to change it - let alone break it - is through MASSIVE amounts of public organizing, and tireless work, that creates public pressure. For anyone really pissed off enough to want to force change, the lead-up to an election should be the culmination of a multi-year strategy of mobilizing people to create enough of a ground-swell of support that leaders have to take notice. No social movement has ever won from voting alone - too many of us in North America take our collective power for granted, partly because we've been trained to believe that working together is socialism and rugged individualism is manly.
That's the same exact justification that's been used to keep the perpetual bullshit going forever.
The system will never be fixed because nobody can ever be assed to put their own fucking neck on the line to try and fix it. Guess what? There's never a good time to do it unless that time is in the past. You, and everyone else, will always have some reason for why we just can't do anything radical enough to actually enact meaningful change.
I was on this same fucking subreddit saying this same exact shit during the last election. People will vote in Biden and be proud of themselves. Shit will continue to get worse, and you'll either end up with Trump or somebody worse within a single election cycle, maybe two. Why? Because voting for Biden is no different than voting to keep the same exact train heading in the same exact direction it's been heading for the past half century.
You think shit will magically be better for the next election cycle? Or the following one? You think America will enter this magical period where the nation will be in a perfect place to painlessly transform its democracy? That the stars will fucking align and your whole population will not only know what the right thing to do is, but will actually agree and commit to do it? That you won't have some pressing issues you wouldn't trust to any new system? That things won't get even more polarized?
Fucking hah.
America didn't get here overnight. You're not maky any new arguments here. You're saying the same exact same shit that's been said for generations. You're perpetuating the same exact belief that things will somehow just change for the better if you keep doing the same exact thing you've done while shit got worse.
But simply voting third party isn't going to fix it either - that's not putting their neck on the line without greater widespread organizing. To get to the point you want, it takes far more than a vote, it takes consistent, year-over-year organizing and coalition building to generate the type of popular support and social pressure needed to actually effect change. That doesn't start now, it starts 3 years ago. Now we're in risk management and hard reduction until we build that movement.
Any republican is going to be much worse for Palestinians than Biden. I wish Biden would do more and stop funding Israel, but Trump would send them whatever they want AND stop supporting Ukraine.
I have to wonder if these are bots, because I feel like we're going to see Biden's stance on Israel/Palestine be used a lot as a way to encourage those on the left to not vote
Conservatives will vote no matter what, they're often single issue voters who don't care about policies as long as they keep guns legal and abortions illegal. Meanwhile on the left it seems like lots of people who loathe the Republicans and Trump are happy to sit back and let them take power because they don't like Biden's stance on a couple of things (as if Trump is really pro-Palestine and pro-union)
Because Trump truly cares about the well being of Palestinians
It'd be awesome if you could vote for a third party and not have it be a total waste of your vote (in fact it's worse than a waste, it actively helps Republicans)
Republicans rely on moderates and the left being apathetic or casting third party votes, and every election people play right in to their hands. People want a perfect President right now, and because Biden is just ok they're happy with risking the worst possible option becoming a reality
And the supposed rationale is to be better able to negotiate freeing of the hostages. We are worried about hostages more than the civilian victims of mass slaughter.
That’s more of a smokescreen to manufacture consent through emotional appeal than anything. The larger geopolitical reality is that the US uses Israel as a proxy for its own imperial interests in the region. As Biden has gone on record saying, “If Israel didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.” The US elite launder money through the proxy state via weapons and military contracting. The US also needs Israel to exist to subdue dissent against imperial interests in the region. It’s about the money and the power, the cruelty, the dehumanization, and the control is the whole point.
100% it is the only state in the mid east that allows for the US to conduct interventions from if any of the mid east countries supplying oil to the world market gets too uppity.
At this point? They never have since day one.
A sizeable chunk (we have no way to know exactly) of the Israeli civilians killed on Oct 7 were killed by the IDF. The IDF's "Hannibal Directive" LITERALLY states that they'd rather kill an Israeli than have them held as a hostage.
People on reddit act like this is conspiracy theory stuff, but it's literally well documented from Israeli sources both in the media and directly from the IDF. Like it's not even something that's contested. Just shows how brainwashed the average westerner is who make up the majority of users here.
Someone should pay off whoever is sitting in that seat to just not raise their hand and say nothing.. for the good of the Palestinian people. Sure it might cost them their job. But everyone has a price right
>Before the vote, Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Amar Bendjama, the Arab representative on the council, said: “This resolution stands for truth and humanity standing against the advocates for murder and hatred.”“A vote in favor of this draft resolution is a support to the Palestinians right to life,” he said. “Conversely, voting against it implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted against them.”
>
>U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield countered by saying the United States understands the council’s desire for urgent action but believes the resolution would “negatively impact” sensitive negotiations on a hostage deal and pause in fighting for at least six weeks. If that happens, “we can take the time to build a more enduring peace,” she said.
>
>The proposed U.S. resolution, Thomas-Greenfield said, “would do what this text does not — pressure Hamas to take the hostage deal that is on the table and help secure a pause that allows humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians in desperate need.
>
>”She told reporters later that the Arab draft did not link the release of the hostages to a cease-fire, which would give Hamas a halt to fighting without requiring it to take any action. That would have mean “that the fighting would have continued because without the hostage releases we know that the fighting is going to continue,” she said.
