NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone else think that people who spout this neo-con line are just not thinking? Do they really want a return to what the world was like before the UN, maybe even before the League of Nations? Do they really want that sort of lawlessness?

People who advocate a US withdrawal from the UN are almost as bad, because it would ultimately have the same result.

-Puts on ear muffs-

Ahh now I am ready for all the "throwing out the baby with the bath water" logic for dismantiling the UN posts that will arrive. ;)

Wasn't it's inabiblity to prevent WWII (thus making itself irrelevent) the major cause for the League of Nations to go extinct?

Without getting off into an Iraq/War rant, how can constant disregard and violation of several UN resolutions on countries like Iraq and even Israel possibly solve the problem of "lawlessness" when violation of such laws aren't even punished, but simply ignored?

Does anyone else think that people who spout this neo-con line are just not thinking? Do they really want a return to what the world was like before the UN, maybe even before the League of Nations? Do they really want that sort of lawlessness?

People who advocate a US withdrawal from the UN are almost as bad, because it would ultimately have the same result.
The League was ineffectual, as is the UN. Lawlessness for all is better than lawlessness for some.

I would have to say that the UN is really useless in preventing war. The main reason, it hasn't stopped any real war to my knowlegde. The UN is good for aid to countries in need but these stupid tariffs imposed on countries does little except hurt the citizens of the nation and not the government. And hell any one of the Secruity Council nations can Veto a resoultution if it is in there intrests. And well since China, France, Britian, US and Russia are all on the council, most world issues they are involved in, and thus have there own agendas. The UN to create world peace isn't doing a good job in my opinion.

The League failed because Congress voted for the US not to join it (despite the fact that it was conceived of by the President). It was ineffectual because we were never a part of it.

Another way of saying this is that ineffectiveness is designed in to the very structure and charter of the UN. As far as I can see, the only way for any league or organization of all nations to work would be for an alliance of all the democracies of the world to simply impose it on all the others. That has about the proverbial snowball's chances in the allegorical hell of ever happening.

The UN has done alright, we haven't had WWIII yet, N. Korea are sacred that if they attack a country they want, the UN will step in.

The UN dosen't have it's own army, if it has to go to war, a resolution has to be passed or some other thing has to be approved. (1991 gulf conflict)

The League failed because Congress voted for the US not to join it (despite the fact that it was conceived of by the President). It was ineffectual because we were never a part of it.
But we're part of the UN, and it still sucks. The reason both fail is that you give Syria as many votes as India, and that you allow anyone in.

Wait, since when did the Neo Cons understand that the UN could be dismanteled?

Seriously, they all act like there was a COUNTRY called the UN or something. Like it was really it's own independant power.

Wasn't it's inabiblity to prevent WWII (thus making itself irrelevent) the major cause for the League of Nations to go extinct?

Without getting off into an Iraq/War rant, how can constant disregard and violation of several UN resolutions on countries like Iraq and even Israel possibly solve the problem of "lawlessness" when violation of such laws aren't even punished, but simply ignored?

Yes, but the League of Nations also had a smaller scope than the present day UN.

The present day UN (not to be confused with the NationStates UN) really is powerless when it comes to threats to the peace and international security issues. Why? No government is going to really cede power to other governments, any more than any responsible property owner is going to hand out treasure maps to where the family jewels are hidden to any potential thieves.

However, the present day UN is involved in many non-peace keeping roles / organizations, many of which are largely successful.

If anything the UN has two good purposes. It can work as a clearing house for non-sensitivity issues. It also works as a place for the have-nots to come and scream at the haves and then turn to their populations and say, "See, we yelled at the bullies!"

The League failed because Congress voted for the US not to join it (despite the fact that it was conceived of by the President). It was ineffectual because we were never a part of it.

Wrong!! We voted against the Treaty and Wilson's 14 points and that is why we did not join the League of Nations. Besides, even if we were involved in the League of Nations, we were not as powerful as we are today. We were not a major power militarily back then.

As for it failing because of our not being involved, it wouldn't have matter. We were not a major military power back then. However, Britain and France were and let Hitler do what he wanted like REARM and doing APPEASEMENT rather than confronting him?

The UN has done alright, we haven't had WWIII yet, N. Korea are sacred that if they attack a country they want, the UN will step in.

