The practice of vetoes in the UN Security Council go back to the aftermath of World War II, when the five major Allied countries received special authority in the post-war arena. The original intention -- before the Cold War, anyway -- was that each of the five nations would have a specific region where they'd serve a policeman-type function. Of course, the focused US-vs-USSR conflict in the Cold War completely changed that.
Considering the drastic changes in global politics in the past 60 years -- and even just in the past 10 years -- are veto powers still an appropriate authority to be delegated to anyone in the Security Council? Certainly in the current Iraq case, it's likely that the US would have its way without a French or Russian veto, but there are plenty of other cases where the council could choose against US wishes, too.
Bush likes to claim that UN approval isn't necessarily important to launch an attack. If that's true, then why haven't we attacked already? They've been talking about launching it "soon" for the past month or two. Clearly getting UN support is crucial.
I personally believe that the veto power -- even for the US -- is a bad thing in today's world. Considering the trend of increasing globalization, the policy of any one country -- even including their military power -- doesn't justify the ability to tell the rest of the world that they can't do something. There are nearly four times as many countries in the UN today than there were when the UN was founded in 1945. Rather than outnumbering the veto-empowered countries ten to one, it's more like forty to one!
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I usually don't care much for the veto either, but I don't know how many BAD resolutions a veto has prevented.
quote:Bush likes to claim that UN approval isn't necessarily important to launch an attack. If that's true, then why haven't we attacked already?
1. Because we had to prove that we were willing to take the diplomatic route first. To show that we weren't "rushing to war" as some claim (15 months - or 5 years or 12 years, depending on how you look at it - must be the longest "rush to war" in history).
2. Because we wanted to prove our assertion that the UN isn't willing to act on its own decrees. The veto will show that.
3. Because we wanted to know who our allies are, and who are our "fair-weather friends" only. The political wrangling in the UN and elsewhere, the vote, and the veto (if any) will show that as well.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:3. Because we wanted to know who our allies are, and who are our "fair-weather friends" only. The political wrangling in the UN and elsewhere, the vote, and the veto (if any) will show that as well.
It'll just show us that Third World countries can be bought off -- and we knew that already. Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
Re: 1: but have you noticed how the focal point of the adminstrations' propaganda campaign has shifted from "Saddam is harboring A-Q terrorists!" to "Saddam is not complying with resolution 1441!"?
Re: 2: and doing so proves your unilateralism.
Re: 3: are allies those who blindly follow you around, or those who try to talk some sense into you?
[ March 12, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Re Re 1: Nope, that's a product of your fevered imagination. BOTH accusations have always been there.
Re Re 2: Nonsense. It's either true or it isn't.
Re Re 3: False Dilemma. Our allies are those who arrive at the same conclusion we arrived at, which is the correct conclusion.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
And if I pay you several billion dollars, I'm sure you'll conclude anything I want you to. Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by First of Two: Re Re 3: False Dilemma. Our allies are those who arrive at the same conclusion we arrived at, which is the correct conclusion.
It's like there's smugness, and above that arrogance, and then Rob, who has managed to create a whole other dimension above that.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Smugogance?
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
I keep telling you people to go and google on Salman Pak, but it never seems as though any of the anti-war folks care to actually research and comment on the place.
For the record, I'm not actually disagreeing on the reasons for war. I'm disagreeing with the means by which the Bush administration is pushing for it.
Posted by CaptainMike (Member # 709) on :
yeh, knowing something is right or wrong means nothing when the resulting action is more reprehensible than the initial stimulus, firsty
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
A lack of tact on a few official's parts is more reprehensible than the thought of mass killings of civilians?
What planet is that true on?
Hey, if we (the pro-war US faction) huwt youw widdle feewings, we're sorry, but there are things in this world vastly more important than your tender emotions. Like people who would like to kill us all (even the anti-war folks, even the non-US'ers, as long as you're Western, or preventing them from carrying out their plans), and the people who can provide them with the means to do so. (SALMAN PAK!)
So lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.
"In the end it will not matter to us whether we fought with flails or reeds. It will matter to us greatly on what side we fought." - G.K. Chesterton
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy nor suffer too much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat." - Theodore Roosevelt
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Let's look at that whole "mass killings of civilians" thing in about a week, shall we?