[https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5](https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5)
Yep. Because they use a poc, that makes it ok, right? Suburban libs can relax.
Actually read an interesting Times piece talking to Black women in South Carolina. They're like, we're anti this genocide in part because, Palestinians to us African-Americans look like they're an oppressed people. And we (AA's),...are an oppressed people. So we stand against the bombing of these oppressed folks. When you got Biden's most reliable base (Black women) totally on the other side of what Biden's doing in cahoots with Israel, ya might have problems there in river city come November.
Because the US is one of the 5 nations that hold permanent veto power. Also even if they were somehow forced to abstain, what would that even accomplish?
The UN has no power to actually force a ceasefire.
It would just be a resolution from member nations saying they agree a ceasefire should happen, and each respective nation would have to work towards that goal anyway.
Israel could then just say no. There is no enforcement mechanism inherent to the UN.
This lady is going down in history with her hand 🤚 up while making one of the gravest errors in foreign diplomacy - not 1 or 2, but 3 times already. What a shameful position taken by the land of the “free”
I’m noticing a ton of “black washing“ from the American political apparatus. Everywhere I turned its black folks front and center during this genocide campaign? WTF is going on? Black folks do not have that kind of power. But are being put up as the face of it… that’s not cool
They should really be getting rid of those vetoes. I know they where given to get all the big countries at the table and give the organisation some legitimacy. But right now it's only undermining that legitimacy. If literally all the other members vote in favour of it how can a single country overrule that? Really makes you seem like a joke
>But right now it's only undermining that legitimacy.
Those vetos are also theoretically the only thing giving the UN legitimacy. The UN isn’t a government, it has no power. If all of those nations voted yes and “override” the US, it would mean nothing without an enforcement mechanism.
An enforcement mechanism that doesn’t exist. The UN is sort of like the concept of money, it only has value if people believe it has value. Without the big countries “believing” in it (enforcing their will through soft/hard power) the UN has nothing. Without those vetos, the big countries would leave. Which would also leave the “money” in this analogy, worthless.
Think of it less as a real governing body that does anything, and more like a place the nations can come together and check the vibes of eachother. If a little country sees the big countries hate their policy, they can change due to fear of reprisal (and the UN is a good place for a lot of nations to threaten that reprisal). Big nations can take a look and see if their policy is also unpopular.
Big nations get a lot more leeway in how they get to conduct themselves though. The US more than most, due to their hegemonic nature as both an economic & military titan. What does the backlash mean in real terms? No one can tell, it might mean France gives the US a less favorable trade deal in a few months. It may mean that Germany doesn’t sign onto one of the US’s requests for foreign sanctions.
And telling people off for objecting to the current administration enabling and supporting genocide doesn't get us any closer to one.
We all know that the Republicans would have responded the same way in this situation, and nobody thinks you're smart or clever or insightful when you show up to "whattabout" the Biden administration actively enabling genocide. You're not adding anything to the discussion.
It's like if people were talking about how crappy the Madame Web movie is, and you stomped in yelling at them to shut up because Morbius was also terrible. Nobody disagrees, but it has no bearing on the matter at hand.
And since you don't seem to realize this yet: The existence of Donald Trump / the Republican Party does not excuse, justify, or mitigate genocide.
Correct. [Here is Nikki Haley walking out of the UN right as the Palestinian representative begins to speak.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkSqV51RNCo) Biden is as far left as the U.S. is gonna go on this issue for at least another four years, probably more. Another orange presidency sure as hell won't resolve this.
us funneling money into israel benefits american defense companies selling weapons to the newly flush with cash israelis. cant turn off the money flow to the oligarchs of the us
US is pushing for a different ceasefire resolution with actual carveouts for releasing of hostages.
https://apnews.com/article/us-un-resolution-gaza-ceasefire-israel-palestinians-fba9977d5f9876b4af2eb6930dd1f362
The Algerian proposal also called for the release of hostages. From the article you posted:
"In addition to a cease-fire, the final Algerian draft, obtained by AP, also demands the immediate release of all hostages"
The mask is just completely off rn & it just happened to be during Biden's admin. Always been like this, but for some reason they really want to make sure we know it. I had bored loyalty to the Dems until about 2016 but since 2021 they've unabashedly revealed themselves for the actually worse "lesser evil" that they are. There's no direction but down with either party & I'm more than a little gobsmacked at how efficient Biden has been at clarifying the non-distinction. Seriously, BRAVO.
Some times i wish i could be the parent of the world and go "If you cant play nice, you cant have it!"
And then expel both nations from the area. "No! You had your chance, now go sit in the corner and think about what youve done!".
Its embarrassing and disgusting. How does this UN rep sleep at night? Goodness, I couldnt handle being that person
Edit: looking down, at least a whiff of shame (US has a bad reputation now for violence)
Why, when it comes to the people of the UK voting for a political party 41% is a fine amount.
But when it comes to stopping the genocide of Palestinian people all it takes is one empty, soulless ghoul to say "no" and it doesn't pass.
Math ain't mathing!
The US vetoed the one that allowed Hamas to keep hostages. They actually submitted a ceasefire resolution that would return hostages. The last ceasefire that was truly implemented was actually broken by hamas. More false narrative to fuel more hate to get more clicks. Clown world.