The UN dosen't have it's own army, if it has to go to war, a resolution has to be passed or some other thing has to be approved. (1991 gulf conflict)
They're scared to attack anyone because out of the people they could attack, one is the most populous country on earth (China) and the other (South Korea) has the backing of the most powerful country on earth (the USA).

Does anyone else think that people who spout this neo-con line are just not thinking? Do they really want a return to what the world was like before the UN, maybe even before the League of Nations? Do they really want that sort of lawlessness?

People who advocate a US withdrawal from the UN are almost as bad, because it would ultimately have the same result.

I have come to the conclusion that the UN is highly effective in some areas and not in others. I believe the UN should be left as is with one exception.. I believe the security council should be done away with. Nothing constructive comes from the S.C. whether it's the lack of enforcement of resolution against a specific country or the unfair bias the Americans have towards Israel, no matter how you slice it the security council appears to be the problem, because other then that, the UN does indeed do some amazing work.

I have come to the conclusion that the UN is highly effective in some areas and not in others. I believe the UN should be left as is with one exception.. I believe the security council should be done away with. Nothing constructive comes from the S.C. whether it's the lack of enforcement of resolution against a specific country or the unfair bias the Americans have towards Israel, no matter how you slice it the security council appears to be the problem, because other then that, the UN does indeed do some amazing work.

Do bear in mind that the Security Council serves a purpose as well. It is a "check" on the General Assembly.

The failing in the League of Nations came about for two reasons, in my opinion ...

First the United States Congress would never allow the United States to join the League of Nations if it felt that it were handing over US sovereignty to the organization. Ironic considering that Woodrow Wilson was one of the principle minds behind the League.

Second, when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1932 and established a puppet government of Manchoukuo, the United States and the soon to be Allied powers protested the invasion of China. In 1933, the League of Nations ordered Japan out of Manchuria.

Japan decided to leave the League of Nations, in what is perhaps one of my most favour political speaches:


In objecting to proposed international control of Manchuria, he asked, "Would the American people agree to such control of the Panama Canal Zone; would the British permit it over Egypt?"

The point here should be obvious. People are too quick to assume that strong arming nation's works. Conservatives make this mistake. Liberals make this make. But Ambassador Matsuoka's comments are as valid today as they were in 1933 ...

In fact, I would say the lessons of Manchuria / Manchoukuo, are as valid today for both the real UN and the NS UN as they were in 1933. What is frustrating is to see people ignoring the need to find a balance between unilateral agreements and national sovereignty.

The current UN Security Council does that. It isn't meant to stop genocide in the Sudan (which is sad). :( It isn't even meant to really prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But it is a way to ensure that nations with significant resources devoted to international topics remain seated.


Here are some sites about the failures of the League of Nations:

http://www.johndclare.net/league_of_nations6.htm

http://west-teq.net/~dmf/vers.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/manchuria.htm

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859217.html


In any event, the Allied powers felt the a veto power / Security Council was a necessary tool to avoid repeating the failures of the League of Nations.

Since the UN's creation in 1945, it too has certainly been tested as well, however, I'm confident that if not for the US and Soviet ability to veto SC resolutions and contradict the General Assembly, that both nations (and most UN funding for the programs that do work) would have pulled out long ago.


In conclusion, the UN is a good organization. It isn't supposed to be a world government. But it still has made great strides in promoting human rights, especially in the areas of basic health issues.

Obviously I care a great deal about the UN (I've been studying it since I was MUNing back in 1988), and will agree it has faults. And though the Security Council is very misleading ... I think that it too is a valid part of the present day UN.

Wasn't it's inabiblity to prevent WWII (thus making itself irrelevent) the major cause for the League of Nations to go extinct?

Without getting off into an Iraq/War rant, how can constant disregard and violation of several UN resolutions on countries like Iraq and even Israel possibly solve the problem of "lawlessness" when violation of such laws aren't even punished, but simply ignored?
The League of Nations of nations was useless because the US was not involved in it.
I would have to say that the UN is really useless in preventing war. The main reason, it hasn't stopped any real war to my knowlegde. The UN is good for aid to countries in need but these stupid tariffs imposed on countries does little except hurt the citizens of the nation and not the government. And hell any one of the Secruity Council nations can Veto a resoultution if it is in there intrests. And well since China, France, Britian, US and Russia are all on the council, most world issues they are involved in, and thus have there own agendas. The UN to create world peace isn't doing a good job in my opinion.
I agree with you, the UN definitely needs serious reforms. But remember it only has as much power as its members give it. People tend to think of it as a "world government" body for some reason, when it is really more akin to a world forum.

