To all who voted to keep veto power as it is:
You're horrible people. You're basically saying "these 5 superpowers should rule over everyone else and be held accountable to no one"
Signature in progress...
Fact of the matter is: A veto skews the decision in favour of the one claiming the veto. Which means that even if everyone else is against a certain decision, the holder of a veto can still push it, and go on regardless. If there was no veto, there would probably be as many wars, but at least we wouldn't be holding up a pretense of fairness and universal agreement. Maybe that would mean those countries wouldn't want to be in the UN. Hell; they probably wouldn't want to be in an organization that could democratically decide against their actions (when aimed against other countries). At least it would be honest.
Edit to that: And as a citizen of a country that doesn't have a war-driven economy, I'm getting fed up with the fact that our treasuries are getting depleted by various wars we didn't want to partake in, but were forced to partake in anyway.
Last edited by Stir; 2013-09-05 at 05:42 PM.
- - - Updated - - -
- - - Updated - - -
Might makes right in the international relations and the existence of UN mitigates this partially, at least if you manage to befriend at least one of the permanent members anyway.
There is no point in having a un security council. The odds of our nations ever coming together on an issue are 0. Russia and china will never militarily side with the usa, it has never happened and will never happen. We should just strengthen nato and forget about the un security council when we have an issue.
If might makes right, then handing more might to the already mighty makes you very wrong. If you're not the one who's receiving that might.
Without the veto, the UN becomes more of a puppet than a consensus organization. I think the world would be a scarier place without that veto.
UN's purpose is not to prevent wars anyway. UN's purpose is to prevent World Wars.
My Little Borg: Friendship is Irrelevant
veto power still there to prevent the "dictatorship of the majority" without it every UN vote will become a race btw who has more vassals countries, it will lead soon enought to a scenario where those who always get the short end of the stick wage war against the other side basically another world war; with veto power if one of the five don't like a resolution put a veto without losing it's face.
In the end is all about pride, but if the system prevent the big five to fight each other i don't care.
How about we let the parenting of kids to... their parents? No, seriously, World of Warcraft is a videogame. Gaming it's supposed to be a fun activity (if you have that fun through challenges, social interactions, etc is completely up to you). Not some kind of "School of Hard Knocks about the Real World".
By all means, talk about the world that should be, but I prefer to work with the world that is. And in that world might makes right.
- - - Updated - - -
The only change that needs to occur within the Security Council is the addition of Germany, Japan, and India as permanent members.
There is a modern myth that people have always tended towards democracy, constitutions, electoral rights; but in truth, love of freedom has never been the predominant note of popular politics. At most times, popular demand has been for a strong government.- Eugen Weber
Who said the goal if the UN was that no one would ever fight?
Europe is already very well represented, if not overly so. I think Germany realized this and is thus not seeking membership like it was in the past.
Japan's membership would be utterly self-serving as no neighbor really likes them. They'd just mimic what the US wants. That goes against the idea of a security council.
I agree on India obviously and would like to add Brazil. Any expansion of the council without Brazil would be dishonest.