Replace the UN with something not involving Russia?

[Novorobo]

Sorry, I definitely worded that wrong. Get rid of the permanent member status within the Security Council. Reform it to make it more open and accountable to the rest of the member nations, though at the same time grant more executive authority to carry out legislation and actions approved by the General Assembly.

You're joking right?

If you abolish the permanent members you risk having sociopaths like North Korea to replace them, or countries with disgusting human rights like Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea and Sudan.

I'm in no hurry to have the UN voting on resolutions for approved haircuts or whether or not women can use bicycles.

I somehow doubt the vast majority of the world's countries would want those countries on the security council.

[Hyfling]

NATO exists.

I'd axe the WWII Winners Club Security Council though.

[Andarro]

You're joking right?

If you abolish the permanent members you risk having sociopaths like North Korea to replace them, or countries with disgusting human rights like Burma, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Libya, North Korea and Sudan.

I'm in no hurry to have the UN voting on resolutions for approved haircuts or whether or not women can use bicycles.

I somehow doubt the vast majority of the world's countries would want those countries on the security council.

Agreed, but I don't think we should underestimate the ability of stupid people to screw things up for the planet.

[The Alma Mater]

And now Russia has vetoed investigation of MH17.

At the very least, does the UN have the authority to strip Russia of its veto power?

They didn't veto the investigation of MH17. They vetoed the proscecution of the people the US accused of shooting down MH17. There is 0, 0 credible evidence as to who shot down MH17, just as there was no Evidence of Assad gassing his own civilians or Saddam's WMDs or who opened fire first on Maidan square, yet everyone in the western media was 100% sure about it.

In fact, the Russians supported the idea of an international body investigating into the matter.

Really ? This is the text Russia actually vetoed: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc ... S/2015/562

It explicitly asks all countries to help the investigation, bring the ones responsible to justice and publicly reaffirm that shooting down civilian airplanes is a bad thing (tm). It does not make any accusations.

Where did you get your information ?

[The Greater Lebanon]

just as there was no Evidence of Assad gassing his own civilians .

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jun/16/syria-assad-regime-is-weaponising-chlorine-us-congress-to-hear

http://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/syria-chemicals-used-idlib-attacks

One become an obvious Assad-fan boy when they continue to deny such events. Especially in a war where the regime is responsible for most of the casualties and more killed than Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda as an organization.

[Cederland]

The UN is for all nations, even rather psychotic ones, that includes Russia, Iran, and Palestine, even if they are all homophobic nations that kill civilians.

I do think Russia' UN veto power should gtfo though, give it to Australia.

[Imperializt Russia]

It didn't bring them directly into the war, but IIRC America did lend support after this, and it led to international outrage which harmed Germany's position.

it certainly helped put public opinion against Germany, but, y'know, these sorts of incidents are always played up after the fact. Universal condemnation of its sinking in the states would only be come to be after the American entry. I'm willing to bet that if the NATO-Russia war materialized we'd be talking about MH370 differently.

Not really. MH17 was downed accidentally. The Lucitania was purposefully targeted as part of unrestricted submarine warfare.

[Imperializt Russia]

NATO exists.

I'd axe the WWII Winners Club Security Council though.

It's not the WWII Winners Club, it's the original Nuclear Club.

That's why they have permanent veto.

[The Archregimancy]

NATO exists.

I'd axe the WWII Winners Club Security Council though.

It's not the WWII Winners Club, it's the original Nuclear Club.

That's why they have permanent veto.

No, it's the WWII winners club.

Or, as Wiki sayeth:

The Security Council consists of fifteen members. The great powers that were the victors of World War II—Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body's five permanent members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ty_Council

That the veto was given to 'the original Nuclear Club' on the basis of their nuclear status is easily disproved.

The Security Council held its first meeting on 17 January 1946, at which point the 5 permanent members were already in place. Their status as the 'Big Five' with veto power was decided at the Yalta conference in 1945.

At the point that the Council first met, only the United States had nuclear weapons; and Yalta, where the make-up of the Security Council was decided, was held 5 months before the US conducted its first weapons test.

The USSR's first nuclear weapons test was in 1949, the UK's in 1952, France's in 1960, and the PRC's not until 1964; and of course the state that held China's seat in the UN at the latter date (and would do so until 1971) has never had nuclear weapons.