BTW, how do you know it hasn't stopped any wars? Just because wars have happened since 1945, doesn't mean that more wars would not have happened if the UN wasn't there.

Lawlessness for all is better than lawlessness for some.
Do you really believe that? Would society be better if everyone, rather than a few, were breaking the laws all the time?

Do you really think that the pre-WW1 world of lawlessness would be better than what we have now. Back then superpowers routinely invaded poor countries to suck out all their resources, and most alliances were weak at best. I think what we have now, even with an apparently ineffective UN is better than that.

Do bear in mind that the Security Council serves a purpose as well. It is a "check" on the General Assembly.

You do have a point here

The failing in the League of Nations came about for two reasons, in my opinion ...

First the United States Congress would never allow the United States to join the League of Nations if it felt that it were handing over US sovereignty to the organization. Ironic considering that Woodrow Wilson was one of the principle minds behind the League.

And it wouldn't matter if we did join the league of nations. We wouldn't be able to do anything anyway because we were not a major power. Only after WWII were we considered a superpower. So stop saying that it was doomed because we were not involved in it.

Second, when Japan invaded Manchuria in 1932 and established a puppet government of Manchoukuo, the United States and the soon to be Allied powers protested the invasion of China. In 1933, the League of Nations ordered Japan out of Manchuria.

Ok this is factual but Japan did not listen because it is not in their nature too.

Japan decided to leave the League of Nations, in what is perhaps one of my most favour political speaches:

Yes they did and Germany Left the League of Nations as well and the World did nothing.

The point here should be obvious. People are too quick to assume that strong arming nation's works. Conservatives make this mistake. Liberals make this make. But Ambassador Matsuoka's comments are as valid today as they were in 1933 ...

We already had control of the Panama Canal Zone. That was recognized by treaty between Panama and the United States. Since it was recognized as a legal treaty by both parties, it was legal. Unsure where he was going with that.

In fact, I would say the lessons of Manchuria / Manchoukuo, are as valid today for both the real UN and the NS UN as they were in 1933. What is frustrating is to see people ignoring the need to find a balance between unilateral agreements and national sovereignty.

This is undoubtably true.

The current UN Security Council does that. It isn't meant to stop genocide in the Sudan (which is sad). :( It isn't even meant to really prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

But the Non-proliferation treaty when signed is a legal document that has to be upheld. North Korea Violated this and then later withdrew from it.

But it is a way to ensure that nations with significant resources devoted to international topics remain seated.

I can agree with this comment.

Here are some sites about the failures of the League of Nations:

http://www.johndclare.net/league_of_nations6.htm

http://west-teq.net/~dmf/vers.htm

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/manchuria.htm

http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/history/A0859217.html

Good ones.

In any event, the Allied powers felt the a veto power / Security Council was a necessary tool to avoid repeating the failures of the League of Nations.

Yes they did. However, why was China included? That is what I want to know. Oh wait. It was TAIWAN that was the perminent member before Mainland China.

Since the UN's creation in 1945, it too has certainly been tested as well, however, I'm confident that if not for the US and Soviet ability to veto SC resolutions and contradict the General Assembly, that both nations (and most UN funding for the programs that do work) would have pulled out long ago.

Probably more accurate than anyone can dare dream of.

In conclusion, the UN is a good organization. It isn't supposed to be a world government. But it still has made great strides in promoting human rights, especially in the areas of basic health issues.

For humanitarian reasons it is good but that is about it.

Obviously I care a great deal about the UN (I've been studying it since I was MUNing back in 1988), and will agree it has faults. And though the Security Council is very misleading ... I think that it too is a valid part of the present day UN.

It does have faults but what can we do about them?

I'm not so sure the UN needs to go.

Reformed, without a doubt! If the allegations are true, a vote can be bought on the security council. Which is sad...

The League of Nations of nations was useless because the US was not involved in it.

And yet the US wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about world affairs because WE didn't have the capacity to do anything. We were not a military power at the end of WWI! It was only during and after WWII that we were a military power.

