Looking over the use of vetos and what they were used for, it seems to me on thing is really common. A veto vote is used by a country usually when the overwhelming majority want the opposite. Say 121-1 for Sanctions against South Africa. 121 votes are for, and the one vote is a veto vote. Looking at the vetos, you can see the current Israel-Palestine, as well as Iran situation could have been avoided, if not completly taken care of, had it not been for all the veto votes against any actions on Israel, Iran, Palestine. This can also be said for quite a number of instances. So would completly abolishing the veto enable the UN to be more effective?
Would the UN be more effective
- Thread starter RichardE
- Start date
Whoozyerdaddy
Lifer
- Jun 27, 2005
- 19,251
- 1
- 61
As long as the US can keep its veto, I'd support taking it away from everyone else 
There are too many countries that are less civilized than the US (even under Bush) for us to give up the veto and let the mob rule.
There are too many countries that are less civilized than the US (even under Bush) for us to give up the veto and let the mob rule.
I think the veto idea is stupid. It's basically giving one country control over the entire body, regardless of the merit of the proposal. They could allow a veto if it could be overridden like we have in the US, but to say that these countries can veto and that's the end of it is ridiculous.
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
As long as the US can keep its veto, I'd support taking it away from everyone else
There are too many countries that are less civilized than the US (even under Bush) for us to give up the veto and let the mob rule.
I would have thought that too, but it seems to US abuses its veto the most. With vetoing things that make no sense. Russia/USSR was the worst for the first 20 years, but after that the US became the worst it seems.
I think it would. The only reason it is there in the first place is because we had to make a compromise with the Soviet Union so we could get them to join. Since the Soviet Union no longer exists, there is no reason for the veto power anymore.
An analysis based on effectiveness is dependent of what effectiveness actually is. The problem is that everybody thinks they know what they actually do not. Additionally, a full understanding of any situation cannot be based on effectiveness alone otherwise the bullet will be prescribed for disease. It is 100% effective in eliminating all your ills.
3chordcharlie
Diamond Member
- Mar 30, 2004
- 9,859
- 1
- 81
I tend to agree, a veto that defeats any vote is a recipe for inaction, and that has really hurt the situation in the middle east over the last few decades.
The UN reflect the world at the end of WWII. In the last 60 years diplomats have built skills in an environment that has some rules, including the veto from permanent members of the security council. Without veto options the UN security council wouln't even exist. It's very unlikely that you can get the 5 permanent members to give up on that power. No country wants to lose power for free.
The UN would be more effective if it had a permanent indipendent security force, taking orders from the UN nly. It was in the original plans, and from time to time somebody tries to resurrect the idea. It is obviously a very unpopular idea. Again, nations like to keep the exlusive control over the use of force, and see no reason to change this.
The UN would be more effective if it had a permanent indipendent security force, taking orders from the UN nly. It was in the original plans, and from time to time somebody tries to resurrect the idea. It is obviously a very unpopular idea. Again, nations like to keep the exlusive control over the use of force, and see no reason to change this.
The use of a concept like less civilized is acceptable only in primary school debates. Get an education, and I mean a real one.
PC nonsense and witless ad hominem.
Many countries in the UN are less civilized than the US because of despotic or radical religious leadership, lack of respect for human rights, and/or the chaos from tribal warfare.
Do you think Zimbabwe should be considered a first-class state under Mugabe?
Apparently this also describes the United States, perhaps they should lose the veto vote as well. Your idea of a civilized country is another persons imperialistic murdering country. It is all subjective. The question was, would more get done without the veto being used. Russia used theres mostly to block other countries from joining in retaliation to the rest of the UN blocking Soviet States. The US has used theres to mostly quash any retaliation on Israels ethnic cleansing. So without the veto, it looks like a alot of problems could have actually been resolved.
There is a difference between the US' Freedom Tickling and the mass rape, murder and mutilation in the Sudan, self-inflicted famine and mass destruction of homes in Zimbabwe, and so on.
The US isn't currently living up to its ideals under Bush, but we're still far better ("more civilized") than many countries in the UN.
The US isn't currently living up to its ideals under Bush, but we're still far better ("more civilized") than many countries in the UN.
What about the security council? You are evading the question, the majority of the US vetoes were regarding Israel, the majority of vetoes are one sided. 121-1, 120-2 ect on the UN resolutions. So what you are saying is the US is more civilized than "every" country in the world. This goes the same with the other countries that have veto power. It doesn't matter if the US is more "civilized" as you like, there are 100+ countries that vote. It doesn't really matter how civilized the country is, a 100+ votes is a good balacing factor. As well, perhaps, the representatives of the country of say Palestine or the countries neighboring South African and China might have a better idea of what is good for there country than the security council members who use there veto vote to push through there own political agendas.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,100
- 5,640
- 126
I don't that would have the desired effect as there are other problems regarding UN Actions, like when Nations just drag their feet on an issue until it's too late.
I think something that might help the situation regarding vetoes is to take away an individual Nation's ability to Veto. Perhaps require multiple Nations to call for a Veto before a Veto comes into effect. Or require a vote on a Veto, Majority wins.
I think something that might help the situation regarding vetoes is to take away an individual Nation's ability to Veto. Perhaps require multiple Nations to call for a Veto before a Veto comes into effect. Or require a vote on a Veto, Majority wins.
We need to keep the veto.
Do you realize how many Muslims(unfait to other countries) have high end or top positions in the organization ?
Veto is necc. to keep things in-check.
Do you realize how many Muslims(unfait to other countries) have high end or top positions in the organization ?
Veto is necc. to keep things in-check.
I would suggest you read the history of the veto use, it is used mostly to defend Israel, to defend South Africa, defend China's actions. Yes there are some instaces where a veto was a good thing, but mostly it is one country going against the world.
My personal stance is abolish a single veto, require a 4/5 security council veto, and up the members in the security council.
Well i think other then what i first stated to get rid of the whole UN then.
Only other thing i can think up of without knowing the votes is to have a few countries shielded from their Bias then sure remove it.
I would rather see the UN gone before that though.
Only other thing i can think up of without knowing the votes is to have a few countries shielded from their Bias then sure remove it.
I would rather see the UN gone before that though.
============================
Your from canada huh ? No offense to you but.
only reason Un never spoke out against Canada is because they dont do anything or reply to any world P&N. LOL
UN is worthless. I vote dump them.
The UN would be effective without a veto. The current ME problem would have been dealt with, if not for the power of the Veto. Why might I ask do you think the UN is worthless?
I find it highly ironic that the people who want to do away with the UN fail to acknowledge that the United States has used its veto more in the last 20 years than all the other veto wielding nations combined.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter