Pages: 1

 

2007-07-13 10:23:12
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina
We all know the UN hasn't been achieving its goals, in the last, let's say 60 years.  I think the main problem here is the Security Council voting system.  Just in case you don't know there are 15 members in the UNSC, 5 of them are permanent members, and the other 10 are temporary.  The 5 permanent are UK, France, US, China and Russia.  Unlike the 10 temporary, the permanent members have the power to veto any Resolution.  Yes, one vote from one of the 5 permanent members, against the Resolution, means the Resolution won't pass.  That makes things difficult, coz there'll always be interests from one side or the other.
I propose a little change in the voting system.  Let's keep the veto, but with a little modification.  If there's a Resolution, what if you need 3 votes against it to veto the resolution, instead of one.  The permanent members would still have the power to veto, but the veto would require 3 votes out of 5 to consider the Resolution vetoed.  Let's imagine the voting outcome is the following: the ten temporary members approve the Resolution.  China and Russia also approve it.  But the US, France and UK don't.  Then, the voting would be 12-3, but the Resolution would end in veto because 3 of the 5 permanent members voted against it.

What do you think?
2007-07-13 10:26:20
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6972|Global Command
I say why don't we simplify it and disband the UN, start over.

It's like the DST hof supervotes; we enjoy our powers and don't want everybody to have the same voice.

Perhaps free market economics should come into play; the biggest donors get the supervotes, and the monies are used for humanatarian reasons.
2007-07-13 10:26:26
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7094|USA
I think that would work, by the way when does Israel get a seat on the security council since we are making changes to it?
2007-07-13 10:27:56
Mekstizzle
WALKER
+3,611|7064|London, England

lowing wrote:

I think that would work, by the way when does Israel get a seat on the security council since we are making changes to it?
There are loads (loads) of other countries that would get a security council membership before Israel. (Germany, India, South American countries, Australia even)

They're not that big on the world stage...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G4_nations

Last edited by Mekstizzle (2007-07-13 10:30:59)

2007-07-13 10:27:59
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

lowing wrote:

I think that would work, by the way when does Israel get a seat on the security council since we are making changes to it?
I don't think Israel deserves a seat as permanent member.
2007-07-13 10:31:30
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7094|USA
maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
2007-07-13 10:35:31
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
They have a big voice there.
2007-07-13 10:49:55
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7094|USA

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
They have a big voice there.
no what they have is a country willing to stand up for them since the rest of world wants to knock them down................................and out!
2007-07-13 11:00:18
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
They have a big voice there.
no what they have is a country willing to stand up for them since the rest of world wants to knock them down................................and out!
Nobody wants them out, the World wants Israel to behave like a civilized country, not like the terrorists they fight.
2007-07-13 11:16:45
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7094|USA

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:


They have a big voice there.
no what they have is a country willing to stand up for them since the rest of world wants to knock them down................................and out!
Nobody wants them out, the World wants Israel to behave like a civilized country, not like the terrorists they fight.
I am just gunna let that one go serge. I see no sense in starting .WHY 2 ??....
2007-07-13 11:48:04
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

lowing wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

lowing wrote:


no what they have is a country willing to stand up for them since the rest of world wants to knock them down................................and out!
Nobody wants them out, the World wants Israel to behave like a civilized country, not like the terrorists they fight.
I am just gunna let that one go serge. I see no sense in starting .WHY 2 ??....
Check there's nobody around you, just before you let go one.
2007-07-13 11:55:31
Braddock
Agitator
+916|6733|Éire

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
Let's talk about double standards lowing...

Iraq refuses to let inspectors in to see its non-existent nuclear arsenal and ends up being invaded by a UN security council permanent member as a result.

Israel builds up one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, covertly and without external inspection and transparency, and gets fuck all done to it ...they even throw the man who decided the world needed to know about this in prison for years.
2007-07-13 12:28:01
fadedsteve
GOP Sympathizer
+266|6933|Menlo Park, CA

ATG wrote:

I say why don't we simplify it and disband the UN, start over.

It's like the DST hof supervotes; we enjoy our powers and don't want everybody to have the same voice.

