posted
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!
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
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 ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And if I pay you several billion dollars, I'm sure you'll conclude anything I want you to.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
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.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
capped
I WAS IN THE FUTURE, IT WAS TOO LATE TO RSVP
Member # 709
posted
yeh, knowing something is right or wrong means nothing when the resulting action is more reprehensible than the initial stimulus, firsty
Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
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
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Why? Let's just start with the concerted and deliberate campaign by the US to kill all American indians during the 1800s.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Start with what England did to the Scots and Irish.
We learned from the best.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