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
Why? Let's just start with the concerted and deliberate campaign by the US to kill all American indians during the 1800s.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Start with what England did to the Scots and Irish.
We learned from the best.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Well hell, why not go back to the Romans or the Egyptians? Or how about our Neanderthal ancestor, Ooga Magoog, who clubbed Saddam Hussein's ancestor Mooga Gagoog over the head? Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Minor note: modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Minor tangent: Actually, what are the details on the Neanderthal Homo Sapiens connection? Last I heard scientists still couldn't figure out whether the Neaderthals had no impact on modern humans, or whether we simply outbred them while breeding with them, incorporating some of their traits into our European genepool. Do they know anything more now?
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Minor note: modern humans are not descended from Neanderthals.
Yes, I know, but I didn't remember the genus and species for our own ancestors. I was just going for humorous effect. Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Well, at the time of the Neaderthals, our ancestors were Homo sapiens, just like now. Also known as Cro-Magnons. I think before that came H. erectus.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Ah, that's the name I was trying to think of -- the Cro-Magnons. Nuts.
And thanks. Posted by Topher (Member # 71) on :
Well now wait a minute. We were decended from Cro-Magnons. I thought the whole purpose of the Kromaggs on Sliders was they they were the other species that became dominant, and that they were supposed to be Cro-Magnon man or something? Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
The first member of the genus Homo was Homo habilis and they were present in east Africa at least 2 million years ago. Homo habilis was the first hominid to exhibit the marked expansion of the brain that would become a hallmark of subsequent hominid evolutionary history.
Over the next 400,000 years, Homo habilis had evolved into a larger, more robust, and larger-brained species known as Homo erectus which migrated off the African continent into Asia, Indonesia, and Europe.
Between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago, Homo erectus evolved into Homo sapiens. Transitional forms between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens are referred to as archaic Homo sapiens. With the exception of Homo sapiens neandertalensis or the Neanderthal man, no additional subspecies are recognized (however some scientists (mostly the crazy ones) do identify the Neanderthal as its own species, Homo neandertalensis.
Archaic Homo sapiens changed gradually, becoming somewhat larger, more gracile and larger-brained through time. By 100,000 years ago in Africa and Asia and 28,000 years ago in Europe the transition to Homo sapiens was complete, and fully modern humans became the single surviving hominid species
(It should be noted that these hominids (including the Cro-Magnon man) contributed to the extinction of the Neanderthals, and thus Homo sapiens began their reign of terror to the planet Earth by helping in the elimination their own competition! ).
The Cro-Magnon man (early modern man) differs significantly from Neanderthals, due to anotomical differences (hence why some scientists believe that the latter should be considered its own species).
The key in what identifies the Cro-Magnon man above all as an early modern man, is the location to which they lived. Cro-Magnon were centralized in Central and South-Western Europe, whereas the Neanderthal was more widespread.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I would be a little more cautious about describing the fate of the Neanderthals, though, as that issue is Contentious.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Just like the Big Bang, Bible, and Theory of Evolution...
We truely won't know any of the 'real' answers until we master the practice of time travel...
Until then may the speculation continue...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Er, no, nothing like those. That modern humans hunted down the neanderthals is only one possibility. They could have simply outcompeted them for resources, or, as you allude to, absorbed the neanderthal populations they came across, depending upon how closely related they were.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Er, no, nothing like those. That modern humans hunted down the neanderthals is only one possibility. They could have simply outcompeted them for resources, or, as you allude to, absorbed the neanderthal populations they came across, depending upon how closely related they were.
Actually, that is what I meant. Otherwise, I simply overstated the portion of man hunting its own evolutionary cousin as far as to point out the beginning of mans little journey into destroying other species...otherwise, yeah, Neanderthals most likely just were not able to "keep up" with their cousins in the respect of being out competed, much like we see in many many many other competition scenarios...as in the classic, "survival of the fitess".