We already had control of the Panama Canal Zone. That was recognized by treaty between Panama and the United States. Since it was recognized as a legal treaty by both parties, it was legal. Unsure where he was going with that.


Yes they did. However, why was China included? That is what I want to know. Oh wait. It was TAIWAN that was the perminent member before Mainland China.


First the US was most certainly a super power after the First World World. If it wasn't, Wilson would not have been able to talk France and the United Kingdom into adopting his League of Nations idea. It just happened that the US (and Wilson) did not have strong enough political / military influence to also convince those two nations of the dangers of the Treaty of Versailles.

http://www.jimmyatkinson.com/papers/versaillestreaty.html

Finally, on 11 November 1918, after four years of war, an armistice based on United States’ President Woodrow Wilson’s “Fourteen Points” was agreed to by Germany. The Treaty of Versailles, however, sharply differed from Wilson’s points, and Germany, who felt betrayed, denounced the treaty as “morally invalid.”

To be certain, the United States most certainly was recognized a world power, just not as the major world power.

That said, one can look at NationStates. If a player begins to wield too much political / military (roleplayed of course) influence, he or she certainly will earn some enemies. And naturally he or she will also need to enlist in the aid of strong allies.

Or at least that is my take on the "game to real-life" experience.

And yes, China's UN seat was originally associated with Nationalist China, and the seat was partially disputed for years.

The following is sort of a PRC view point:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/FR/21138.htm


Etian said that the restoration of China's lawful rights in the United Nations, marked by the passage of UN Resolution 2758 in 1971, corrected a serious error in history.

A much better historical account can be found at:

http://explanation-guide.info/meaning/China-and-the-United-Nations.html

The Republic of China (ROC) was one of the founding members of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council from its creation in 1945. In 1949 the Communist Party of China seized power on the mainland and declared the People's Republic of China (PRC), claiming to have replaced the ROC as the sole legitimate government of China. The ROC government withdrew to the island province of Taiwan (also retaining several islands of Fujian), where it has continued to exist ever since.

Until 1991, the ROC also actively claimed to be the sole legitimate government of China, and during the 1950s and 1960s this claim was accepted by the United States and some (though far from all) of its allies. While the PRC was an ally of the Soviet Union, the U.S. sought to prevent the Communist bloc from gaining another permanent seat in the Security Council. To protest the exclusion of the PRC, Soviet representatives boycotted the UN from January to August of 1950 and their absence allowed for the intervention of UN military forces in Korea.


The interesting thing here ... the absence of a veto nation actually is part of the reason we have the Korean war.

I think that from a certain point of view, this illustrates my earlier theory that the Security Council is supposed to function as a stopper / veto body. When the SC hasn't had a member stand up to another nation, the result has been increased tensions between nations.

The point of the UN isn't really to coordinate wars, but rather to prevent them. Gridlock ironically can save more lives than a UN without a Security Council could!


As for the Panama Canal, Panama achieved its independence from Columbia in 1903, with US support.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h932.html

In November 1903, with U.S. warships standing by, a bloodless revolution broke out in Panama City. Firefighters and railroad workers secured government facilities while the U.S. fleet prevented Colombian soldiers from arriving. Independence was declared on November 4 and American diplomatic recognition followed two days later. Bunau-Varilla was named by the new republic to handle the negotiation of a canal treaty in Washington.


The Japanese were very correct to assert that the UK's control of Egypt (which was a UK puppet through the Second World War) and the US's control of Panama, were in fact very similar to Manchuria.

The failure of the League of Nations was that it was biased, but had no "balancing" organization to stop that.

Ironically the Cold War and US / Soviet Security Council gridlock helped the UN survive long enough to branch out and support organizations like the WHO, WMO, UNESCO, IMO, etc.

While I do not support an end to the UN, I feel appalled that some aren't giving this arguement the merit it deserves. I could, for example, make the case that the UN is nothing greater than an organization to give nations rose-colored glasses, and stop seeing the anarchy. Besides, even I agree that there are international forces stronger and more unifying than the UN. And no, it is not a nation.

So, what would you people replace the UN with? An organization where the USA calls all the shots and everyone else shuts up, right?

What we need:

a world body (not necessarily the UN) that will actually help improve it.

I don't know if this was covered or not yet...but WWII didn't exactly destroy the League of Nations...
...and the fall of the League of Nations didn't exactly cause WWII.