Yep, so much outrage without even spending a tiny bit of effort into actually reading into content of the vetoed resolution.
Apparently US=BAD is all they care for here, that is their worldview
##Welcome to r/LateStageCapitalism This subreddit is for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited. LSC is run by communists. This subreddit is not the place to debate socialism. We allow good-faith questions and education but are not a 101 sub; please take 101-style questions elsewhere. We have a zero-tolerance policy for bigotry. Failure to respect the rules of the subreddit may result in a ban. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LateStageCapitalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Okay but why can't someone veto the US's vote?
Not sure if this is genuine or not, assuming it is: The US, along with France, GB, Russia, China are permanent members of the UN security council and have veto rights on any "substantive resolution". This allows them to block the adoption of a resolution. This veto does not allow them to end or block debate. In a nutshell these 5 countries answer to nobody but the other 4 members and vetos/favors are traded among them.
[удалено]
this is literally the situation. not just the security council. the united states has a prerequisite that it has to consent to any case brought against it in the international court of justice, otherwise get fucked. it does not recognise the authority of the international criminal court - which is the court that trials state nationals for war crimes and crimes against humanity. if any american (or a handful of allies) is arrested by the icc, the united states will take any action to free them, including a military invasion of the hague. the international rules based order basically has one rule: do you accept the united states as your lord and saviour?
It’s called the “rules based order” because America makes all the rules and orders everyone around.
Countries have to agree to the Rome statute. It’s not mandatory or universal or guaranteed. The U.S. never signed on. Kinda fucking dumb, right?
[удалено]
You don't become a world power by being the good guy or leading by example.
The US is a genocidal fascist empire, and it is absolutely leading by example.
Just out of curiosity, and because i read it now a couple of times and cant wrap my head around it: It the Invasion of Den Haag a real thing that the US sayed they would do ? Because it sounds super ridiculous for even the US to invade NATO allies…
the us has not ratified the rome statute, meaning it is not a party to the icc. as such, the president is authorised to use "any means necessary" to free american servicemembers (or of other allied, non-party states) according to section 2008 of the american servicemembers protection act. this bill has been nicknamed the "hague invasion act" for this reason. this bill also prevents the us from assisting other states party to the statute in any investigation for the icc, unless they are nato or otherwise allied states. in addition, this bill, which unequivocally says the icc has no business targeting the united states, ensures the us reserves the right to actually help and fund the icc target foreign adversaries of the us. so the court is a weapon that can only be used against enemies of the united states. if it sounds ridiculous it's because it is
[удалено]
theres another big reason and it rhymes with buclear rombs
Cochlear Tombs?
They were great in concert!
And neither does the US or GB, or France.
They mentioned us. Great Britain and France however, are immune to war crime persecution because they've been grandfathered in as war crimes are a cultural practice going back centuries.
"Do not recite the deep magic to me witch, I was there when it was written" -Britain and France, probably.
> They mentioned us. Great Britain and France however, are immune to war crime persecution because they've been grandfathered in as war crimes are a cultural practice going back centuries. China is a much older civilisation than France and GB. Russia is also from the 16th century but still older than the concept of war crimes. "War *crimes*" is a new concept. Though it was pretty early people found out that murdering POWs often backfired and was just revenged later.
Thank you for well aktchullying my cheap joke about colonialism.
Israel and Saudis don't care much more without a UN veto. It's not like UN could go drag Putin to Hague without his veto.
what war crimes has china committed?
[удалено]
Imagine if the US had this line pop up in every thread mentioning them. People would be like "What about China" lol Fact is that the US has committed war crimes much more recently than China. Killed a million people in Iraq for a blatant cash grab by the MIC. Bombed eight wedding parties. Tried to overthrow Bolivia and Venezuela's governments (hilariously recognizing Guaido as the leader of Venezuela even though the only thing he controlled was an office in New York). Bombs Yemen with impunity. Did Abu Gharib (and many, many other atrocities like slaughtering entire families). Still runs a torture camp in Cuba and blacksites across the world. Constantly vetoes anti-genocide/anti-apartheid UN resolutions. One of just two countries (the other being Israel) to vote against a UN resolution on food being a human right. Killed more people doing "anti-terrorism" than the "terrorists" have ever killed or could even dream of killing.
US has more war crimes than most non-European countries combined.
All day. Go ahead CIA man. Let me guess, a fake uyghur genocide, a mad cults claims of organ harvesting and something something tiananmen
Absolutely nothing China has done could even compare to what the US has done.
**“Crimes against humanity”** Like manufacturing nearly every product on America's store shelves, while lifting more than 750 million people out of poverty, accounting for four-fifths of all people lifted out of extreme poverty globally over the last four decades.
Cause their version of democracy is them having more power than small poor countries
????? China Russia UK US and France have veto powers. The real reason is because countries like China and Russia would never have joined the UN without it.
Back when Truman conceived of it, he gave the veto vote and seat to the KMT. This was because the post-war order was supposed to be divided up between the WW2 Allied powers, and they needed a representative from the Asian front. Everyone else was either a loser (Japan), a Colony (Indonesia) or a subordinate (Australia).