[Kubra]

it certainly helped put public opinion against Germany, but, y'know, these sorts of incidents are always played up after the fact. Universal condemnation of its sinking in the states would only be come to be after the American entry. I'm willing to bet that if the NATO-Russia war materialized we'd be talking about MH370 differently.

Not really. MH17 was downed accidentally. The Lucitania was purposefully targeted as part of unrestricted submarine warfare.

by all accounts, the USS Maine sunk of its own accord, and anti-war congressmen had a point in saying that the Lusitania was fair game. I knew a couple dudes who wanted to go to war over MH17. Interpretation of events is largely political.
also lol called it MH370, my bad.

[Shofercia]

Can we just call the US's army the UN Peace Keepers because a that's what they are

I must've missed the mandates for peacekeeping in Iraq and Libya. Can you find those for me?

NATO exists.

I'd axe the WWII Winners Club Security Council though.

Yeah, would we need things that can stop wars from escalating? Let's just nuke each other /sarcasm

One become an obvious Assad-fan boy when they continue to deny such events. Especially in a war where the regime is responsible for most of the casualties and more killed than Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda as an organization.

Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all

The UN is for all nations, even rather psychotic ones, that includes Russia, Iran, and Palestine, even if they are all homophobic nations that kill civilians.

I do think Russia' UN veto power should gtfo though, give it to Australia.

The countries that have the veto power are those that can stand up to the remaining UNSC countries. And what the fuck is Australia going to do to help enforcement? Send in the Kangaroo Army? You're confusing the UNSC with the Human Rights Council.

It's not the WWII Winners Club, it's the original Nuclear Club.

That's why they have permanent veto.

No, it's the WWII winners club.

Or, as Wiki sayeth:

The Security Council consists of fifteen members. The great powers that were the victors of World War II—Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, and the United States—serve as the body's five permanent members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ty_Council

That the veto was given to 'the original Nuclear Club' on the basis of their nuclear status is easily disproved.

The Security Council held its first meeting on 17 January 1946, at which point the 5 permanent members were already in place. Their status as the 'Big Five' with veto power was decided at the Yalta conference in 1945.

At the point that the Council first met, only the United States had nuclear weapons; and Yalta, where the make-up of the Security Council was decided, was held 5 months before the US conducted its first weapons test.

The USSR's first nuclear weapons test was in 1949, the UK's in 1952, France's in 1960, and the PRC's not until 1964; and of course the state that held China's seat in the UN at the latter date (and would do so until 1971) has never had nuclear weapons.

Wiki can sayeth, but Nationalist China was regarded, originally, as the winner of WWII, with PRC's aid. Then we had a continuation of the Chinese Civil War, where the PRC first took over Nationalist China's capital, and later, Nationalist China's UNSC seat. You can lose your UN seat if you lose power. Winning WWII helps get you there. But in order to stay, you have to be a powerful net power projector. If it was just WWII Winner's Club and nothing else, then Taipei, not Beijing, would have the UNSC seat.

[The Greater Lebanon]

One become an obvious Assad-fan boy when they continue to deny such events. Especially in a war where the regime is responsible for most of the casualties and more killed than Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda as an organization.

Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all

The Taliban were horrible and yes they raped and in my opinion are evil. That doesn't make Assad any better. My comparison with Al Qaeda was merely to stand out and make one really think.

[Shofercia]

Let's say that you somehow managed to take away Russia's UNSC veto power, and the UN, followed by the UNSC, passes a resolution saying that Russia must return Crimea to Ukraine.

Russia responds: "we are willing to have Crimea managed by our fellow SCO member states, until such a time that the people can be ready to a hold another Referendum Vote, monitored by the international community as a whole; once said vote takes place, all UN member states must recognize the result of the vote. If anyone dares to try to take Crimea by force, we will escalate, including the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary."

How many countries would be willing to fight a potentially nuclear war with Russia, in order to return Crimea to Ukraine, against the will of the Crimean People. Because if your answer is "not enough to make the war take place," congratulations, you've just discredited the UNSC and the UN as a whole. And if your answer is "enough to make the war take place," congratulations, you've just started a war that could end in a nuclear apocalypse, over an issue of minor importance to the Global Community.

[Shofercia]

Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all

The Taliban were horrible and yes they raped and in my opinion are evil. That doesn't make Assad any better. My comparison with Al Qaeda was merely to stand out and make one really think.

