|
Please guys, stay on topic.
This thread is about the situation in Iraq and Syria. |
On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status.
False and incorrect.
France and the UK are not more powerful by a wide margin than Germany, Australia, Japan, Canada, Israel, etc.
All 5 members have been in place since 1946, since they won WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
|
Do these rebels have any credible representation ? I'm asking because I think that we should wait with the intervention untill we get some sort of guarantee that it won't get worse after Assad will be removed.
|
On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created.
Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members.
True and correct, sorry bro but you don't know what you're talking about go read 2-3 books about the San Francisco Conference before you start linking to Wikipedia and acting like you know history.
It was well-known at the conference that the UK, France and Russia were working on nuclear weapons and that the former 2 based their future claim to permanent status (particularly France) to their soon-to-be nuclear weapons. China was added as a counterweight to Russia (which Russia supported as they expected the Nationalists to soon lose which they did).
It's not a coincidence that the 5 nuclear monopoly powers are the 5 permanent veto-wielding UNSC powers, possession of nuclear weapons was very much a big deal at the conference even though the US was the only country with nukes at the time.
Also France and UK are both more powerful (conventional military-wise) by a wide margin over Germany, Australia, and Canada. They have significant navies, those countries do not. Japan does not have nuclear weapons, France and the UK do. Israel has a more powerful army and also has nuclear weapons but their air forces are about the same and Israel does not have a very powerful navy. Israel cannot project power much past the Middle East unless it's Mossad assassins. France and the UK can still project power over most of the globe.
|
On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war.
Your confusing purpose with result. UN security council does enable that function, the winners of world war 2 can veto terms, but that is not the premise for it. The intent was to enable a forum to deal with such international issues, with force if necessary in the aftermath of WW2.
On September 05 2013 06:07 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. False and incorrect. France and the UK are not more powerful by a wide margin than Germany, Australia, Japan, Canada, Israel, etc. All 5 members have been in place since 1946, since they won WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
None of those the countries have military capabilities of the UN 5. They have no blue water navies.
The closest candidate is actually India.
|
|
|
On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status.
Powerful in which regard? Russia's economy as well as their non nuclear military power has been surpassed by at least a dozen other countries by now. And their are a lot of states that are en par with France and the UK.
And how can you not possibly know that India,Pakistan,Israel and North Korea are also nuclear powers?
The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2
|
On September 05 2013 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created. Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members.
I was talking about the nuclear weapon part if you didn't notice.
|
On September 05 2013 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created. Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members.
Maybe its because the US likes have 2 extra votes all the time.
|
On September 05 2013 02:46 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 01:18 Gladimor wrote:
The USA is all so excited to invade Syria only for its very efficient oil pipelines and its import/export harbor. The Obama Administration and its funders dont care about any Dictatorship or Syria's 23 million citizens. To them, it's the billions made from weapon investments and a Western company running those Middle Eastern Oil Pipelines. Just see what they did to Libya. what oil pipelines? Syria isnt part of any oil pipeline system.
google pipelineistan bro.
|
|
|
On September 05 2013 04:15 DeepElemBlues wrote:That Afghan UNOCAL pipeline get built yet? People are still seriously falling for dumbshit conspiracy theories like "it's so an oil pipeline can get built!" ? Again, whatever happened to that pipeline in Afghanistan that we wanted built and was the real reason we invaded there? You know, that pipeline that never ever got built... then the excuse was rare earth metals and other mineral resources... then those resources never got mined out... but now it's Syria, and this time guys, it is definitely for real forreal that the reason we didn't do jack for two and a half years but are now about to do something is we want to build an oil pipeline. Not doing anything for two and a half years was just the smokescreen. "Pipeline politics" requires, at some point, pipelines to actually be built in these countries that we've invaded or attacked because we want to build and control a pipeline there. Just one. Just one single little pipeline, please. What happened to those exclusive contracts Chevron and ExxonMobil were supposed to get in Iraq? Actually you can still find idiots who believe that Afghanistan was invaded to build a pipeline (that 12 years later has not even been started)... http://mondoweiss.net/2013/09/the-long-war-syria-is-at-the-crux-of-pipeline-geopolitics.htmlAnd the Grauniad is of course always willing to publish useful idiots. Also if you really believe Obama's garbage about how he didn't set a red line and the world's credibility is on the line not his, would you believe that bullshit if the situation was exactly the same except that a Republican was president? Tell me another one.
Given the fact everyone else outside of US mainstream media talks about this and the fact that it reliably predicts all the players actions its pretty rock solid.
Russia is involved because of their monopoly and the establishment of a eurasian natural gas cartel.
|
On September 05 2013 05:38 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:33 Ghanburighan wrote:1. There's a reason why smart people speak in gentle tones. But honestly, stop spouting conspiracy theory nonsense while there's so much interesting to follow at the moment. For example, 2. we can now see how Obama's gambit is making the GOP implode: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dFSeTm2.png) 1. That's sentimental nonsense. 2. How is that the GOP imploding? You've got the old line Clinton Democrats lining up behind Obama and the new wave young liberals against him, is that the Democratic Party imploding? No.
1. Was a comment on the bold and capital letters used in the preceding post for which the poster was duly warned.
2. Rubio is one of the main contenders to be a presidential candidate. His no is widely seen as splitting the vote (the first significant "no") within the GOP, with the aim of pandering to the tea party. Yet, what follows is that the tea party is still sceptical of Rubio (because they are insane), Rubio losing face among the moderates and, thus, one of the stronger contenders for the presidency loses potency. How many good candidates does the GOP have? Last time they ended up with Mitt Rmoney.
|
On September 05 2013 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2
Exactly and because the US and the UK felt bad about the French, who didn't fully oppose Germany after 1940 (not that they had the choice lol).
