NationStates Jolt Archive

Vetos.



The UN has proven in its own history to be relativly effective in taking on problems in smaller countries. That's prety much because the General Assembly and Security Council can gang up on that country and beat it into submission.

Where the UN hasn't been affective is tackling issues in larger countries or countries that have international interest (say, Iraq). Why is this? Well, the five permanent members of the security council have veto powers.

Nothing was done in Iraq because France and Russia veto it due to oil interests threatened by US action. Any nation where the US has interest (say Israel), nothing happens. The US vetos action taken against them. The same goes for China and Great Britian.

So what does this mean for us? It means stop bitching about why the UN doesn't work, man up, and get your government to stop looking only after itself and try and do something for the betterment of humanity. If your oil interests need to be sacraficed so civilian's lives can be saved, do it. If action needs to be taken to stop your country from producing and selling nuclear arms, you better be ready to sacrifice your interest. If your country has an interest in a country that's in trouble with the UN, drop the interest and let something happen.

Why don't we help the UN do what its supposed to do instead of vetoing everything it does and then bitching about how the UN doesn't work.

Vetos.



The UN has proven in its own history to be relativly effective in taking on problems in smaller countries. That's prety much because the General Assembly and Security Council can gang up on that country and beat it into submission.

Where the UN hasn't been affective is tackling issues in larger countries or countries that have international interest (say, Iraq). Why is this? Well, the five permanent members of the security council have veto powers.

Nothing was done in Iraq because France and Russia veto it due to oil interests threatened by US action. Any nation where the US has interest (say Israel), nothing happens. The US vetos action taken against them. The same goes for China and Great Britian.

So what does this mean for us? It means stop bitching about why the UN doesn't work, man up, and get your government to stop looking only after itself and try and do something for the betterment of humanity. If your oil interests need to be sacraficed so civilian's lives can be saved, do it. If action needs to be taken to stop your country from producing and selling nuclear arms, you better be ready to sacrifice your interest. If your country has an interest in a country that's in trouble with the UN, drop the interest and let something happen.

Why don't we help the UN do what its supposed to do instead of vetoing everything it does and then bitching about how the UN doesn't work.

Some countries didn't want to go to Iraq because we didn't have any proof. And they were right. We still have little proof of WMDs still existing.

That, and no one listens to them...
Since we're talking about Iraq:

Iraq ignored what...16? UN demands to stop/prove he stopped making MWDs.


And can we please get off the Iraq thing? Bush won the election and he already went to war. So unless you've got a time machine hidden in your closet there's not a damn thing you can do about it except complain, which is just annoying. And since we're already there, you might as well support the TROOPs, it's not their fault they're there. Complain to Bush all you want, but don't complain to me or the troops, cuz there's nothin' anyone but Bush can do about it. And like I said, the war is already done, so no one can do anything about that.

It's all about the money, not the oil. I knew when GWB was running we'd go to war with Iraq before he even won. But the Taliban just threw a monkey wrench in his plans...

So don't go on about how GWB did this for oil. It's for the oil money for his family and America should have known they would when we voted for him. I'm not against him, it's just I knew we'd go to war with Suddam. It was too predictable.

And if you recall, we went because Saddam was "Harboring terrorists." Not "Weapons of Mass Destruction."

That, and no one listens to them...
Since we're talking about Iraq:

Iraq ignored what...16? UN demands to stop/prove he stopped making MWDs.


And can we please get off the Iraq thing? Bush won the election and he already went to war. So unless you've got a time machine hidden in your closet there's not a damn thing you can do about it except complain, which is just annoying. And since we're already there, you might as well support the TROOPs, it's not their fault they're there. Complain to Bush all you want, but don't complain to me or the troops, cuz there's nothin' anyone but Bush can do about it. And like I said, the war is already done, so no one can do anything about that.

Why can't you suuport the troops and complain when someone does something wrong?
Its like when someone murders someone you don't say, "oh well the guys dead. Nothing can be done. Might as well support his endeavors?"

I agree its not the troops fault we are over there for false pretenses but the guy in charge deserves responsibility for his faults. Or else he will never learn.

Second, the war is not over. Bush is still President so I do have reason to talk.
Why do you people always act like telling Bush to claim responsibility is inconsistent with supporting the troops? Bush is not the troops: only legally a commander in cheif.

Yeah, sorry for like, hijacking the thread...so..um...no more Bush/Iraq-not-related-to-UN...yeah...

okay, lets ignore Iraq and Bush.

Back to the UN.

If people actually dropped their petty little international 'interests' and supported UN decisions, then the UN would get somewhere.

Blarg gets a smiling tip of the pipe from Dobbs Town.

Indeed. Veto is not conducive to an effective UN. There should be no permanent members of the security council, though I could see two tiers of leadership within the council, that would rotate on separate timetables for greater consistency.

The UN, if ineffective, should be permitted to do the things it was intended for - not dismissed out of hand.

Because they buy 75,000 dollar toyota Landcruisers for their workers in Afghanistan, host giant parties there and the fact that their first action arriving in the tsunami affected countries was to set up 24 hr. catering.

That, and no one listens to them...
Since we're talking about Iraq:

Iraq ignored what...16? UN demands to stop/prove he stopped making MWDs.


You can't make a claim like that then call for everyone to forget about it.

Because they buy 75,000 dollar toyota Landcruisers for their workers in Afghanistan, host giant parties there and the fact that their first action arriving in the tsunami affected countries was to set up 24 hr. catering.
no one said they were perfect but let them do their job without your interests getting in the way of something that might actually benefit humanity.

no one said they were perfect but let them do their job without your interests getting in the way of something that might actually benefit humanity.
I say let Japan, the US, Germany, Australia, Canada, and the UK handle it. Things would actually get done that way. But instead you want the giant parasite, that still hasn't cleaned up the Kosovo mess, to start on this too?

Because they buy 75,000 dollar toyota Landcruisers for their workers in Afghanistan, host giant parties there and the fact that their first action arriving in the tsunami affected countries was to set up 24 hr. catering.
No!?? Damn! They should have gone down all the car dealers in Kabul! You mean they bought from the first one??!

24 hr. catering? Well good. I was under the impression the victims needed food.