Pages: 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 … 67

 

2011-06-06 03:43:06
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FFS, Shahter. Think about it. Remove the veto, then you don't have that situation. The great powers have to work with the others on the SC to get the necessary votes to get their agenda(s) passed, and vice versa.
when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined, the outcome would be quite predictable.

Right now, all they have to do is sit back and say, "Give me what I want, or I'll veto your shit."
i never said i approve of the way it is now. un's been a joke ever since there was no ussr to counter-balance usa & co in it. i dunno, maybe china will take that place in the future, but right now removing the veto would immediately render un completely pointless.
The veto is what makes the UN completely pointless, as it is. Removing it would actually force real diplomacy to occur--the entire point of the UN to begin with.

The other aspect of the UN that makes it relatively pointless is that nations cannot be expected to subjugate their own interests to some amorphous collective's interests, which may or may not match their own--which is exactly what the UN expects its members to do. As long as a UN initiative or resolution matches a given country's interests, it will back it. If it doesn't, it won't. If the majority goes with it, the countries that voted against it will just ignore it, as there is (normally) no enforcement mechanism, since the UN doesn't normally practice coercive diplomacy. And the UN has no real resources, so there's no carrot-stick diplomacy, either. All the UN can do is say, "It would be really great if you did something that you don't want to do."

Works out really well.

That's why the individual countries involved--particularly the great powers--need to have the cushion of the veto removed. Then they have to perform more real diplomacy. Only they have the resources to actually make things happen (unlike the UN).
oh, for cryting out loud, stop kidding yourself, man. un is pointless because too much power in the world is consolidated in one place. untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into. as long as veto exists there is at least some hope for a nation to have its interests protected on international level. removing that will be the end of un.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-06 03:46:25)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 04:35:13
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FFS, Shahter. Think about it. Remove the veto, then you don't have that situation. The great powers have to work with the others on the SC to get the necessary votes to get their agenda(s) passed, and vice versa.
when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined, the outcome would be quite predictable.


i never said i approve of the way it is now. un's been a joke ever since there was no ussr to counter-balance usa & co in it. i dunno, maybe china will take that place in the future, but right now removing the veto would immediately render un completely pointless.
The veto is what makes the UN completely pointless, as it is. Removing it would actually force real diplomacy to occur--the entire point of the UN to begin with.

The other aspect of the UN that makes it relatively pointless is that nations cannot be expected to subjugate their own interests to some amorphous collective's interests, which may or may not match their own--which is exactly what the UN expects its members to do. As long as a UN initiative or resolution matches a given country's interests, it will back it. If it doesn't, it won't. If the majority goes with it, the countries that voted against it will just ignore it, as there is (normally) no enforcement mechanism, since the UN doesn't normally practice coercive diplomacy. And the UN has no real resources, so there's no carrot-stick diplomacy, either. All the UN can do is say, "It would be really great if you did something that you don't want to do."

Works out really well.

That's why the individual countries involved--particularly the great powers--need to have the cushion of the veto removed. Then they have to perform more real diplomacy. Only they have the resources to actually make things happen (unlike the UN).
oh, for cryting out loud, stop kidding yourself, man. un is pointless because too much power in the world is consolidated in one place. untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into. as long as veto exists there is at least some hope for a nation to have its interests protected on international level. removing that will be the end of un.
Right. I'm the one kidding myself.

As long as there is a veto in the UN, that one power you have such a case of the ass about can veto any resolution aimed against it, Shahter. Think about that.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-06 05:06:13
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

Shahter wrote:

... when one party has the other by the balls...

... when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined...

... too much power in the world is consolidated in one place...

... no ussr to counter-balance usa & co...
there, i took all the conditional shit out of my posts for you. and...

Shahter wrote:

... untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into.
so, i'd rather there at least be...

Shahter wrote:

... some hope for a nation to have its interests protected on international level...
... than let one side have their way every time.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-06 05:07:29)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 05:14:53
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5175|Sydney
Give it another 10-15 years and we'll see how China is compared to the US.
2011-06-06 05:33:13
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

Jaekus wrote:

Give it another 10-15 years and we'll see how China is compared to the US.
probably. we'll see.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 05:39:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
It'll be interesting to see if Israel can convince the Chinese to protect them.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-06-06 05:51:03
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia
that if there's israel to protect then. obama and his latest bullshit about how they should just go back to 1967's borders  - all that is very alarming.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 05:52:47
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
Why is that alarming?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-06-06 05:57:11
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia
because the day israel returns to 1967 borders will be the day it snows in hell and everybody knows it. i just hope it's all talk, as it's usually the case with obama, otherwise we may be looking at a full scale war in me.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 06:06:55
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
A change to a moderate govt, maybe just to the govt which won the last election, and they could quietly return to the 67 borders and no-one needs to get excited.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-06-06 06:12:52
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia
don't make me laugh. you give a finger to hamas and the likes, and they bite your whole arm right off. don't get me wrong, i'm not a fan of israel - quite the opposite, actually - but while hamas is still there in palestine, the best israel could do would be bunker up and shoot in general direction from which they hear "allah akbar".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 06:14:07
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
Hamas are a problem, but they're a symptom, not the cause.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-06-06 06:20:07
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia
they are a symptom which will not go away on its own. if anything, that's what un, usa & co and the rest of international community should be taking care of first if we are to resolve the conflict. but, as i said, all obama and his crew are doing is fanning the flames even more. that is is a very alarming tendency.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 12:11:23
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5996|...
How can you expect the UN to succeed if at least half the countries participating have barely functioning / no democracies? I don't feel like it's a good idea to give people like Mugabe and Ali Khomeini a vote that counts for that matter.  And why would the major powers of the world comply with UN resolutions negatively affecting them? Just because they agreed to play nice? Come on.