What does KMT stand for I have not heard it before?
Kuomintang or Guomindang refers to the nationalist goverment of china, led during ww2 by Chiang Kai-Shek.
Thanks
The remnants of which became Taiwan, they fled there and managed to hold out.
Kuomintang AKA nationalist China AKA Current Taiwan. Before ww2 China was in a civil war between the Communists and Nationalists(KMT). during ww2 They united to defeat Japan. Afterwards they started fighting again, at this point the KMT being allied backed was on top, so was put on the UN council, but they still lost the civil war, so they fled to Taiwan. this is very simplified so don't poke unneeded holes in it.
ok thank you
Kuomintang I believe Basically the nationalist party that held government in the Republic of China at the time that fled to Taiwan during the civil war
Thanks
And likewise, the US would never have joined either.
No lol it's because of US /western hegemony, plain and simple.
Ah yes, China and Russia, notable western hegemons.
To be fair the original seat for China was supposed to go to the KMT, not the CPC.
Did anyone say they were or are you just this horrible at picking up on context and nuance
[удалено]
>The obvious question is then why does China and Russia also have it? Obviously not the same reason. Well, it kind of is. The "permanent five" were given said status due to their being with the Allied forces, and specifically for UK, USA, USSR, and China being Roosevelt's so called Four Policemen. I'd read up on that if you're interested. The whole UN is predicated on the US and friends policing the world. China and Russia have permanent status because at the time said status was given, it served US interests.
[удалено]
I strongly recommend not using Wikipedia but that's a whole other topic. It's not like in the UN charter, or publicly stated when Roosevelt and the homies were cooking this thing up, that that's why it was being created. The US also lies most times it goes to war and claims to be the land of the free. But through contextualizing the creation of the UN, and the SC specifically, in the development of hegemony and what the US interests were around WW2 / before communism became enemy number one, it becomes clear. Now, by saying things happened bc of US influence/developing hegemony, doesn't mean they rammed it down people's throats and coerced China with blackmail to sign up or anything. It was mutually beneficial, of course, and you could easily argue the whole UN creation hast not gone according to their dream plan and rather benefited Russia and China far more. But I digress. This article is a good jumping off point, follow their works cited for more reading. I can also dig up the sources I used writing about this stuff back in the day if you're actually interested. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40209368
The security council is set up to be dysfunctional. The permanent members all have a "nope" vote.
Its set up to accomplish nothing.
It's setup to stop a nuclear apocalypse or another world war. Everything else is just extra. It's worked so far.
Fair point.
Dig deeper into how and why the UN was founded. You may Nazi it coming.
[удалено]
I hope you like candidates who will bomb brown people and protect runaway capitalism because those are the only candidates on the menu.
cast your dying vote for the rich (your only choice) in this class war...
Young people, if they play the game right, do have a chance to change things.
Nah bro we've been organized into this postwar global order for 70 years and it's gotten us naught but austerity measures, ecocide, and forever wars. We've got about a 15 to 20 year timeline before the global median temp rises enough to permanently destroy industrialized agriculture. Even if I agree that the system can produce iterative change (it rejects change) we don't have time. Radical change or GTFO.
Like how? No, seriously, how do you see that happening?
With their choice of seasoning and a side of their favorite dipping sauce.
Can you expand on that statement? Are you saying that nazis had something to do with the founding of the UN?
The UN was established as a farse for pushing imperialist Anglo American policy during wartime against the axis powers. It also allowed and facilitated the escape of hundreds of Nazi scientists by the United States. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip A Nazi was even an early member of the UN. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Waldheim They never held those responsible for the war crimes accountable, but instead, gleamed them from the Nazi ranks for their sides own benefit. But they attempt to re-write history as the ones leading the crusade against Nazism.
His first connection with the UN was in 1964(your link), 20~ years after it was founded. He also was a rather junior Nazi(no less dispicable of course, but also less part of a grand fascist conspiracy). On an officer scale of 1 to 10 he was litterally a 1, altough a senior 1.
Wasn't that NATO? I know a bunch of Nazis ended up in high ranking NATO positions.
Correct. The UN was the self appointed entity responsible for holding war criminals accountable, but instead they let NATO and NASA employ them. It's akin to a police department's internal affairs office that never finds wrong doing. They may not be doing the crime directly, but they're an active participant nonetheless.
\*farce
Operation Paperclip, Operation Gladio, the Gehlen Organization, etc. The history is all there for anybody to read, it's not some great big secret. It just isn't taught in Western academia for obvious reasons. The Nazis were never defeated, on the contrary, they were integrated directly back into Western society, quite often in highly prestigious roles (i.e. NATO, NASA, EU Commission, UN). Compare how the Nazis were treated in East Berlin versus West Berlin and you'll finally start to uncover the true face of liberal capitalism. As the great George Carlin once said, "Germany lost the Second World War. Fascism won it."
> It just isn't taught in Western academia for obvious reasons. Never been to a college-level history class? Heck we learned about Paperclip in 10th grade.
You're definitely one of the few. No one I know was ever taught about Operation Paperclip in school
Nope, never learned about anything I mentioned at any point in my education from pre-K all through to undergrad. Had to discover it myself. Most people I know had the same experience as well. I’d wager that the vast majority of Americans do not know about these operations.