Perhaps free market economics should come into play; the biggest donors get the supervotes, and the monies are used for humanatarian reasons.
I keep trying to give you karma for you humor, intelligence and wit!! But 24hrs wont pass soon enough. . . .damit!!!
2007-07-13 14:28:25
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7094|USA

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
Let's talk about double standards lowing...

Iraq refuses to let inspectors in to see its non-existent nuclear arsenal and ends up being invaded by a UN security council permanent member as a result.

Israel builds up one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, covertly and without external inspection and transparency, and gets fuck all done to it ...they even throw the man who decided the world needed to know about this in prison for years.
ok sure lets:

Iraq AGREED to UN inspections as per the peace treaty they signed to end the war. They have since for 10 years refused UN inspections at certain sites at certain times. Only to allow them in a few weeks later. If Iraq was your kid, what exactly would you suspect is going on??

Israel builds nukes, why not? They are surrounded by countries that make it well known that they intend to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. It is called deterrence and not anything new

The guy they sent to prison: Anyone that divulges state secrets gets charged with treason, spying, or whatever, then goes to jail. so what?? Are you saying this has sent precedence somewhere??

Last edited by lowing (2007-07-13 14:29:35)

2007-07-13 14:36:34
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

lowing wrote:

Braddock wrote:

lowing wrote:

maybe they should, since the UN spends most of its time trying to figure out a way to fuck Israel through double standard resolution after resolution, maybe it is time they finally had a voice in their own business.
Let's talk about double standards lowing...

Iraq refuses to let inspectors in to see its non-existent nuclear arsenal and ends up being invaded by a UN security council permanent member as a result.

Israel builds up one of the biggest nuclear arsenals in the world, covertly and without external inspection and transparency, and gets fuck all done to it ...they even throw the man who decided the world needed to know about this in prison for years.
ok sure lets:

Iraq AGREED to UN inspections as per the peace treaty they signed to end the war. They have since for 10 years refused UN inspections at certain sites at certain times. Only to allow them in a few weeks later. If Iraq was your kid, what exactly would you suspect is going on??

Israel builds nukes, why not? They are surrounded by countries that make it well known that they intend to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. It is called deterrence and not anything new

The guy they sent to prison: Anyone that divulges state secrets gets charged with treason, spying, or whatever, then goes to jail. so what?? Are you saying this has sent precedence somewhere??
Why can Israel refuse to let the UN inspectors in and check out their nukes?
2007-07-13 15:03:49
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7157|US
They never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
2007-07-13 15:40:49
sergeriver
Cowboy from Hell
+1,928|7200|Argentina

RAIMIUS wrote:

They never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It doens't matter.  That's even worse.  They should sign it, and let the UN inspectors in.  Btw, who did provide the nukes to Israel?
2007-07-13 15:41:22
GunSlinger OIF II
Banned.
+1,860|7086

sergeriver wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

They never signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
It doens't matter.  That's even worse.  They should sign it, and let the UN inspectors in.  Btw, who did provide the nukes to Israel?
stolen technology from the US

actually the french helped out mostly

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-07-13 15:42:49)

2007-07-13 17:28:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6848|North Carolina

sergeriver wrote:

We all know the UN hasn't been achieving its goals, in the last, let's say 60 years.  I think the main problem here is the Security Council voting system.  Just in case you don't know there are 15 members in the UNSC, 5 of them are permanent members, and the other 10 are temporary.  The 5 permanent are UK, France, US, China and Russia.  Unlike the 10 temporary, the permanent members have the power to veto any Resolution.  Yes, one vote from one of the 5 permanent members, against the Resolution, means the Resolution won't pass.  That makes things difficult, coz there'll always be interests from one side or the other.
I propose a little change in the voting system.  Let's keep the veto, but with a little modification.  If there's a Resolution, what if you need 3 votes against it to veto the resolution, instead of one.  The permanent members would still have the power to veto, but the veto would require 3 votes out of 5 to consider the Resolution vetoed.  Let's imagine the voting outcome is the following: the ten temporary members approve the Resolution.  China and Russia also approve it.  But the US, France and UK don't.  Then, the voting would be 12-3, but the Resolution would end in veto because 3 of the 5 permanent members voted against it.

What do you think?
I like that idea, but I like the idea of kicking China and Russia off of the council and replacing them with Japan and Germany even more.

 

Pages: 1

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard