Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

Matthew Smith wrote:

> My take on the UNSC:
>
> The UN are the good guys, in a universe without good guys. I don't
care what
> the UN is like now, or what anyone else has to say about them, no sane
> person can deny that the fundamental principles of the UN are 100%
laudable.
> Forgetting the bureaucracy and inefficiency, the UN has done a lot of
good
> in the world. I like to think of the UNSC as being the fighting arm of
the
> one true representation of a UNITED humanity. Forget how unlikely it
may or
> may not be, as far as I am concerned, by 2183 the UN works and works
well.
> Throughout the timeline of the First Xeno War, they have acted as the
force
> that has gelled humanity together in the face of a greater threat.
They have
> also done a large amount of the fighting. Even before then, they were
the
> guys who prevented the Second and Third solar wars spreading into the
core
> systems - an act that doubtless saved countless millions of lives.
>
>
> I don't know if I'm just whimsically minded, but I like the idea of a
human
> force that is genuinely in it for the whole of mankind, not merely
allied to
> some small fraction of it. Jon Tuffley is very explicit when he says
that
> his universe has no good guys. But I hope he can make one exception.
>
> Matthew Smith

A friend of wrote up an alternate history for his champions campaign. 
The
essential difference between it and the one that we live in was that the
UN was
formed with more idealism and less infighting (no security council), and
US paid
its dues in the form of nuclear weapons.  The UN had teeth, and nation
states
had to be careful about what they did outside of their own borders.