Granted, they both had a lot to do with each other, but neither is responsible for the other. The League of Nations failed for three major reasons. 1) The United States never joined. 2) Nations were free to enter and leave as they wished with no sort of troubles at all. 3) The League of Nations had absolutely no power at all.

The League of Nations started to fall when Japan was having troubles with Russia. When Japan didn't get things their way, they decided that if the United States didn't have to be a part of the League, then why should they, and so they left, and started a war with Russia. The League was pretty much destroyed at this point.

The thing that is preventing the UN from working is conservative Americans expecting to the UN to be America's pet. The UN works for the best interest of the world, but when America doesn't see any profit in it, they stonewall the idea. It's part of the reason the same thing happens to America when America tries getting things done that need to be done.

Here's a Link regarding US Military between WWI and WWII:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-19.htm

I don't know if this was covered or not yet...

Granted, they both had a lot to do with each other, but neither is responsible for the other. The League of Nations failed for three major reasons. 1) The United States never joined. 2) Nations were free to enter and leave as they wished with no sort of troubles at all. 3) The League of Nations had absolutely no power at all.

The League of Nations started to fall when Japan was having troubles with Russia. When Japan didn't get things their way, they decided that if the United States didn't have to be a part of the League, then why should they, and so they left, and started a war with Russia. The League was pretty much destroyed at this point.


Nations were not free to enter and leave with no troubles at all. When Japan left the League of Nations in 1933, it was required to honor some of its agreements for two more years!

(I think this is included in one of the links I provided above.)

I'd argue that part of the failure of the League was that it had too high a cost on nations. There is a trade-off in how you treat non-members. If you actually threaten to put too many penalities on nations, then you risk increasing the "cost" of membership to a point that it just isn't worth joining (this was what the US Senate felt). If you have too low a "cost", then any uni-lateral agreement is going to be weakened.

In NationStates UN you see this argument debated all the time:

- Your resolution is too weak, it does nothing
vs.
- Your resolution violates sovereignty

Trust me, I've drafted many UN resolutions and actively participated in most of the NS UN debates. The players of this game do have a good command of the basic real life trade-off, and it is reflected in every debate. So much so, that this theme eclipses the actual topics as much as 1/4 of the time! (Ballpark guess.)


In 1933, the League debated putting economic sancations on Japan for its invasion of China (not Russia ... Japan did use older Russian incursions into Manchuria as a justification for protecting its then occupied Korea and Manchuria, but the real threat at the time was in establishing coal mines in Manchuria for its coming war with the United Kingdom in French Indochina (where the control of rubber was thought to be vital to growing tensions between Germany and the UK and France).

The problem with League economic sancations was actually the same problem we see with NationStates. For every nation that would not trade with Japan, they would risk hurting themselves, while actually setting up an economic incentive for other nations to enter into stronger partnerships with Japan. The reason nations would break the sancations, is many nations were not in the League to begin with, because it did hold nations to high standards.

Again, NationStates and the roleplayed relations between UN and non-UN member states is a fair example of some of the problems of the League of Nations. (Which I feel you did cover in your other two points.)

Now I'm a proponent of a "weak" League of Nations / United Nations model, but I also advocate that a stop-gap like a "Security Council" actually empowers the weak model. NS UN doesn't have a Security Council, but I have good reasons for *not* wanting one. I think about it at times, but until the game has stronger penalty functions built in for extreme actions, it seems like a NS UN SC wouldn't really address my "weak enhanced by veto" world government theory.

Here's a Link regarding US Military between WWI and WWII:

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/amh/amh-19.htm


:)

Right, and I'm not denying your earlier point that the US was not a military power. But the US was an economic power ... and due to its vast size and untapped resources, it was already recognized by most other nations as a potential threat and accorded the respect one would expect from that.

In other words, the Wilson administration had some political clout.

Does anyone else think that people who spout this neo-con line are just not thinking? Do they really want a return to what the world was like before the UN, maybe even before the League of Nations? Do they really want that sort of lawlessness?

People who advocate a US withdrawal from the UN are almost as bad, because it would ultimately have the same result.