And I never really alluded to the Neanderthals being absorbed by the Homo sapiens. To my knowledge only a few rare occurances of hybrid Neanderthal/early Homo sapiens exist. Survival of the fittest almost clearly reigns here as the ultimate demise of Neanderthals, but as I originally pointed out, they too, in part were hunted, wiped out, or what have you, by their evolutionary cousins as well.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"With the exception of Homo sapiens neandertalensis or the Neanderthal man, no additional subspecies are recognized (however some scientists (mostly the crazy ones) do identify the Neanderthal as its own species, Homo neandertalensis."
Actually, I've only seen H. neanderthalensis as its own species, not as a subspecies of H. sapiens. So, I doubt it's confined to the "crazy" minority you suggest...
"To my knowledge only a few rare occurances of hybrid Neanderthal/early Homo sapiens exist."
I think they found a single skeleton (in Portugal, IIRC?) that looks like a hybrid, but it hasn't been genetically tested to prove one way or the other.
Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
Yeah, the one you mentioned is the only one I was aware of as well, but I wasn't sure if there were any other ones.....I haven't heard about any updates on the creature.
And yeah, I am one of those crazy minority I guess...i'll admit my biothesis was on the 'evolution of the canine'...the course didnt get into hominids much beyond what I included up above, but one way or the other there is still some dispute about the true identity of the neanderthal.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
I know something the Neanderthals lacked, something important.
Vetoes!
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Sources people! We need sources! Or are we expected to take all of this admittedly interesting, but unsourced commentary as fact?
Posted by The_Tom (Member # 38) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Er, no, nothing like those. That modern humans hunted down the neanderthals is only one possibility. They could have simply outcompeted them for resources, or, as you allude to, absorbed the neanderthal populations they came across, depending upon how closely related they were.
I stumbled across some article a few weeks ago, actually, that said there's been some AMAZING NEW RESEARCH(tm) that has made the prospect of Neandertals (the more correct spelling, actually, given the name of the German valley where they were found) disappearing via interbreeding to be highly unlikely.
And no, I can't find the source. Posted by Futurama Guy (Member # 968) on :
This an ongoing debate that requires much much much more research than I really intend to put into this, due to the fact that Im not writing a formal paper on the subject, as I was originally only trying to offer the basic distinction between Cro-Magnon man and Neanderthal man......
And yes, there is even a debate over the spelling of Neanderthal/Neandertal, so obviously solving the debate regarding their extinction is far from conclusive.
Either way, there seem to be two possible theories that can be identified as being widely accepted:
The Replacement Theory, hypothesizes that there was little or no exchange of genetic material between Neanderthals and modern humans (H. sapiens). This theory believes that Neanderthals were driven to extinction by competition from modern humans who migrated into the region from Africa. If this view is correct, then the first extinction caused by modern humans was that of our closest cousin. This seems to be the most popular theory.
The other theory is known as the Multi-Regional Theory, hypothesizes that Neanderthals were just another kind of early modern human, a regional subgroup (synonymous w/ sub-species) that interbred with other regional subgroups, each with its own distinct physical and cultural traits. Thus, Neanderthals were not a separate species that died out, but a subpopulation that gradually evolved, together with other human subpopulations, into modern humans. [However, this may tie back to the single Neanderthal/primative-human hybrid as really being the only bit of concrete evidence, however, due to lack of proper research, certainly much is still being overlooked.] If this theory is correct, then the extinction of Neanderthals is really a "pseudoextinction." This theory seems to be the lesser of the two.
Because the internet is not considered a primary resource, one really cannot go into any further depth without actually consulting anthropology or human evolution journals, which is really more of a pain in the ass than it is worth...especially since (a) I'm not getting graded for this, and (b) I'm not getting paid for this...
So, for more information, visit your local library or visit the website: http://www.neanderthal-modern.com/ . Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
quote: And I never really alluded to the Neanderthals being absorbed by the Homo sapiens.
I was refering to the bit in your original post where you mention the possibility of Neanderthals (Take that, Germans!) being more closely related to us, which suggests the possibility of an assimilation scenerio.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Searching Google w/ a restriction to German pages, it looks as though they can't agree on the spelling, either.
The confusion could, I suspect, come from the fact that, in German, "th" is pronounced exactly the same as 't'.
Posted by Spike (Member # 322) on :
Originally it was the Neanderthal (Neander Valley). But then there was the spelling reform of 1901 and Thal became Tal and Neanderthaler became Neandertaler.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)