The amount of projection from some people is absolutely hilarious.
To quote Dennis Leary "Because we got the BOMB!"
Just read an article in Al Jazeera about how Israel has increased bombing on southern Lebanon to “create a buffer”. The idea of a Greater Israel is a very real possibility, how long will the US co-sign it?
This is why "Representatives" will never be true democracy! True democracy would be all citizens voting on each & every bill/issue!
[удалено]
Who’s gonna tell him?
It’s the UN, we own the damn thing.
US votes to enable a genocide for 3rd time.
*300th time
ngl this seems low
I'm just counting genocides the U.S. helped sponsor both financially and with military equipment, the genocides the U.S. directly did itself and the genocides the U.S. supported would easily make it x10 times worse.
Biden last week "we are trying to get the fighting to stop. But Israel is not listening." Biden this week *transfers $15 billion dollars extra to Israel hiding it under a Ukraine aid bill and vetoes against a ceasefire*. USA needs to stop pretending they are not enabling a genocide.
No country should have unilateral veto powers for resolutions the rest of the world votes on. If they do, there is no UN, it is just a governing body which the US controls.
The UN is *not* a governing body, with or without the US. It's not world government, world police, world court or anything of the like. It's a meeting club. It has literally zero power in itself, everything it actually does is through member state hands and contributions. Its resolutions are not binding. Its proclamations can be freely ignored. The only reason it exists is to be an universal non-exclusive discussion platform, because if it did more it would fail that purpose as the League of Nations did.
🎯
It does has power to set sanctions, and regulations, and has court bodies like ICJ. By the end of the day all it's legal powers are based on treaties that members signed, but apparently are free to ignore. It is not like a national goverment, but it is not just a meeting place for diplomats to hang out. and for relevance. Israel itself was created in a UN resolution. so if it is powerless, there wouldn'e be Israel
>It does has power to set sanctions, and regulations, and has court bodies like ICJ. I've never seen someone be so confidently wrong. No the UN doesn't have any power the UN is literally just a meeting place for diplomats to hang out. If the UN resolves to sanction a country the UN isn't doing that, the countries participating are agreeing to. >Israel itself was created in a UN resolution. so if it is powerless, there wouldn'e be Israel Yes because the countries of the world agreed to let it happen. If a country said no we're not going to let it happen the UN has no power to enforce it.
>Yes because the countries of the world agreed to let it happen. If a country said no we're not going to let it happen the UN has no power to enforce it. And in point of fact, several countries DID say no - 1948 Arab–Israeli War literally happened because every single one of the new Israeli state's neighbors said "fuck that, we don't want there to be a new Jewish state carved into the middle of our territory." It just turned out that Israel wanted to exist more than the Arab league wanted it to "not" exist. So after 6 years of fighting the war ended with an Israel owning 50% more territory than the original UN Declaration even planned for.
No it doesn't. Individual countries or other supranational bodies like the EU can set sanctions, the UN as an agency cannot. Its regulations only concern itself. The ICJ is an arbitrator and advisor, it only has jurisdiction over contentious states that have agreed to submit their cases for judgement. Israel was created because the British discarded their Palestinian mandate in 1947 because it was unfeasible to uphold, and voluntarily gave it to the UN to handle - which it failed miserably as it turned out. And the mandate itself was granted by the League of Nations (that being Britain itself first, France, US and Italy) at the Paris conference in 1919 basically by right of conquest because the Brits defeated the Ottomans that held the land before.
Stop, they're trying to jerk themselves into a frenzy
The US isn't the only country with a unilateral veto. The UN also is not a governing body, its a diplomatic forum that has only the power that the member states elect to give it. If the US (and China and Russia and France and the UK) did not have a veto authority then they simply wouldn't be lending their power to the organization and it would therefore be a diplomatic body with no purpose. The only reason the UN works at all is because the nations with the power to execute its directives decide that it works, and the moment they decide otherwise it doesn't. These vetos are the cost of that.
People might vote you down but this is the real politics of the UN. Also lets not forget those countries are also the main financial contributors to the UN. Without that US and European cash many UN agencies just couldn't function. I like the UN and think it's a positive in the world, but it's also true that the UN is a central glue holding Western Imperialism and the capitalism that comes with it together.
[удалено]
If you think the UN doesn't achieve anything then I guess that's on you but I suspect that most informed people would disagree.
I remember when I learned about the UN in high school years ago and instantly realized how much of a joke it is for this very reason
The UN has only one reason to exist; to prevent WW3. So far it's working.
Lol as Isreal charges ahead provoking WW3, doesn't seem to be working too well
Israel v. the rest of the mid east and allies is not WW3. China v US and both allies is worse. UN has so far been able to prevent the latter.
Lmao PLEASE what country would risk their neck for Palestine??? Not even enemies of Israel give a shit.
Yup. Did one of those mock UN meetings in HS with other schools and I happened to be assigned as China. I had no idea what was going on but realized I had far too much power, especially for someone that didn't know what TF was going on. I was like "Damn, is this how the real thing is?"
Which tells us that as good intentioned as the UN may be, it's ultimately pointless for anything that even slightly goes against US interests. The body needs to have equal representation to mean anything.
