Should we quit the UN - Page 4




 
--
 
January 26th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Personally I think MAD works as a deterrent far better than veto so no I do not believe creating 3rd party wars is a better alternative to 1st party ones.

As for veto having its faults I once again ask you to show me any benefits from it other than to protect tinpot dictatorships within the veto countries sphere of influence, so veto does not have its faults it is a fault, it was a mistake of epic proportions and has probably lead to more deaths than WW2.
So a conventional war between the US and the Soviet Union had been better than the two local wars they fought? Is that what you are saying? The veto prevent from open confrontations, even if I am not personally not so positive to some of the use of the veto. We have not seen a world without these veto rights, so it is very theoretical, but there are many hidden dangers without the veto right for the most powerful countries in the world. A proxy war is bad, but it is much better than a war between powerful countries
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
So a conventional war between the US and the Soviet Union had been better than the two local wars they fought? Is that what you are saying? The veto prevent from open confrontations, even if I am not personally not so positive to some of the use of the veto. We have not seen a world without these veto rights, so it is very theoretical, but there are many hidden dangers without the veto right for the most powerful countries in the world. A proxy war is bad, but it is much better than a war between powerful countries
Don't ask me ask the countries who's affairs those two have meddled in for the last 70 years so they can fight out some proxy war of ideologies at the cost of countless Afghan, Vietnamese, Palestinian etc. lives, I am prepared to bet that very few third world countries would shed a tear over the demise of either or both of them.

Here is an interesting little fact for ya, the UN involvement in the Korean conflict was only made possible because Russia had walked out of the UN over Taiwan holding the Chinese veto right otherwise they would have vetoed the resolution that got the UN involved in Korea.
January 26th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
Don't ask me ask the countries who's affairs those two have meddled in for the last 70 years so they can fight out some proxy war of ideologies at the cost of countless Afghan, Vietnamese, Palestinian etc. lives, I am prepared to bet that very few third world countries would shed a tear over the demise of either or both of them.

One dead is a tragedy, one million dead are statistic, how many people do you think had died if it had been an open conflict between the US and the Soviet Union? Of the two evil we must choose the lesser evil, it was bad for the people in Vietnam and it was bad for the people in the Afghanistan, but they were not casualties of a total war between the superpowers back then, if they were, they had only been a footnote. And I really need to sleep, this is interesting, can we continue tomorrow?
--
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
One dead is a tragedy, one million dead are statistic, how many people do you think had died if it had been an open conflict between the US and the Soviet Union? Of the two evil we must choose the lesser evil, it was bad for the people in Vietnam and it was bad for the people in the Afghanistan, but they were not casualties of a total war between the superpowers back then, if they were, they had only been a footnote
I am not sure quoting Stalin is going to help your cause here and why must we choose the lesser of two evils why can't we choose what is right?
January 26th, 2012  
I3BrigPvSk
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
I am not sure quoting Stalin is going to help your cause here and why must we choose the lesser of two evils why can't we choose what is right?

Damn it! I cannot go to bed now. This is so interesting. What is right and what is wrong? Who decide that? You? Me? The United States? The Soviet Union? China? To quote Stalin has it purpose, what do you prefer? One dead or one million? The consequences of removing the veto can be the latter. The proxy wars ongoing during the cold war were really bad, but a war between them back then, I preferred these proxy wars, or low intensity conflicts
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghostrider
Damn it! I cannot go to bed now. This is so interesting. What is right and what is wrong? Who decide that? You? Me? The United States? The Soviet Union? China? To quote Stalin has it purpose, what do you prefer? One dead or one million? The consequences of removing the veto can be the latter. The proxy wars ongoing during the cold war were really bad, but a war between them back then, I preferred these proxy wars, or low intensity conflicts
The reality is you haven't proved that removing the veto would lead to the dire consequences you suggest hell to date you haven't even given me a positive that has come from a veto.

I would also suggest that "right" is far more accurately determined by a collective decision from 200 countries as opposed to 5.

I also have no doubt you do prefer proxy wars, those of us in countries that are not fighting them most frequently do.
January 26th, 2012  
fireoverwater
 
The UN ceased to being anything on the world stage decades ago.
Their solution to everything is continual talks and idle threats to these renegade countries and if military intervention is authorised; the limitations placed on the troops virtually make it impossible to do their jobs.

Australia should have left the UN years ago
January 26th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
So what fat people don't get 2 votes and obese people 4.
that's discrimination.

Quote:
1 vote 1 country and no veto, increase the security council to 20 (incorporating the 5 permanent members+15 elected) and require 75% support for the security council to enact a resolution.
If they vote for that in the general assembly and it gets a 75% support I'm in.

Quote:
If it gains more than 50% support in the security council but falls short of 75% then the vote goes to the General Assembly at which point it only requires 50%+.
The problem with the General Assembly is that the resolutions are not binding, so transferring the vote from the security counsil to the general assembly has no use.

Quote:
In this way the UN becomes representative of the worlds views (useful for a world organisation) and no one can hide behind a protecting power with veto.
You are right about that but isn't it a bit dangerous. How would Russia react if the SC demands a military intervention in Syria? When the big powers cannot veto each other doesn't that enhance the chance of conflict?
January 26th, 2012  
VDKMS
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by fireoverwater
The UN ceased to being anything on the world stage decades ago.
Their solution to everything is continual talks and idle threats to these renegade countries and if military intervention is authorised; the limitations placed on the troops virtually make it impossible to do their jobs.

Australia should have left the UN years ago
The UN is not only about military intervention. They have lots of other departments that do a really good job.
January 26th, 2012  
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by VDKMS
You are right about that but isn't it a bit dangerous. How would Russia react if the SC demands a military intervention in Syria? When the big powers cannot veto each other doesn't that enhance the chance of conflict?
If Russia wants to take on the world over Syria then go for it but remember Russia like the USA and every other country on earth is interlinked through economies and therefore I believe it is unlikely the Russians would let there economy collapse over Syria.
 


Similar Topics
Turkey's military in turmoil as top brass quit (Reuters)
Japan defers tax hike plan as PM sets conditions to quit (Reuters)
Calls grow for Japan PM to quit in wake of quake (Reuters)
Palestinians plan fund to help quit settlements (AP)
Finns, Danes to quit S.Lanka monitors