Spoken like the sons and grandsons of the weak fellows who lost an empire.
Read some history, we didn't lose it, we gave it away. We had the intelligence to realise after the betrayal at Breton Woods, we could no longer afford an empire and after fighting two world wars in 20years, we'd shed enough blood keeping the world free from tyranny...
Re: giving it away - oh, nolo contendere - you did, indeed, divest yourselves of it - akin to a 'fire sale' - truth being, you no longer had much choice in the matter.
The world had changed by then, you had promised your colonial allies autonomy in return for helping during WWII, and your Imperial system had run its course.
You gave the impression that you were giving it away but had you failed to do so it would have been taken from you anyway, as happened to the French in Indochina and Africa.
You weren't fooling anyone about those 'give-aways' then, and you're not fooling anybody about that now, either.
I could argue the 'your downfall was your own fault' line of thought all day long, but that would take us too far off topic.
Yes you could, see my preceeding post above, and yes it would.
Ditto.
Suffice it to say that you have a seat on the UN Security Council out of gratitude for your past services to Mankind, but The Seat carries two kinds of responsibility with it: (1) keeping the peace and (2) taking a leadership role in enforcing the peace.
"Leadership role?" You mean doing whatever America tells us to do, no thanks. We're getting pretty tired of that too...
No, that's 'following', not leading.
Leading, in this context, is more about maintaining sufficient strength and resolve and diplomatic presence and credibility to put out fires and to influence and steer events as practicable.
Taking a couple of decades 'on holiday' after the devastation and losses you experienced, in order to rebuild and retool and resupply, is one thing.
Staying out of the game, resting on your laurels, and crouching under the shield of another for additional decades beyond any reasonable recovery period, is quite another.
Even taking into account Imperial divestiture and reduced resources and circumstances, your track record for postwar leadership is rather disappointing to those who had hoped for better.
If you don't want The Seat, perhaps it's time for you to step aside and make room for someone who does.
Leaving you entirely free to throw those tomatoes without giving a fig for global security responsibilities.
Nah, we earned that seat, more than most who sit on the Security Council...
Nolo contendere.
...it's very comfortable...
You can't rest on your laurels forever; at least not without others throwing up their hands and walking away, because others aren't pulling their weight, and risking the whole thing shaking apart.
Sooner or later, in such a highly visible position, you've got to either (a) begin doing your share of 'leading' once again or (b) move out of the way for someone who can.
A permanent Seat is too important to leave forever in the hands of a dissipated wreck who cannot or will not provide the leadership expected of such an exalted position.
You've had decades to rest-up and recuperate - time to get out there again, if you still can.
...and really close so we don't have to waste our energy throwing those rotten tomatoes very far.
That's not what the Seat is for. If you're not going to use it properly, you're just taking up valuable space that someone else can use, and you don't belong there any longer. Time to fish or cut bait.
There are plenty of cheap seats in the General Assembly, if you just can't cut it anymore.
Everyone will understand.