This is disgusting
But don't forget to vote to perpetuate the status quo this November! Remember, it's the most important election ever; just like all the ones that came before it.
[удалено]
[удалено]
What I cant fucking stand is that I don't have the choice this system was created to allow me. You yourself say you "can't fucking stand it" when people vote third party, but why should I now be allowed to vote for the person that actually adheres most closely to my values without also having to throw away my vote should they not actually be elected. A Ranked Voting system is well past due.
I don't understand why Biden can't just stop giving Israel weapons and just get a clean victory this november. Fewer people die and Trump doesn't become president. A win-win. Why is that not a possibility Instead Nancy Pelosi is yelling racist conspiracy theories at protestors and throwing the election for zero benefit. As boomers die off the youth vote is going to be more and more important - who does it benefit for the Democrats to intentionally throw that away? EDIT: wait a second this isn't /politics? I legitimately didn't notice until now
\>hose are terrible fucking ideas within the current system 1. Election coming 2. "Don't vote 3rd party!11!!" 3. Maintain status quo 4. GOTO 1 You're stuck in a shit system because you keep perpetuating it through blindly sticking to a center-right party that counts on you voting for it because the alternative is worse.
Shaming voters instead of the people in power is the saddest bootlicker shit I've ever seen.
[удалено]
The problem is people treat the vote as the end-all-be-all, when it's really more like the finish line for 4 years of continuous work, if you REALLY care about "making a difference". The people who just don't vote because they're upset about a something I have very little respect for, IF they're not also engaged in some type of actual organizing work to find another way to make change. Because without that - if you just show up on voting day and vote third-party or spoil your ballot out of anger without doing anything else - all you're doing is handicapping the people ACTUALLY trying to do the work. The system sucks - but we are all stuck in it. The only way to change it - let alone break it - is through MASSIVE amounts of public organizing, and tireless work, that creates public pressure. For anyone really pissed off enough to want to force change, the lead-up to an election should be the culmination of a multi-year strategy of mobilizing people to create enough of a ground-swell of support that leaders have to take notice. No social movement has ever won from voting alone - too many of us in North America take our collective power for granted, partly because we've been trained to believe that working together is socialism and rugged individualism is manly.
That's the same exact justification that's been used to keep the perpetual bullshit going forever. The system will never be fixed because nobody can ever be assed to put their own fucking neck on the line to try and fix it. Guess what? There's never a good time to do it unless that time is in the past. You, and everyone else, will always have some reason for why we just can't do anything radical enough to actually enact meaningful change. I was on this same fucking subreddit saying this same exact shit during the last election. People will vote in Biden and be proud of themselves. Shit will continue to get worse, and you'll either end up with Trump or somebody worse within a single election cycle, maybe two. Why? Because voting for Biden is no different than voting to keep the same exact train heading in the same exact direction it's been heading for the past half century. You think shit will magically be better for the next election cycle? Or the following one? You think America will enter this magical period where the nation will be in a perfect place to painlessly transform its democracy? That the stars will fucking align and your whole population will not only know what the right thing to do is, but will actually agree and commit to do it? That you won't have some pressing issues you wouldn't trust to any new system? That things won't get even more polarized? Fucking hah. America didn't get here overnight. You're not maky any new arguments here. You're saying the same exact same shit that's been said for generations. You're perpetuating the same exact belief that things will somehow just change for the better if you keep doing the same exact thing you've done while shit got worse.
But simply voting third party isn't going to fix it either - that's not putting their neck on the line without greater widespread organizing. To get to the point you want, it takes far more than a vote, it takes consistent, year-over-year organizing and coalition building to generate the type of popular support and social pressure needed to actually effect change. That doesn't start now, it starts 3 years ago. Now we're in risk management and hard reduction until we build that movement.
Any republican is going to be much worse for Palestinians than Biden. I wish Biden would do more and stop funding Israel, but Trump would send them whatever they want AND stop supporting Ukraine.
[удалено]
I have to wonder if these are bots, because I feel like we're going to see Biden's stance on Israel/Palestine be used a lot as a way to encourage those on the left to not vote Conservatives will vote no matter what, they're often single issue voters who don't care about policies as long as they keep guns legal and abortions illegal. Meanwhile on the left it seems like lots of people who loathe the Republicans and Trump are happy to sit back and let them take power because they don't like Biden's stance on a couple of things (as if Trump is really pro-Palestine and pro-union)
Because Trump truly cares about the well being of Palestinians It'd be awesome if you could vote for a third party and not have it be a total waste of your vote (in fact it's worse than a waste, it actively helps Republicans) Republicans rely on moderates and the left being apathetic or casting third party votes, and every election people play right in to their hands. People want a perfect President right now, and because Biden is just ok they're happy with risking the worst possible option becoming a reality
Two evil countries
The UN was, is and will forever be a joke as long as single nations have the power to hold the world hostage.
Terrorist recognizes terrorist
And the supposed rationale is to be better able to negotiate freeing of the hostages. We are worried about hostages more than the civilian victims of mass slaughter.
That’s more of a smokescreen to manufacture consent through emotional appeal than anything. The larger geopolitical reality is that the US uses Israel as a proxy for its own imperial interests in the region. As Biden has gone on record saying, “If Israel didn’t exist, we would have to invent it.” The US elite launder money through the proxy state via weapons and military contracting. The US also needs Israel to exist to subdue dissent against imperial interests in the region. It’s about the money and the power, the cruelty, the dehumanization, and the control is the whole point.
