The problem is this *realist hat goes on*: without veto power the UN would degenerate into all pathetically poor nations (the vast majority of the world) ganging up on the rich western nations with resolution after resolution, which let's face it, the west isn't going to stand for. All reasonableness would be thrown out the window, nothing could possibly control that. Sad but true.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Time to Change the UN Security Council: Wtf is the veto for?
Your realist hat is a bit screwed up. The veto has only been used to protect the permanet members egoistical interests, like the protection of Israel, American imunity on the International Crime Court, Suez canal issues, to protect/further comunist agenda (back when the USSR existed), etc... How reasonable has that been???CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is this *realist hat goes on*: without veto power the UN would degenerate into all pathetically poor nations (the vast majority of the world) ganging up on the rich western nations with resolution after resolution, which let's face it, the west isn't going to stand for. All reasonableness would be thrown out the window, nothing could possibly control that. Sad but true.
I challenge you to find ONE single use of the veto that was rightly used to protect the rich from the "pathethically poor nations"
Added in edit:
The veto is a necessary evil. It dosen't exist because of "ganging up", but because of the power wielded by a few countries. It hurts allot the UNs capability to do what it is supposed to, specially in the Middle East.
Last edited by EVieira (2007-04-30 13:48:15)
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
I'm not completely up to snuff on my UN laws and by laws. Do the permanent members of security council get unlimited vetoes? I mean I see the need for a country to be able to say no way to certain things, but maybe make it limited...Or as other's have suggested, if the whole world sees one way, and one country does not, then tough titties.
My main concern for keeping the UN is that a LOT of people fail to look past their own country. The Planet Earth is MORE important than the US. The world is MORE important than Russia. No one country is more important that the planet's needs. Does that make sense?
My main concern for keeping the UN is that a LOT of people fail to look past their own country. The Planet Earth is MORE important than the US. The world is MORE important than Russia. No one country is more important that the planet's needs. Does that make sense?
Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2007-04-30 14:20:00)
Yeah , I just saw the stuff on Israel - I was reading down going "hmmm... so is there anything besides Israel the US vetoed?"Bertster7 wrote:
You should see how many resolutions against Israel they've vetoed.PureFodder wrote:
Apparently the US has vetoed 9 resolutions aginst the US. Seems a bit pointless if it's a licence to stop any resolutions passed aginst your country or an ally.
It is pointless. That is why the veto should be removed.
The UN, imo, is effective - or would be without the veto. Every time a real good one comes along, it's vetoed because of either money- or power-hunger. They will never veto for anyone's good really, except their own.
No more damned vetoes! >.<
It's a shame, really.
-konfusion
France should not on the council they are now a third rate power if anything , Japan and or Germany would definitely be a better chose . also the U.N. should be moved to an area like the Middle East , Africa , or Asia , Were they could see first hand whats going on . Instead they stay in New York and could care less about anything but A: how much money they can make here B: how long they can stay here without going back to their home country and C: how much they can get away with - spying and other criminal activities
The UN needs to move out of NYC and move to Jerusalem. . . . . .
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
lol!fadedsteve wrote:
The UN needs to move out of NYC and move to Jerusalem. . . . . .
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
I live in N.Y. we are tried of the B.S. these so called diplomats pull , they can get away with murder and not be charged , only asked to leave
FUCK EM'!! lolBertster7 wrote:
lol!fadedsteve wrote:
The UN needs to move out of NYC and move to Jerusalem. . . . . .
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
Last edited by fadedsteve (2007-04-30 15:49:15)
I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.fadedsteve wrote:
FUCK EM'!! lolBertster7 wrote:
lol!fadedsteve wrote:
The UN needs to move out of NYC and move to Jerusalem. . . . . .
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
I agree. In fact I came up with that idea last week. Many people thought it was BS, but it could ease things in the ME.fadedsteve wrote:
FUCK EM'!! lolBertster7 wrote:
lol!fadedsteve wrote:
The UN needs to move out of NYC and move to Jerusalem. . . . . .
I am tired of that inefficient, ineffective, unprofessional bunch of "blow hard's" spending my tax dollars!!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
Exactly! Its a great idea!! Israel wants to be taken more seriously in the world community!! There couldnt be a better opportunity for them, then to release Jerusalem to the United Nations. Make Jerusalem a "global city" where NO ONE own's rights/sovereignty over that region!Bertster7 wrote:
I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.fadedsteve wrote:
FUCK EM'!! lolBertster7 wrote:
lol!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
The UN can sit there and talk all they want! I am just tired of them taking up PRIME real estate in NYC whilst absorbing undeserved American tax payers dollars!!
