World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News [email protected]
Politics [email protected]
World Politics [email protected]
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Because without it there would be no UN, and as useless as you think the current UN is, I promise you no UN is even more useless.
It's bleak but the fact that we can even get everybody in the same room is remarkable. Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (or, Russia, China, etc) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs.
Justify how there would be no UN without such veto. Because, honestly, an agreement council where you can only agree as a group to do something if the big players don't say otherwise to me looks like it just compounds the eternal problems we already have and is nothing more than just another flavour of "feel free to protest in a way that does not importunate me" Capitalism.
Because there isn't a UN without America, China and Russia.
France and the UK could leave and the UN could exist but those 3? Not a chance.
Each of those larger nations carries so much weight that their influence on global politics would outshine any body that tried to legislate without them.
The UN could exist technically but it would have no teeth at all. It has few enough as is.
Still, doesn't sound like a good argument to give those nations veto power over all decisions. Like, currently the way things are reading a motion could come it to have the UN acknowledge that, say, Palestinians are still human beings, and the US could veto that - and then what?
That can't happen - go read the declaration on human rights. The question is never if they're humans: it's if the state is recognized. Their rights as humans aren't contested.
Taiwan is still not recognized as a country only because China refuses to do so.
This is better than the alternative.
Wasn't that why the League of Nations failed?
The League of Nations failed because it was toothless, and basically did have extreme veto powers built in for world powers.
Countries weren't abiding by their obligations to directly intervene with attacks on member nations when a world power was an aggressor because doing so would create severe political problems for them. To this end the UN have their own armed forces for such issues.
Do you honestly think the UN is that effective when it concerns international human rights? They approved a ceasefire in Gaza and nothing happened. There's a two-year long genocide in Ukraine and the UN just let's the Russian Ambassador carry on, and they've done nothing to stop them.
Things like food aid and whatnot they're obviously helpful with, but if the League of Nations was toothless then the UN is wearing dentures in my mind lol
You say that all have the same power but Its never the small countries vetoing the big questions though.
Its always USA , China or Russia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_Security_Council_resolutions
He didn't say all nations have the same power in the UN. He said the opposite. Read the comment before you reply to it
"Like it or not, a UN where Monaco and the US (...) have the same power at the table is a UN where the big players reject its authority and form their own clubs."
Ah I see. I misread. It still stands though that to bring the big guys to the table, we give them the chance to have it their way and therefore get nowhere with the big questions
Only permanent members of UNSC have veto powers.
So the only way to get the big guys to the table is by giving them the option to have it their way by force
I know that there are pro's and cons to this but IMO its too much power
(From wikipedia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_veto_power)
Only the five permanent members have a veto power on the security council. USA, China, Russia, UK, and France.
No one else has the power to veto.
In fact, I think grandparent was talking about a hypothetical and counterfactual world where every nation had the same powers at the UN.