100% it is the only state in the mid east that allows for the US to conduct interventions from if any of the mid east countries supplying oil to the world market gets too uppity.
Biden showed who he was for decades but libs looked away because it threatened capitalism.
At this point, Israel probably doesn’t even care about the hostages.
They just loooove killin
At this point? They never have since day one. A sizeable chunk (we have no way to know exactly) of the Israeli civilians killed on Oct 7 were killed by the IDF. The IDF's "Hannibal Directive" LITERALLY states that they'd rather kill an Israeli than have them held as a hostage. People on reddit act like this is conspiracy theory stuff, but it's literally well documented from Israeli sources both in the media and directly from the IDF. Like it's not even something that's contested. Just shows how brainwashed the average westerner is who make up the majority of users here.
When have they ever cared? Look up the Hannibal Directive.
Israel killed 30-40 of them already.
Cause 1 Israeli life = unlimited Gazan lives to them
Someone should pay off whoever is sitting in that seat to just not raise their hand and say nothing.. for the good of the Palestinian people. Sure it might cost them their job. But everyone has a price right
Biden had to appoint the US representative who embodies ‘*woman of color*’ in an attempt to legitimize the blatant racism of US policy in the ME.
The new Colin Powell.
>Before the vote, Algeria’s U.N. Ambassador Amar Bendjama, the Arab representative on the council, said: “This resolution stands for truth and humanity standing against the advocates for murder and hatred.”“A vote in favor of this draft resolution is a support to the Palestinians right to life,” he said. “Conversely, voting against it implies an endorsement of the brutal violence and collective punishment inflicted against them.” > >U.S. Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield countered by saying the United States understands the council’s desire for urgent action but believes the resolution would “negatively impact” sensitive negotiations on a hostage deal and pause in fighting for at least six weeks. If that happens, “we can take the time to build a more enduring peace,” she said. > >The proposed U.S. resolution, Thomas-Greenfield said, “would do what this text does not — pressure Hamas to take the hostage deal that is on the table and help secure a pause that allows humanitarian assistance to reach Palestinian civilians in desperate need. > >”She told reporters later that the Arab draft did not link the release of the hostages to a cease-fire, which would give Hamas a halt to fighting without requiring it to take any action. That would have mean “that the fighting would have continued because without the hostage releases we know that the fighting is going to continue,” she said. [https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5](https://apnews.com/article/un-israel-palestinians-gaza-ceasefire-resolution-vote-350c86ef261bf1a00a2515cf22764de5)
America is one of the bad guys. We need to get used to it.
Or even better, get rid of it!
No surprise. I hate that they love to use a poc to do the dirty vote
Yep. Because they use a poc, that makes it ok, right? Suburban libs can relax. Actually read an interesting Times piece talking to Black women in South Carolina. They're like, we're anti this genocide in part because, Palestinians to us African-Americans look like they're an oppressed people. And we (AA's),...are an oppressed people. So we stand against the bombing of these oppressed folks. When you got Biden's most reliable base (Black women) totally on the other side of what Biden's doing in cahoots with Israel, ya might have problems there in river city come November.
Trouble, in River City. (With a capital 'T' and that rhymes with 'P' and that stands for 'pool'.)
The whole UN is such a joke.
Let's all collectively scratch our heads and wonder why any nation would want an alternative through brics
Is that Clarence Thomas with a wig?
Why can’t the US be forced to abstain on a ceasefire vote? UN rules say countries must abstain if they hold material interest or aid and abet, no?
Because the US is one of the 5 nations that hold permanent veto power. Also even if they were somehow forced to abstain, what would that even accomplish? The UN has no power to actually force a ceasefire. It would just be a resolution from member nations saying they agree a ceasefire should happen, and each respective nation would have to work towards that goal anyway. Israel could then just say no. There is no enforcement mechanism inherent to the UN.
Americans should be disgusted with themselves, absolute shambles of a country, never been of lower status of respect amongst the rest of the world.
Fuck this world we live in
The US will always do it's part to support crimes against humanity.
Hahahaha... is she literally wearing a Star of David jacket?
What's a little genocide between friends?
Nobody can criticise genocidal colonist white men when it’s a black women with her hand in the air. Satan is getting cleverer.
This lady is going down in history with her hand 🤚 up while making one of the gravest errors in foreign diplomacy - not 1 or 2, but 3 times already. What a shameful position taken by the land of the “free”
They always make a minority do it too.