My point is that you just made an improper comparison. You've taken a small subsection of the Taliban, and compared their killing rate to that of an entire country. Do you seriously not see the problem with that comparison? It shouldn't make anyone think, because the comparison is thoughtless. It's like saying "Beria personally killed less than the US police department, makes you really think about things, doesn't it?"

[Great Confederacy of Commonwealth States]

Can we just call the US's army the UN Peace Keepers because a that's what they are

I must've missed the mandates for peacekeeping in Iraq and Libya. Can you find those for me?

NATO exists.

I'd axe the WWII Winners Club Security Council though.

Yeah, would we need things that can stop wars from escalating? Let's just nuke each other /sarcasm

One become an obvious Assad-fan boy when they continue to deny such events. Especially in a war where the regime is responsible for most of the casualties and more killed than Osama bin laden and Al Qaeda as an organization.

Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all

The UN is for all nations, even rather psychotic ones, that includes Russia, Iran, and Palestine, even if they are all homophobic nations that kill civilians.

I do think Russia' UN veto power should gtfo though, give it to Australia.

The countries that have the veto power are those that can stand up to the remaining UNSC countries. And what the fuck is Australia going to do to help enforcement? Send in the Kangaroo Army? You're confusing the UNSC with the Human Rights Council.

No, it's the WWII winners club.

Or, as Wiki sayeth:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ty_Council

That the veto was given to 'the original Nuclear Club' on the basis of their nuclear status is easily disproved.

The Security Council held its first meeting on 17 January 1946, at which point the 5 permanent members were already in place. Their status as the 'Big Five' with veto power was decided at the Yalta conference in 1945.

At the point that the Council first met, only the United States had nuclear weapons; and Yalta, where the make-up of the Security Council was decided, was held 5 months before the US conducted its first weapons test.

The USSR's first nuclear weapons test was in 1949, the UK's in 1952, France's in 1960, and the PRC's not until 1964; and of course the state that held China's seat in the UN at the latter date (and would do so until 1971) has never had nuclear weapons.

Wiki can sayeth, but Nationalist China was regarded, originally, as the winner of WWII, with PRC's aid. Then we had a continuation of the Chinese Civil War, where the PRC first took over Nationalist China's capital, and later, Nationalist China's UNSC seat. You can lose your UN seat if you lose power. Winning WWII helps get you there. But in order to stay, you have to be a powerful net power projector. If it was just WWII Winner's Club and nothing else, then Taipei, not Beijing, would have the UNSC seat.

Well, no, you don't have to be a net power projector. You just have to be one of the nations (or the obvious successor) of a state mentioned in article 23. The PRC is the obvious successor of the Chinese Republic, so they get the seat. The UN stopped recognising Taiwan was the Republic of China a long time ago.

[Qart chadast]

Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all

The Taliban were horrible and yes they raped and in my opinion are evil. That doesn't make Assad any better. My comparison with Al Qaeda was merely to stand out and make one really think.

There are many nations worse then Al-Qaeda in terms of killing others, just take a look at Russia, US, UK ect. ect. Its not like Assad is an exeption or something like that. Even the FSA, who are supposed to be the "good guys" are just as bad.

[The Greater Lebanon]

The Taliban were horrible and yes they raped and in my opinion are evil. That doesn't make Assad any better. My comparison with Al Qaeda was merely to stand out and make one really think.

My point is that you just made an improper comparison. You've taken a small subsection of the Taliban, and compared their killing rate to that of an entire country. Do you seriously not see the problem with that comparison? It shouldn't make anyone think, because the comparison is thoughtless. It's like saying "Beria personally killed less than the US police department, makes you really think about things, doesn't it?"

No its an ideological comparison, there are a lot of uneducated people who believe that Assad and his regime is a good , a heroic ect.. which is a common thought amongst many Europeans, Russians, Americans, I guess some Asians and Latin Americans as well as opposed to Al Qaeda which is only viewed positively by a minority in the Islamic world. When you really compare the two start to think Oh gee that guy we thought was good and thought to be the defender of civlization in the Levant really isn't when you compare him to that all-evil Al Qaeda organization that has killed people as well.

[The Archregimancy]

No, it's the WWII winners club.

Or, as Wiki sayeth:



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Na ... ty_Council

That the veto was given to 'the original Nuclear Club' on the basis of their nuclear status is easily disproved.

The Security Council held its first meeting on 17 January 1946, at which point the 5 permanent members were already in place. Their status as the 'Big Five' with veto power was decided at the Yalta conference in 1945.

At the point that the Council first met, only the United States had nuclear weapons; and Yalta, where the make-up of the Security Council was decided, was held 5 months before the US conducted its first weapons test.

The USSR's first nuclear weapons test was in 1949, the UK's in 1952, France's in 1960, and the PRC's not until 1964; and of course the state that held China's seat in the UN at the latter date (and would do so until 1971) has never had nuclear weapons.

Wiki can sayeth, but Nationalist China was regarded, originally, as the winner of WWII, with PRC's aid. Then we had a continuation of the Chinese Civil War, where the PRC first took over Nationalist China's capital, and later, Nationalist China's UNSC seat. You can lose your UN seat if you lose power. Winning WWII helps get you there. But in order to stay, you have to be a powerful net power projector. If it was just WWII Winner's Club and nothing else, then Taipei, not Beijing, would have the UNSC seat.

Nothing I wrote should be construed as noting anything other than the original rationale for selecting the five permanent members of the Security Council, and granting them a veto.

That was decided at Yalta before any of the five permanent members had even attempted a weapons test.

Anything beyond that is a subjective judgement on subsequent political events irrelevant to the basic historical point I was making.

[United States Kingdom]

I must've missed the mandates for peacekeeping in Iraq and Libya. Can you find those for me?




Yeah, would we need things that can stop wars from escalating? Let's just nuke each other /sarcasm






Yeah, because we all know how peaceful Afghanistan was during the Taliban's reign, and how women weren't raped at all




The countries that have the veto power are those that can stand up to the remaining UNSC countries. And what the fuck is Australia going to do to help enforcement? Send in the Kangaroo Army? You're confusing the UNSC with the Human Rights Council.




Wiki can sayeth, but Nationalist China was regarded, originally, as the winner of WWII, with PRC's aid. Then we had a continuation of the Chinese Civil War, where the PRC first took over Nationalist China's capital, and later, Nationalist China's UNSC seat. You can lose your UN seat if you lose power. Winning WWII helps get you there. But in order to stay, you have to be a powerful net power projector. If it was just WWII Winner's Club and nothing else, then Taipei, not Beijing, would have the UNSC seat.

Well, no, you don't have to be a net power projector. You just have to be one of the nations (or the obvious successor) of a state mentioned in article 23. The PRC is the obvious successor of the Chinese Republic, so they get the seat. The UN stopped recognising Taiwan was the Republic of China a long time ago.

The continent of Africa has the most nations in the UN. Communist China, being very smart, began to support the liberation movements of various Africans, and that would work to their favor since part of the reason the PRC was kicked out was because nearly all of the African nations voted for the PRC to get the Security Council seat.

[Shofercia]

My point is that you just made an improper comparison. You've taken a small subsection of the Taliban, and compared their killing rate to that of an entire country. Do you seriously not see the problem with that comparison? It shouldn't make anyone think, because the comparison is thoughtless. It's like saying "Beria personally killed less than the US police department, makes you really think about things, doesn't it?"

No its an ideological comparison, there are a lot of uneducated people who believe that Assad and his regime is a good , a heroic ect.. which is a common thought amongst many Europeans, Russians, Americans, I guess some Asians and Latin Americans as well as opposed to Al Qaeda which is only viewed positively by a minority in the Islamic world. When you really compare the two start to think Oh gee that guy we thought was good and thought to be the defender of civlization in the Levant really isn't when you compare him to that all-evil Al Qaeda organization that has killed people as well.

Just because it's an ideological comparison, doesn't make it valid, since you're not using it to compare ideologies, you're using it to compare atrocities.

[Esternial]

Yes, and while we're at it let's block them on Facebook.

[Harkback Union]

Yes, and while we're at it let's block them on Facebook.

And ban them from NS.

[Oneracon]

What sort of idea is this? The whole point of the UN is at least pretending that the whole world community is working together for the good of all. Eliminating the veto power of the Permanent Member of the UN Security Council, on the other hand, is something that is long overdue.

Also of note, the General Assemby can override a Security Council veto in accordance with Resolution 377 A ("Uniting for Peace"). It's been used approximately 10 times since it was passed in the early 1950s, most prominently to establish the UN Emergency Force for the purpose of resolving the Suez Crisis in 1956 - when Britain and France repeatedly vetoed any Security Council resolution since they were the ones occupying the canal.