Well, the funding wouldn't change. Israel is funded by the US anyway...sergeriver wrote:
I agree. In fact I came up with that idea last week. Many people thought it was BS, but it could ease things in the ME.fadedsteve wrote:
FUCK EM'!! lolBertster7 wrote:
lol!
The Israelis would love that!
They've always been best of friends with the UN.
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is this *realist hat goes on*: without veto power the UN would degenerate into all pathetically poor nations (the vast majority of the world) ganging up on the rich western nations with resolution after resolution, which let's face it, the west isn't going to stand for. All reasonableness would be thrown out the window, nothing could possibly control that. Sad but true.
Ya and with all the money we be saving we could kick out all the illegal aliens , that will sure lower my taxes
It's a good idea.fadedsteve wrote:
Exactly! Its a great idea!! Israel wants to be taken more seriously in the world community!! There couldnt be a better opportunity for them, then to release Jerusalem to the United Nations. Make Jerusalem a "global city" where NO ONE own's rights/sovereignty over that region!Bertster7 wrote:
I'm certainly not opposed to the idea.fadedsteve wrote:
FUCK EM'!! lol
The UN gave birth to Israel, at least Israel could do is fund/house them!!!
Just ask seregiver, he agree's with me!!
The UN can sit there and talk all they want! I am just tired of them taking up PRIME real estate in NYC whilst absorbing undeserved American tax payers dollars!!
Then no one can complain about whose Jerusalem is. It'll be everyones.
Shame it won't ever happen. This thread is full of useful ideas that'll never be put into practice.
Although it wouldn't affect US funding of the UN. Funding is calculated by GDP. The US actually barely contributes its quota as a percentage of GDP (although I'm sure NY would make some savings, I doubt it would make much of an impact). Take Japan for example, they contribute the second most to the UN, due to having the second largest economy, they don't get much out of their contributions at all - not even a seat on the security council. So don't think the US are getting such a bad deal.
The UN is a very outdated organisation. Ultimately it's a case of "We get the vetoes, 'cos we won the war". Really we should be past that by now.
I'm not defending the veto - I'm just saying that if you want a UN that includes powerful nations then you'll have to live with the veto. It gets used unjustly A LOT.EVieira wrote:
Your realist hat is a bit screwed up. The veto has only been used to protect the permanet members egoistical interests, like the protection of Israel, American imunity on the International Crime Court, Suez canal issues, to protect/further comunist agenda (back when the USSR existed), etc... How reasonable has that been???CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is this *realist hat goes on*: without veto power the UN would degenerate into all pathetically poor nations (the vast majority of the world) ganging up on the rich western nations with resolution after resolution, which let's face it, the west isn't going to stand for. All reasonableness would be thrown out the window, nothing could possibly control that. Sad but true.
I challenge you to find ONE single use of the veto that was rightly used to protect the rich from the "pathethically poor nations"
Added in edit:
The veto is a necessary evil. It dosen't exist because of "ganging up", but because of the power wielded by a few countries. It hurts allot the UNs capability to do what it is supposed to, specially in the Middle East.
Without veto 9/11 wouldn't have happened.CameronPoe wrote:
I'm not defending the veto - I'm just saying that if you want a UN that includes powerful nations then you'll have to live with the veto. It gets used unjustly A LOT.EVieira wrote:
Your realist hat is a bit screwed up. The veto has only been used to protect the permanet members egoistical interests, like the protection of Israel, American imunity on the International Crime Court, Suez canal issues, to protect/further comunist agenda (back when the USSR existed), etc... How reasonable has that been???CameronPoe wrote:
The problem is this *realist hat goes on*: without veto power the UN would degenerate into all pathetically poor nations (the vast majority of the world) ganging up on the rich western nations with resolution after resolution, which let's face it, the west isn't going to stand for. All reasonableness would be thrown out the window, nothing could possibly control that. Sad but true.
I challenge you to find ONE single use of the veto that was rightly used to protect the rich from the "pathethically poor nations"
Added in edit:
The veto is a necessary evil. It dosen't exist because of "ganging up", but because of the power wielded by a few countries. It hurts allot the UNs capability to do what it is supposed to, specially in the Middle East.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Time to Change the UN Security Council: Wtf is the veto for?