View Poll Results: What should become of the veto power?

Voters
87. You may not vote on this poll
  • American: Keep the veto power as it is.

    22 25.29%
  • American: Reform the veto power.

    9 10.34%
  • American: Abolish the veto power.

    9 10.34%
  • Other: Keep the veto power as it is.

    17 19.54%
  • Other: Reform the veto power.

    14 16.09%
  • Other: Abolish the veto power.

    16 18.39%
Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    One of the main reasons why Cold war stayed cold was the veto power, which prevented each side from doing something really dangerous to the other side and even with veto, it was a close call several times.
    The United Nations didn't do anything during the Cold War. The superpowers acted unilaterally (or with their allies) regardless of what the United Nations said. The veto power made no difference.

  2. #42
    Fluffy Kitten Baiyn's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    York, Blighty
    Posts
    5,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    Mayhap, but you have to realise that if you form a military alliance and start interfering in other countries, the only logical choice for those other countries is to form a military alliance of their own. From there on it is just a question of time before something happens.

    I disagree with your conclusion, yes people in Europe are less likely to get riled up by nationalism, but you just need to look outside of EU for nationalism. Also, real-time news foster apathy in the viewers. Wars would just take different form, in today's world conscript armies are already useless, so you might see wars without draft. Besides, if another world war starts, it will be short and brutal for everyone involved.
    Fair points. I might just be being overly optimistic about the power of a digitally connected world, but I would hope that anywhere that citizens have online access to free and unlimited information or, if they are really determined to find it, can easily circumvent government censorship of it they would be more globally conscious and individually-minded, making them less easily swayed by warmongering propaganda and simply wouldn't provide those administrations that disagree with proactive unilateral action taken by the democratic world with the man-power they would need to do anything about it. Sure, there are Big Brother states like North Korea but such underdeveloped and totalitarian countries only pose a serious threat to people within their own borders or those countries very close by.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    You cite World War I, I cite the Cold War.
    To be fair, were it not for level-headed individuals like Vasili Arkhipov, the Cold War could have been a lot hotter. xS

  3. #43
    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...

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    War-driven economy? Ah, I see, reason has no chance to succeed with you. If you think there would be less wars without the veto, you are just delusional.
    Ah; you're unwilling to actually argue and instead choose to attack me personally, telling me I am an unreasonable person. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

    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.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    How many large scale wars did the United Nations prevent exactly?

    Greece? Nope.
    Israel-Arab? Nope (times 3)
    India-Pakistan? Nope (times 3)
    China? Nope.
    Iran? Nope.
    Korea? Nope.
    Algeria? Nope.
    Suez Crisis? Nope.
    Tibet? Nope.
    Cuba? Nope.
    Warsaw Pact-Czechoslovakia? Nope.
    Vietnam? Nope.
    Cambodia? Nope.
    Laos? Nope.
    India-Portugal? Nope.
    Soviet-Afghanistan? Nope.
    Iran-Iraq? Nope.
    Grenada? Nope.
    Panama? Nope.
    Rwanda? Nope.
    Moldova? Nope.
    Yugoslavia? Nope.
    First Iraq? Nope.
    First Congo War? Nope.
    Second Congo War? Nope.
    American-Afghanistan? Nope.
    Second Iraq? Nope.
    Russia-Georgia? Nope.
    Syria? Nope.

    The list goes on and on. Which wars did the United Nations prevent again?
    That you think the Russian and Georgian conflict was large scale is a great example of the UNs success
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  6. #46
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic, Euro-Atlantic civilisation
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by SidheKnight View Post
    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"
    Ah, another idealist which has no clue how the world works.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Baiyn View Post
    Fair points. I might just be being overly optimistic about the power of a digitally connected world, but I would hope that anywhere that citizens have online access to free and unlimited information or, if they are really determined to find it, can easily circumvent government censorship of it they would be more globally conscious and individually-minded, making them less easily swayed by warmongering propaganda and simply wouldn't provide those administrations that disagree with proactive unilateral action taken by the democratic world with the man-power they would need to do anything about it. Sure, there are Big Brother states like North Korea but such underdeveloped and totalitarian countries only pose a serious threat to people within their own borders or those countries very close by.



    To be fair, were it not for level-headed individuals like Vasili Arkhipov, the Cold War could have been a lot hotter. xS
    Ah, you may be correct in about 30 years, but as of now the only truly connected people are the young, who are very weak both politically (they dont bother to vote for the most part and do not join traditional parties) and economically. Take the riots in Turkey as an example: There was an out-roar in the social network, there were a lot of harsh words said, but that did not prevent the Turkish government in clearing the protests. Same thing with Egypt.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    Ah; you're unwilling to actually argue and instead choose to attack me personally, telling me I am an unreasonable person. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy.