Almost every post-WWII war the U.S. fought has had UN roots: Korea, Vietnam (via SEATO), the Gulf War, Kosovo. And what do you mean 'lawlessness?' Prior to WWI, there were of course wars, but for the most part, countries left each other the hell alone and let them duke it out among themselves. Since the UN was founded, the number of wars has not decreased, but has skyrocketed exponentially. Consider all these wars and conflicts that the UN failed to prevent or end:

Chinese Civil War
Korean War
The French Indochina War
Soviet invasion of Hungary
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (sp?)
Vietnam War
Yom Kippur (sp?) War
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
The Chinese-Vietnamese War
Iran-Iraq War
Civil war in Angola
Civil war in Algeria
Civil war in Rhodesia
Civil war in El Salvador
Civil war in Nicaragua
Persian Gulf War
Civil war in Somalia
Rwanda massacre
Kosovo
Sudan massacre
Gulf War II

Thus, the UN is hardly reliable when it comes to preventing wars. Moreover, it even engages in terrorist activity from time to time (Katanga being the most graphic example), and has sympathized with and openly supported terrorists, from the African National Congress to the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc.

What we need:

a world body (not necessarily the UN) that will actually help improve it.

Hear Hear!

Never thought you would hear me agree with you! ;)

So, what would you people replace the UN with?

That's equivalent to a doctor, prior to surgically removing a malignant tumor, asking his patient, "What would you like me to replace your tumor with?"

In other words, replace the UN with nothing, and return to the days of non-interventionism. Trade is okay, entangling alliances are not.

Almost every post-WWII war the U.S. fought has had UN roots: Korea, Vietnam (via SEATO), the Gulf War, Kosovo. And what do you mean 'lawlessness?' Prior to WWI, there were of course wars, but for the most part, countries left each other the hell alone and let them duke it out among themselves. Since the UN was founded, the number of wars has not decreased, but has skyrocketed exponentially. Consider all these wars and conflicts that the UN failed to prevent or end:

Chinese Civil War
Korean War
The French Indochina War
Soviet invasion of Hungary
Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia (sp?)
Vietnam War
Yom Kippur (sp?) War
Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia
The Chinese-Vietnamese War
Iran-Iraq War
Civil war in Angola
Civil war in Algeria
Civil war in Rhodesia
Civil war in El Salvador
Civil war in Nicaragua
Persian Gulf War
Civil war in Somalia
Rwanda massacre
Kosovo
Sudan massacre
Gulf War II

Thus, the UN is hardly reliable when it comes to preventing wars. Moreover, it even engages in terrorist activity from time to time (Katanga being the most graphic example), and has sympathized with and openly supported terrorists, from the African National Congress to the Palestine Liberation Organization, etc.

My area of expertise when it comes to History is World War I, but would some please straighten this fool out. All the wars he has listed are mere skirmishes (for the most part) compared to wars of Imperial Europe. There may not be as many, but they certainly are much longer. What you're basically saying is that 12 inches is longer than 1 foot.

My area of expertise when it comes to History is World War I, but would some please straighten this fool out. All the wars he has listed are mere skirmishes (for the most part) compared to wars of Imperial Europe. There may not be as many, but they certainly are much longer. What you're basically saying is that 12 inches is longer than 1 foot.

Probably won't work. I have taken him to task a few times over Rawanda and he keeps repeating it.

In other words, replace the UN with nothing, and return to the days of non-interventionism. Trade is okay, entangling alliances are not.

And how would this non-interventionism be enforced? Let's say that country A wants access to the resources in country B, proposes a treaty but is refused because country B has other plans for that. So country A goes and promotes civil unrest, topples the government and signs a treaty with them.

Or just invades the heck out of country B while country C gleefully sells weapons to both. Or covertly organizes country D to attack B, so that then A can move it's forces into B to "defend it's freedom".

Or they turn the population of B into opium addicts, which is controlled by A. Or they send the navy to blockade B's ports until they agree to "free trade" negotiations.

And don't get me started on K and M...

The UN has done alright, we haven't had WWIII yet, N. Korea are sacred that if they attack a country they want, the UN will step in.

The UN dosen't have it's own army, if it has to go to war, a resolution has to be passed or some other thing has to be approved. (1991 gulf conflict)


That kind of logic is like saying that because we have network tv we haven’t had WWIII
I mean in theory they could have some relation but probably not … hell if they were willing to start world war three (which they would almost certainly have to know they were staring)

They would not care about the un BECAUSE they were already willing to take on the world. If not they most likely wont start anything :-P