UN Security Council Reform

[Pindar]

Is peace not better serving to those fundamental human rights then war?

If I understood the question correctly: not if you recognize the Revolutionary War as legitimate.

Should we allow future war's and the atrosities that follow them just so we can stand to our high ideals?

If war is not fought for and in behalf of principle then war cannot be justified. If war cannot be justified then pacifism is the only recourse. Pacifism in the face of tyranny equates to slavery.

The USSR has been in the UN since it's conception.

That is why the UN was illegitimate from its inception.

The sacrafice for peace instead of the founding principle's was made at the birth of the UN. We are better served with an institution that allows the worlds giants to easily talk to one another, then another platform for the west's ideals. The east is rising, we shouldnt destroy the UN now.

WWII ended independent of the UN. The Cold War occurred independent of the UN. Diplomacy both predates and extends beyond the confines of the UN.

[Pindar]

I live in a country where we gained our current way of living, in no way inferior to America's, through gradually amending our customs and way of thinking. It may take more time, but I like our way better.

Irrespective of your personal sentiments, I doubt such would be of much solace for those who were oppressed or those currently oppressed outside of Albion. Morality and the importance of legitimacy transcend convenience or an unwillingness to stand up.

[JR-]

I don't believe in fundamental (inalienable) human rights.

I don't have much time for the 'authority' of the UN.

I support the existence of the UN SC only insomuch as it acts as a forum for consensus on action among the worlds most powerful nations.

If a nation can project power where necessary, and can be persuaded to do so in concert with other likewise capable nations, on a course of action that will lead to greater harmony between nations and between peoples then this is a good thing.

However, the representative nation state is the ultimate authority, and acts as it pleases but in the knowledge that it is judged by its peers, other nation states. It can do so because its actions are directly sanctioned by the people it governs, which means that is acceptable that the consequences of those actions be borne by those peoples.

There is no moral authority in my mind to the UN, it merely serves as a forum for decision on action necessary by sovereign nation states. It has no innate authority because there is no direct mandate from the people affected, therefore it is not right that they should bear the consequences of actions taken in their name.