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho.
On September 05 2013 06:16 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created. Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members. Maybe its because the US likes have 2 extra votes all the time.
The Security Council doesn't work like that lol. Having the French with a veto right was more like an hassle for the US. At least until 2007.
|
On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho.
No.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:15 Nyxisto wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2 Exactly and because the US and the UK felt bad about the French, who didn't fully oppose Germany after 1940 (not that they had the choice lol). The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:16 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 06:12 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 06:02 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 05:50 DeepElemBlues wrote:On September 05 2013 05:48 dsousa wrote:On September 05 2013 05:36 KwarK wrote:On September 05 2013 03:54 Asymmetric wrote:On September 05 2013 03:32 dUTtrOACh wrote:
The UN isn't about military retaliation against countries that violate their charters.
They impose economic sanctions, send peace-keepers, etc. I think this conflict has escalated beyond the ability to keep the peace and that leaves only sanctions and other economic actions on the table as far as Syria is concerned. If Obama or the US govt. think they can solve this matter simply by bombing the shit out of Syria from long-range they're simply wrong.
This isn't even about the credibility of International law. It's about the credibility of the Obama administration. International law says nothing about green-lighting military intervention by foreigners outside of peace-keeping roles just because a civil conflict has gotten way out of hand. No it isn't The entire point of the UN Security council was to provide the UN with the stick needed to discuss and enforce international security concerns post world war 2 after the league of nations completely failed to do so. It was specifically designed to have teeth and not repeat the spineless in-action that plagued the league of nations and contributed to complacency that led to WW2. Economic sanctions are the worst of all worlds, they hit civilians indiscriminately. Not true. The point of the security council is to make sure the UN can veto anything that threatens one of the 5 most powerful nations to avoid another world war. Note: not the 5 most powerful nations, but the 5 nations that opposed Germany in WW2. Note: those 5 nations actually are still the 5 most powerful nations by a wide margin plus they are the 5 nuclear monopoly powers which is the real reason they have the vetoes and permanent member status. Not the best explanation, the US were the only country with nuclear weapons when the Security Council was created. Actually that is the best explanation as to why the same 5 countries have permanent member status and the ability to veto today as did in 1945. There's certainly no other reason that France and Britain should still be permanent veto-wielding members. Maybe its because the US likes have 2 extra votes all the time. The Security Council doesn't work like that lol. Having the French with a veto right was more like an hassle for the US. At least until 2007.
To be fair India and Pakistan got their nuclear weapons against the wishes of the major powers. Rewarding that with a permanent seat in the SC might set a bad precedent.
Still the UK and France are regional powers that will be soon eclipsed by high population countries like India and Brazil. That needs to be reflected in the security council as well or they might find different ways to defend their interests.
|
Powerful in which regard? Russia's economy as well as their non nuclear military power has been surpassed by at least a dozen other countries by now. And their are a lot of states that are en par with France and the UK.
And how can you not possibly know that India,Pakistan,Israel and North Korea are also nuclear powers?
The reason those five nations have a veto right is because they were the victorious powers of WW2
Name these states. You can't because they don't exist.
It's obvious you're an ignoramus when you reply to "nuclear monopoly powers" with "don't you know India Pakistan Israel and North Korea have nukes?!" No duh they do, but they aren't nuclear monopoly powers, that is a specific term meaning a specific group of countries which you're obviously unaware of.
The reason 4 of those 5 nations were given veto power (given to them by themselves) is they're the nuclear monopoly powers, sorry. They didn't just put themselves on the USNC because they won the war. They were looking to the future.
Given the fact everyone else outside of US mainstream media talks about this and the fact that it reliably predicts all the players actions its pretty rock solid.
That is just some horribly awfully stupid reasoning.
1. What "everyone else" talks about doesn't mean jack shit as to the truth.
2. It doesn't "reliably predict" anything. Are you serious? Just what has this pipeline conspiracy theory reliably predicted?
Not the construction of pipelines, that's for sure.
Anyone can concoct a plausible theory and claim that it reliably predicts or describes behavior so it is not just plausible it is "pretty rock solid," but that's just total bullshit. The plausibility of a theory does not determine it's validity, what actually happens does.
There has been no reliable predictability. The pipelines were not built when this has been claimed in the past, now it is being claimed again and you say that its predictions are reliable? Ooooooooooooooooooooookay. No.
|
No one would give up that power.
France veto's UN motion to remove France from Security council.
|
On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No.
Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh.
I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc...
|
On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc...
Yes, its never meant anything. Other than to be a "legitimizer".
I don't think Russia approved of the US war with Vietnam.
|
On September 05 2013 06:47 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2013 06:45 Boblion wrote:On September 05 2013 06:34 dUTtrOACh wrote:On September 05 2013 06:26 Boblion wrote:
The nuclear weapon argument is a good idea to bring new members to the Security Council tho. No. Might be a bit off topic but why not ? Even the evil commies had the right to vote back then uh. I mean it is not like the Security Council can do shit if the US or Russia really want to go to war. Afghanistan, Iraq 2003 etc... Yes, its never meant anything. Other than to be a "legitimizer". I don't think Russia approved of the US war with Vietnam.
Beware, lest we be steered off-course even more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
