Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[Razgovory]

Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.

Don't see how Syria or Russia save.  It's a complete fold.

Syrians don't get bombed.  I'd say that's face saving.

Looking pretty good for no action. 

Yeah, looks like you are going to be giving your home address to a lunatic on the Internet.

[Neil]

How does Russia still have veto power on the Security Council?  Better yet, why are they even still on the fucking Security Council at all, since they're involved in half the shit that should be going to the UNSC's desks?  Is there no mechanism at all for ejecting a blatant obstructionist party?

That would be counterproductive.

The problem isn't the UN, it's th idea tha the UN is or could ever be perfect or just.  That's a little much to ask from an institution whose only purpose is to prevent World War 3.

[11B4V]

Seems like a way for everyone involved to save face.

Don't see how Syria or Russia save.  It's a complete fold.

Syrians don't get bombed.  I'd say that's face saving.

Looking pretty good for no action. 

Yeah, looks like you are going to be giving your home address to a lunatic on the Internet.

No worries

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That would be counterproductive.

The problem isn't the UN, it's th idea tha the UN is or could ever be perfect or just.  That's a little much to ask from an institution whose only purpose is to prevent World War 3.

Which is also the reason the UNSC is what it is.  It is composed of the five declared nuclear powers.

[DontSayBanana]

Which is also the reason the UNSC is what it is.  It is composed of the five declared nuclear powers.

That's only the five permanent members.  There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

[Tamas]

actually it is good they have veto, otherwise they could be cornered into a decision to go to war or lose massive face / interests.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

That's only the five permanent members.  There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.

Anyway, that's Neil's point.  The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process.  It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world.  Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

What would a democratic process look like in this context?

[Berkut]

That's only the five permanent members.  There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.

Anyway, that's Neil's point.  The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process.  It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world.  Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.

Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.

It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.

[Admiral Yi]

Syrians don't get bombed.  I'd say that's face saving.

Backing down from a threat is the very definition of losing face.

[Tamas]

That's only the five permanent members.  There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.

Anyway, that's Neil's point.  The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process.  It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world.  Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.

Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.

It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.

Well, to a degree. It never hurts to cross-check your intentions with those who a) will be affected by them b) has the means to screw you up

[Berkut]

That's only the five permanent members.  There are another ten, but they never get to do shit because Russia and China pretty much veto everything.

I'm sorry, but this is what we've seen with the US House of Representatives this term: all we get is a headcount when veto or bloc voting is abused; it completely undermines a democratic process, and reduces every policy decision to unenforceable mental masturbation with a headcount.

Yes, I meant the permanent, veto-holding members.

Anyway, that's Neil's point.  The real, practical purpose for the UN's organization is to keep the five nuclear powers from actually using their arsenals, not fostering a democratic process.  It stemmed from a realization, born of both Word Wars and solidified by the endgame of the second, that the Great Power system breaks down when multiple Great Powers have the power to unilaterally destroy large parts of the world.  Unenforceable mental masturbation was preferable to a worldwide nuclear firestorm, as remote a possibility as that might be.

Which is why using the UN as a litmus test for taking action on almost anything is ridiculous.

It is a great tool for coordinating action when it allows it, but a terrible tool for vetting what action ought to be taken.

Well, to a degree. It never hurts to cross-check your intentions with those who a) will be affected by them b) has the means to screw you up

Of course, but you don't need the UN for that.

It is handy as a communications tool in that case, but again, my point is that it is ridiculous to operate under the idea that "You don't have UN approval" is a valid reason to not do something.

[Eddie Teach]

Syrians don't get bombed.  I'd say that's face saving.

Backing down from a threat is the very definition of losing face.

I think Raz mistook your previous statement ("complete fold") to mean a loss for Syria rather than win.

[Admiral Yi]

I think Raz mistook your previous statement ("complete fold") to mean a loss for Syria rather than win.

That's right.  I think the Russian proposal, if enacted as stated, is very much a loss of face for Syria.

[Eddie Teach]

What threats has Syria made?