Just chatting
- Edited
Jen Belt ain't the problem I decided. But trying to be too like actually good like church good - yeah it's not me
The underlying problem seems to be:
You have not clearly defined for yourself what is actually your goal. There are expectations of your parents which may or may not overlap with what you want for yourself. Don't get me wrong, when you are young it is absolutely normal not to know what you want and needing time (and maybe even trial and error) to figure that out.
Take your time, don't hurry things. Eventually you will know what you really need in order to be happy. That might be a life completely without belt, a life 24/7/365 in strict belting or anything in between. In the end it does not matter what it is, only that you have figured out for you, what your goal is and then go for that goal unafraid.
When you are 80, you are more likely to regret the things you never did / experienced because you did not have the courage to take that path than to regret something you actually did and tried and that turned out as something you found not live up to your expectations.
Joh I think the best thing will be for the UN to dissolve and the states to form something new.
What if the nations all got together and started some kind of league, through which they could promote world peace?
Laura
Thank you SO much for posting this! I keep seeing references to it here, but I couldn't find the discussion on misterpoll.
- Edited
MissBlossom but I couldn't find the discussion on misterpoll
I still can see it. You just need to login there
https://original.misterpoll.com/forums/296929/topics/290755/
But I have the archive here, that will never disappear
https://unwedchastity.org/files/misterpoll.zip
MissBlossom
Hate to burst your bubble, but all that has from the beginning always been about power and influence, never about world peace. The League of Nations formed after WW1 excluded Germany and the dominating powers therefore were UK, France and USA. After WW2 when the UN were established, it was not by accident that those countries with permanent representation and veto power happened to be those that actually won the war.
(For those who are not aware:
China as permanent member was originally actually the country we know as Taiwan (Republik China) and only 1971 it was replaced by the China we know today under that name.) And China / Taiwan became a permanent member to actually give an Asian country the edge over Japan in the eastern Asian area.
MissBlossom What if the nations all got together and started some kind of league, through which they could promote world peace?
It would be a beginning. The biggest barrier to getting anything sensible done is unanimity. Since, for example, in the Security Council each of the permanent members has a veto, no action will ever be taken if one of the powers represented is involved in the conflict.
I think binding decisions and sanctions should be decided by a two-thirds majority.
Joh I mean, that is less of a design feature and more of a recognition of the realities. If Russia says nyet to a UN measure, with or without a legal veto, what do you think is going to happen? Precisely what is happening now. America's friends will be mad at Russia, Russia's friends will not give a damn and China will do whatever suits their plans best. Changing the UN laws has absolutely no effect because the UN has no power to enforce them without the cooperation of its members.
youdontknowme I agree with you but it would have an different impression as now. I suppose it will not make a big difference but they could not any longer pretend they are the victim and it is only self-defence.
These organisqtion are (and were) for nothing. premiss good and rules keeping people. And they cant deal with bad boys...
curious Hate to burst your bubble, but all that has from the beginning always been about power and influence, never about world peace.
No bubble to burst. I was making a cynical little joke, like "here we go again." :-\
You would think the "league of nations" reference would have made that obvious.
maybe (and now just an idea), the UN could be replaced by a democratically elected peace committee
Angelina
The issue is, that we are stuck in a situation with no way out.
The United Nations Assembly is not the problem. Unfortunately this is effectively just a place to talk. All UN member states are represented etc, but it is completely without power.
Power is in the UN Security Council, only here binding resolutions about sanctions etc can be made.
And only the security council has the power to abolish itself to allow a replacement by something else.
Now, if you are one of the permanent members with veto power, why would you ever give up that power to allow the security council to be replaced by something where you will most definitely have less power and influence?
curious And even if we could come up with a replacement outside of the existing UN treaties, what good would it do? The UNSC has no power other than the one granted by its members. As much as it declares its resolutions binding, the only thing that enforces them is the fact that five of the economically and militarily strongest nations either agree with them or at least accept them.
Please discuss politics in political topics only