    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.
    And what would be the point of that democratic organisation pray tell? Only irrelevant countries would join it and it would be doomed to be utterly irrelevant from the beginning.

    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.
    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    someone who disagrees with me is simply wrong.

  7. #47
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Banned because I'm Badass!
    Posts
    2,936
    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.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Zoranon View Post
    And what would be the point of that democratic organisation pray tell? Only irrelevant countries would join it and it would be doomed to be utterly irrelevant from the beginning.

    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.
    You are correct; only 'irrelevant' countries would join. That means that 'irrelevant' countries can band together to no longer be as irrelevant.

    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.

  9. #49
    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.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    How many large scale wars did the United Nations prevent exactly?

    Greece? Nope.
    Israel-Arab? Nope (times 3)
    India-Pakistan? Nope (times 3)
    China? Nope.
    Iran? Nope.
    Korea? Nope.
    Algeria? Nope.
    Suez Crisis? Nope.
    Tibet? Nope.
    Cuba? Nope.
    Warsaw Pact-Czechoslovakia? Nope.
    Vietnam? Nope.
    Cambodia? Nope.
    Laos? Nope.
    India-Portugal? Nope.
    Soviet-Afghanistan? Nope.
    Iran-Iraq? Nope.
    Grenada? Nope.
    Panama? Nope.
    Rwanda? Nope.
    Moldova? Nope.
    Yugoslavia? Nope.
    First Iraq? Nope.
    First Congo War? Nope.
    Second Congo War? Nope.
    American-Afghanistan? Nope.
    Second Iraq? Nope.
    Russia-Georgia? Nope.
    Syria? Nope.

    The list goes on and on. Which wars did the United Nations prevent again?
    Well, I don't generally disagree with you, but quoting wars and conflicts that have happened are hardly evidence that there were no wars that have been prevented. Because, since they didn't take place, you cannot name them.

  11. #51
    UN's purpose is not to prevent wars anyway. UN's purpose is to prevent World Wars.
    My Little Borg: Friendship is Irrelevant

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    How many large scale wars did the United Nations prevent exactly?
    What have speed limits on rode helped? accident happen all the time....

  13. #53
    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".

  14. #54
    Warchief
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Czech Republic, Euro-Atlantic civilisation
    Posts
    2,083
    Quote Originally Posted by Stir View Post
    You are correct; only 'irrelevant' countries would join. That means that 'irrelevant' countries can band together to no longer be as irrelevant.

    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.
    That only applies when there is some power to begin with, eg. 10 african, or hell even smaller European countries together will still be utterly irrelevant.

    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Elim Garak View Post
    UN's purpose is not to prevent wars anyway. UN's purpose is to prevent World Wars.
    And bingo, this is what I have been trying to say all the time.
    Quote Originally Posted by belfpala View Post
    This law abiding person doesn't consider taking your guns away to be a punishment.
    Quote Originally Posted by JfmC View Post
    someone who disagrees with me is simply wrong.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    That you think the Russian and Georgian conflict was large scale is a great example of the UNs success
    The United Nations and European Union have virtually nothing to do with why there aren't "big wars" anymore. You cannot completely ignore the affects of World War II, polarity, nuclear weapons, globalization and social change.

  16. #56
    The Insane Didactic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Blorch - Home of the Slaughtering Rat People
    Posts
    15,960
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    The United Nations and European Union have virtually nothing to do with why there aren't "big wars" anymore. You cannot completely ignore the affects of World War II, polarity, nuclear weapons, globalization and social change.
    The fact that there is a forum in which discussion can take place without fear of being outvoted is also -a- factor. So don't be a hypocrite and chastise others for ignoring factors.

    The only change that needs to occur within the Security Council is the addition of Germany, Japan, and India as permanent members.
    Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.
    - Thucydides

    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

  17. #57
    Titan Nixx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    ooo es eh
    Posts
    12,348
    Quote Originally Posted by Nakura Chambers View Post
    Without veto power
    We'd keep ignoring the UN like we already do.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Puri View Post
    Well, I don't generally disagree with you, but quoting wars and conflicts that have happened are hardly evidence that there were no wars that have been prevented. Because, since they didn't take place, you cannot name them.
    A fair point, but I think it shows that countries (big and small) have continued to fight and bicker, despite the United Nations.

  19. #59
    Who said the goal if the UN was that no one would ever fight?
    Quote Originally Posted by Nixx View Post
    Everyone is pro-US. They just don't know it yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Fyre View Post
    Internet lives in the sky, don't need no cables for that.
    A nice list of logical fallacies. In picture form!

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Didactic View Post
    The only change that needs to occur within the Security Council is the addition of Germany, Japan, and India as permanent members.
    I disagree on Germany and Japan.

    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •