UN Upgrades Palestine to Non-Member Observer State

[Mr Khan]

RoryGamesFree said:

Mr Khan said:

RoryGamesFree said:

Mr Khan said:

 

I actually meant to make that post longer, but got distracted midway through then later submitted just what i had.

The security council and the veto understands the mistakes of the League of Nations. The problem with the League was that it ended up isolating a few of the major powers, namely Germany and Japan, who felt as though they were being diplomatically bullied and abused by the mainstream powers. World Peace is about making sure that the guys who are capable of launching World War feel that their diplomatic presence is equivalent to their military might, and hence, the veto. While the veto allows things like a lack of action against Syria or Iran or Israel, it also guarantees multipolarity, so long as the acknowledged major powers actually have different interests, and don't just collaborate to dump on the other countries.

The key to peace is balance.

no, it highlights and enhances the mistakes of the league of nations by making the UN even more of a bad joke and even more obviously biased. it allows the bullying cunts of the world to continue being so is what it does, it means that 90% of the world can decide something is wrong and then have one of the cuntnations say "nah, HAHAHAHAHA vetoed" whenever it suits them or their "friends". it's about as balanced as having a football match where one team has all it's players injured and has to field a bunch of people who don't know the rules playing against a team that has all the best players and also bribed the referee.

the key to peace is democracy and equality, the veto makes both impossible and your beloved balance is non existent as a result.

Let's say that 90% was against Russia, or America, or any one of the major powers. If they feel isolated and feel like the rest of the world is determined to railroad their interests into a corner and is out to get them; they'll go to war.

rubbish, they will be forced to comply is what will happen...and if they don't then they will be sanctioned and shit by the UN, that's how it should work...otherwise the UN is pointless...

if 90% of the world votes against you and CAN DO SOMETHING when they do, then you are forced to think about what you are doing rahter than continuing to do it, that would actually mean so much shit being stopped.

isolation from 90% of the rest of the world only happens if you do something majorly wrong that they all agree isn't okay...you deserve to have international law punish you if that's the case.

I assume you are American? I can think of few other types of people so arrogant as to argue in favor of the veto.

what's sad is, I am from the UK, but I actually want a proper UN so I am opposed to the veto, even if it means going against the interests of the UK, because frankly, I think global peace is more important that nationalist arrogance.

Sanctions and isolation work when you're not a great power (or great power wannabes like Hussein's Iraq or Qaddafi's Libya, proper rogue states). If you are a great power, however, like World War II Germany or Japan, just decide "ah hell with it. If i can't get my essential raw materials via trade, i'll just take over the Dutch East Indies or carve a path through the USSR to the Caucasus." If they're strong enough, they'll think they have a shot.