Quittenbrot

The primary function of the UN is to provide a venue of discussion and arbitrage in order to help prevent war. The SC veto everyone harps on is there to help prevent world war. And if I may say so, it has been pretty successful, particularly at that last one.

Yea, the discussion part is very strong with the UN. We see a constant stream of arguments, opinions, etc presented there. Everyone can present their country's view on things. But then what? When it comes to decision making, to actually enforcing the rules and values these countries once said to obey, the UN is paralysed.

And I'd strongly disagree: the veto is not there primarily to prevent world war (which rather is prevented by a huge global stockpile of nukes pointed at eachother), but to ensure for the global elite of nuclear powers that they'd never have to face a decision against their will.

So, while the commoners of countries on the cheap seats keep on exchanging heated discussions based on international law and values they feel more or less obliged to, the elite in the front watches them smiling, knowing they themselves aren't bound to the same set of rules as them. They literally are above the law.

Iran was subject to a number of SC resolutions, in particular regarding their nuclear program

Yea. Because that theocratic regime determined to obliterate a whole nation was so unhinged that no veto power saw use in openly protecting it. Or wanted them to get nukes. They still are as unhinged, killing tens of thousands of their own citizens for daring to speak up against oppression, but since they're now also a key enabler of Russia's imperialistic war aspirations, at least Russia would not let Iran be punished by the UN again. So there's that.

The committee behind the games very much likes Dollars. And Francs. Euros. And any other hard currency they can receive from sketchy countries so these can sanitise their public image by shoving their flag in as many cameras as possible.

Also, Trump's command of English is just about on par with a middle-aged Frenchman... hmm.... ;)

May I introduce you to:

We already have an old politician/wannabe-mobster with brightly blonde-dyed hair trying to tell us what to buy. Think of something else, lady.

then the vote itself is just window dressing and all you’re left is might makes right.

And are you trying to tell me the UN is anything else than that? As soon as you're under the explicit protection of one of the big veto powers, be it Iran and Russia or Israel and the US, you can do whatever you want. Their might already makes right whatever you do.

The violations of basic human rights (however tangible they might have been) were propagandized and used as a pretense to exert political violence on a sovereign state, in order to advance geopolitical interests.

And how does that affect the nature and/or reality of those violations of basic human rights? Is your point that those violations shall only be prosecuted if there's no-one else to benefit from it?

But the US or European states, like Germany, France or Great Britain will hold their own interests above international law and basic human rights at any time these constructs do not align with said interests.

You're almost there! In fact, it's actually the veto powers that secured themselves the power to override whatever rules and regulations we thought of giving ourselves internationally after the horrors of WW2. You apparently already have a keen eye on the wrong-doings of the Western parts of these veto powers. Why not extend your view to the Eastern parts, too? Because the feeling of not being obliged to human rights or international law whenever they oppose your own geopolitical interests isn't at all limited to the "westerners".

Well.. in the case we're talking about here, the occuring violations of basic human rights were very tangible and real and not 'propagandised ideology'.

..does ethnic cleansing under Netanyahu's power-hungry expansionism, you'd be as justified removing Netanyahu from power. Problem is: that path necessarily leads towards conflict with the US and so far, I can't see any US near-peers capable and willing to do so. The point still stands, though.

So lange dieser Scheinriese sich auf der Suche nach verlorener imperialer Größe nach wie vor durch das flächenmäßig größte Land (ausschließlich) Europas morden kann und gleichzeitig die ehemalige militärische Schutzmacht des freien Europas in eine altersdemente Nabelschau abdriftet und ein zunehmendes Problem für unsere Sicherheit darstellt, hat Europa gar keine andere Wahl als schnellstmöglich militärisch selbstständig zu werden und die Verteidigung entsprechend auszubauen.

Did something happen in 1971

That's when birth control pill were firstly broadly adopted in Western societies. In Ireland, for example, where that was illegal, the baby boom phase lasted longer.

If there's ethnic cleansing going on, do you want to wait for the UN to act (in vain, because veto powers) or do you act based on the principles the UN should act on if it actually worked?

Because let's not pretend that the UN actually decided on the substance of that matter and decided against it based on what was happening. It never decided solely due to political reasons and its architecture.

If you want to hold that against NATO, fine. Sometimes, being technically correct isn't the thing to aspire.