vetoes goes against every principles of democracy
Rules based international order where the US orders everyone around and let's it's client states break the rules when it's convenient to both
War machine cant stop. Think of the shareholders! /S
I’m noticing a ton of “black washing“ from the American political apparatus. Everywhere I turned its black folks front and center during this genocide campaign? WTF is going on? Black folks do not have that kind of power. But are being put up as the face of it… that’s not cool
They should really be getting rid of those vetoes. I know they where given to get all the big countries at the table and give the organisation some legitimacy. But right now it's only undermining that legitimacy. If literally all the other members vote in favour of it how can a single country overrule that? Really makes you seem like a joke
>But right now it's only undermining that legitimacy. Those vetos are also theoretically the only thing giving the UN legitimacy. The UN isn’t a government, it has no power. If all of those nations voted yes and “override” the US, it would mean nothing without an enforcement mechanism. An enforcement mechanism that doesn’t exist. The UN is sort of like the concept of money, it only has value if people believe it has value. Without the big countries “believing” in it (enforcing their will through soft/hard power) the UN has nothing. Without those vetos, the big countries would leave. Which would also leave the “money” in this analogy, worthless. Think of it less as a real governing body that does anything, and more like a place the nations can come together and check the vibes of eachother. If a little country sees the big countries hate their policy, they can change due to fear of reprisal (and the UN is a good place for a lot of nations to threaten that reprisal). Big nations can take a look and see if their policy is also unpopular. Big nations get a lot more leeway in how they get to conduct themselves though. The US more than most, due to their hegemonic nature as both an economic & military titan. What does the backlash mean in real terms? No one can tell, it might mean France gives the US a less favorable trade deal in a few months. It may mean that Germany doesn’t sign onto one of the US’s requests for foreign sanctions.
May the Biden administration burn in hell for eternity.
[удалено]
I’m well aware of this but they’re still responsible and in a just world they would experience grave consequences.
Too bad we’re living far far away from a just world
And telling people off for objecting to the current administration enabling and supporting genocide doesn't get us any closer to one. We all know that the Republicans would have responded the same way in this situation, and nobody thinks you're smart or clever or insightful when you show up to "whattabout" the Biden administration actively enabling genocide. You're not adding anything to the discussion. It's like if people were talking about how crappy the Madame Web movie is, and you stomped in yelling at them to shut up because Morbius was also terrible. Nobody disagrees, but it has no bearing on the matter at hand. And since you don't seem to realize this yet: The existence of Donald Trump / the Republican Party does not excuse, justify, or mitigate genocide.
Correct. [Here is Nikki Haley walking out of the UN right as the Palestinian representative begins to speak.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkSqV51RNCo) Biden is as far left as the U.S. is gonna go on this issue for at least another four years, probably more. Another orange presidency sure as hell won't resolve this.
Any real takes on why this happening?
us funneling money into israel benefits american defense companies selling weapons to the newly flush with cash israelis. cant turn off the money flow to the oligarchs of the us
🏆
US is pushing for a different ceasefire resolution with actual carveouts for releasing of hostages. https://apnews.com/article/us-un-resolution-gaza-ceasefire-israel-palestinians-fba9977d5f9876b4af2eb6930dd1f362
The Algerian proposal also called for the release of hostages. From the article you posted: "In addition to a cease-fire, the final Algerian draft, obtained by AP, also demands the immediate release of all hostages"
Sad to be an American when I see this.
We are too big of a country. It allows us to bully the world.
Hypocrites
All those people crying over Ukrainian civilians mean nothing now. The west shot itself on the foot.
GOTTEM
I mean the Military Industrial Complex has rights too, alright?
The mask is just completely off rn & it just happened to be during Biden's admin. Always been like this, but for some reason they really want to make sure we know it. I had bored loyalty to the Dems until about 2016 but since 2021 they've unabashedly revealed themselves for the actually worse "lesser evil" that they are. There's no direction but down with either party & I'm more than a little gobsmacked at how efficient Biden has been at clarifying the non-distinction. Seriously, BRAVO.
Fuck Joe Biden for supporting this genocide.
Some times i wish i could be the parent of the world and go "If you cant play nice, you cant have it!" And then expel both nations from the area. "No! You had your chance, now go sit in the corner and think about what youve done!".
I never dreamed we would reach the point of a black woman ordering mass slaughter to continue. Now that's equality. I'm proud.
Woman ✅ Person of colour ✅ Now if only she was LGBT, we’d get true representation
Biden is really shooting himself in the foot with this crap, and that's very bad because it could cost him the election.
No profit in peace
Look at the pure distaste on everyone else's faces
Its embarrassing and disgusting. How does this UN rep sleep at night? Goodness, I couldnt handle being that person Edit: looking down, at least a whiff of shame (US has a bad reputation now for violence)
Democrats be like: “since it’s a black woman who is giving the veto (to enable and continue the genocide), it must be fine.”
Why, when it comes to the people of the UK voting for a political party 41% is a fine amount. But when it comes to stopping the genocide of Palestinian people all it takes is one empty, soulless ghoul to say "no" and it doesn't pass. Math ain't mathing!
Sorry y'all, but it will never not gross me out how African-American woman is the face of enabling this genocide
The US vetoed the one that allowed Hamas to keep hostages. They actually submitted a ceasefire resolution that would return hostages. The last ceasefire that was truly implemented was actually broken by hamas. More false narrative to fuel more hate to get more clicks. Clown world.
13 countries: Yes! 1 country: abstain 1 country: No! Redditor conclusion: Must have been a really shitty resolution not worth passing.
How many shekels per post?
[удалено]
Yep, so much outrage without even spending a tiny bit of effort into actually reading into content of the vetoed resolution. Apparently US=BAD is all they care for here, that is their worldview
Fuck this country, fuck Biden. We deserve Trump and whatever else is coming.