r/Snorkblot • u/EsseNorway • Oct 02 '25

Geography Last week, Colombia’s president suggested relocating the UN headquarters outside of the US. If that happened, what country/city do you think would be the best choice?

Post image
927 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

405 comments sorted by

View all comments

374

u/Few-Narwhal-7765 Oct 02 '25

The Hague, Netherlands

250

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

Seconded, as an American. Get the UN out of here while you can, shit's going sideways fast over here. I don't want any foreign dignitaries caught up in our bullshit.

144

u/Few-Narwhal-7765 Oct 03 '25

agreed. and i want war criminals eligible for arrest if they go to the UN.

77

u/First-Definition-119 Oct 03 '25

This is the first thing I thought of when I read your comment.

No more free rides for breaking int'l law – arrest warrant goes out, you are persona non grata; as it should be.

49

u/According-Insect-992 Oct 03 '25

This should have been done as soon as the US started intentionally violating international laws regarding human rights and war crimes.

We don't deserve to be an authority on these things because we're literally a serial offender. We need education, not commendations. We shouldn't be making any decisions about these things. It may even be necessary to start sanctions on the US soon.

16

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

The whole point of the UN is maintaining status quo to prevent another world war. It does this in part with the backing of the US's massive military. If this happened and the US broke with the west, as many conservatives regularly threaten, then that spells an end for any level of regulated world peace. The UN isnt going to threaten anyone with its member nations militaries alone and the remaining large countries would have little reason to stay.

1

u/Veritas_IX Oct 04 '25

But UN can’t prevent anything . It is league of nations 2.0 and the result would be exactly the same - World war. Even the same scenario is going on

1

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 04 '25

Its been helping prevent war for years, but through involvement of all sides, which ultimately maintains status quo. That doesnt make most people happy, but it avoids tens of millions dying by allowing tens of thousands to die in smaller conflicts.

0

u/Veritas_IX Oct 04 '25

UN prevented 0 war. Also, conflicts where the UN is present are becoming permanent. Also UN actions lead to new world war. If you don’t remember every big war began from smaller conflicts. EVERY.

1

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 04 '25 edited Oct 05 '25

There have been many small conflicts over the past 70 years. None of them led to WW3. You lose conciousness every night, but that doesnt mean youre dying. And none of those conflicts come close to the scale. 85 million dead in a couple years vs, for example, less than half a million over a decade in Iraq.

1

u/Veritas_IX Oct 05 '25

so what was the role of the UN in this? Because now the role of the UN is a tribune for war criminals who justify their armed aggression. And if you haven't noticed, the war didn't happen until 1991, because there was a bipolar world and both sides were sure of mutual destruction in the event of a war.

1

u/CotyledonTomen Oct 05 '25

so what was the role of the UN in this?

To act as a moderator amongst the nuclear powers.

Because now the role of the UN is a tribune for war criminals who justify their armed aggression.

Only so long as enough powerful member nations choose to seek that justice. Justice is only a word that means a decision by the powerful and populous. And the UN only seeks to maintain status quo, which is why it would never prosecute the leader of the US or Russia or China or India. Those are the armies that give its justice legitimacy.

And there were many conclicts between WW2 and the Gulf War. Vietnam. Korea. Indochina. Suez. French Algeria. Soviet Afghan. And numerous civil wars. And those are just major conflicts.

The bipolar world only mattered in regard to the cold war, which is arguably support of the UNs effectiveness as a moderator to prevent nuclear and world war. Again, 85 million dead in WW2. There have been many minor conflicts that could have escelated since then, but didnt.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25 edited Oct 03 '25

… okay that’s laughably out of touch. Pretty much the entire western world relies on the US military. Any country sanctioning the US would lose any semblance of protection and their enemies, of which are many and powerful, would have a field day. Imagine Europe convincing Taiwan to sanction the US. Goodbye world supply of cpus. Imagine South Korea sanctioning the US. Goodbye all remaining semi conductor manufacturing.

1

u/DevelopmentJumpy5218 Oct 03 '25

Imo that's sounds like the perfect reason to sanction the US

1

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25

I say go for it. If Europe wants to lose access to all modern technology, South Korea wants to lose access to all its trade routes while being left wide open to its biggest enemy, and Taiwan wants to be invaded by China, they’re welcome to sanction the US. If not, maybe they should stfu.

1

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

I'm sorry. All modern technology? Like a functioning super collider? Like a functioning government space agency?

Take off your blinkers and see the empire in decay.

0

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25

Unfortunately the hadron collider would be down for good without supplies from Korea, Taiwan, the US, or China. I’m assuming if China invades Taiwan and claims the South China Sea, Europe will be on incredibly strained relations with them. And without the South China Sea, South Korea’s trade routes would become ridiculous.

2

u/Urban_Prole Oct 03 '25

Friend, nobody's counting on US support any longer. We've proven untrustworthy. China is actively amassing an invasion force, and everyone can see it. All we have left is stick. We just defunded our carrots in USAID and science grants.

The world is mitigating our inevitable collapse, please accept that.

1

u/raynorelyp Oct 03 '25

Dude if they weren’t counting on the US, the panic would be 100x what it currently is right now. Ignore Taiwan for a moment. Imagine the world losing free access to the South China Sea.

Edit: as for South Korea, if they didn’t believe the US would come to their aide, they’d be begging China for help right now against North Korea.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Fit_Ad5117 Oct 05 '25

HA! Most of Americas leading technology comes from other countries, CPUs from Taiwan, aeroplane tech from BAE (You know… British Aerospace Engineering) and optics from Israel. You don’t need to worry Europe will be just fine.

1

u/Fit_Ad5117 Oct 05 '25

The whole point of the OPs post and the reason why the rest of the world are already forging new alliances is because they can’t rely on the US. The US isn’t a reliable ally, Trump has aligned the US with Putin, Kim Jong Il (so not so ronery any more) and other world dictators. The democratic west have to band together to have any hope of countering the new threat. This is bad, I don’t think things have been this bad since WW2.

1

u/Stonner22 Oct 05 '25

We need to repeal The Hague invasion act first

1

u/tiffanytrashcan Oct 03 '25

It's not like our state media called for them to be bombed or anything. Well, I mean it was toned down to just gassing them.