Besides, anyone who controls the enforcing arm of the UN essentially controls the UN, with or without security council & vetoes. I don't think NATO would want to get involved in a cause its members don't believe in, much less the people of these member states. Same goes for China, India, Russia for that matter. Expending money and having people of your country die or get in harm's way while getting no compensation or any sort of gain out of the deal is not something any country would willingly subject itself to. Or hurting your own economy because the UN told you to do so.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-06-06 12:12:26)

inane little opines
2011-06-06 18:58:33
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

... when one party has the other by the balls...

... when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined...

... too much power in the world is consolidated in one place...

... no ussr to counter-balance usa & co...
there, i took all the conditional shit out of my posts for you. and...

Shahter wrote:

... untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into.
so, i'd rather there at least be...

Shahter wrote:

... some hope for a nation to have its interests protected on international level...
... than let one side have their way every time.
And you still don't get it.

So long as the veto exists, then that one side will have their way--via veto--every time. At least without a veto, the other powers have a chance--via diplomacy and the power of the majority--to get their way. An option they don't really have now.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-06 22:26:00
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

... when one party has the other by the balls...

... when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined...

... too much power in the world is consolidated in one place...

... no ussr to counter-balance usa & co...
there, i took all the conditional shit out of my posts for you. and...

Shahter wrote:

... untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into.
so, i'd rather there at least be...

Shahter wrote:

... some hope for a nation to have its interests protected on international level...
... than let one side have their way every time.
And you still don't get it.

So long as the veto exists, then that one side will have their way--via veto--every time. At least without a veto, the other powers have a chance--via diplomacy and the power of the majority--to get their way. An option they don't really have now.
and you still don't get it. as long as there's no balance in power diplomacy is impossible, so it doesn't matter if veto exists or not - "that one side" will get their way regardless. veto at least allows a chance to... how to phrase that... make a statement, to voice an opinion, to draw lesser powers still looking for co-operation and re-conciliation to your side, even though nobody can really stand against "that one side" even with the "power of the majority".
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 22:28:55
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6713
the world didnt exactly go to shit in a unipolar system. a bipolar system isn't much better either... you must admit russia did some pretty fucked shit to governments in eastern europe and no one could really do anything about it.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-06-06 22:45:31
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

Shocking wrote:

How can you expect the UN to succeed if at least half the countries participating have barely functioning / no democracies? I don't feel like it's a good idea to give people like Mugabe and Ali Khomeini a vote that counts for that matter.
stop this shit about democracy and "horrible dictators" already. i think i made it quite clear and on numerous occasions that i don't believe your fairytale about people like lowing, cybargs and shitfie making any difference - not one bit of it. in the modern world democracy is a means to get kettle to the pond, nothing more.

And why would the major powers of the world comply with UN resolutions negatively affecting them? Just because they agreed to play nice?
if there were other powers to make them comply they would.

Besides, anyone who controls the enforcing arm of the UN essentially controls the UN, with or without security council & vetoes. I don't think NATO would want to get involved in a cause its members don't believe in, much less the people of these member states. Same goes for China, India, Russia for that matter. Expending money and having people of your country die or get in harm's way while getting no compensation or any sort of gain out of the deal is not something any country would willingly subject itself to. Or hurting your own economy because the UN told you to do so.
balance of power is the key. as long as there's none it's pointless discussing un's and all that crap.
if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-06 22:52:46
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6713
Shahster is kinda right. You need someone to enforce the resolutions. Most resos that do work are peacekeeping operations and interventions (Libya, Iraq etc).
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2011-06-07 00:53:46
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5175|Sydney
Problem with the UN and meetings like the Climate Change Summit is it is really hard to get nations to agree on the same directive. There will always be opposing interests and no one wants to give up more than another nation. It's a step in the right direction and it's encouraging to see nations get together to talk about global matters, but at best the only real action that is made is towards "rogue" nations who don't have a lot of global might.
2011-06-07 01:04:01
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6103|eXtreme to the maX
If they can see they are all making an even contribution and getting an even benefit its in everyones interest.

Thats the point of the UN...
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-06-07 01:08:56
Jaekus
I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose
+957|5175|Sydney
Of course. Just no one wants to put in more than anyone else.
2011-06-07 03:01:40
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

Shahter wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

Shahter wrote:

... when one party has the other by the balls...

... when one side has ten times as many cards to play in the game as all the others combined...

... too much power in the world is consolidated in one place...

... no ussr to counter-balance usa & co...
there, i took all the conditional shit out of my posts for you. and...

Shahter wrote:

... untill that changes, diplomacy itself won't work, nevermind the form nations of the world choose to shape it into.
so, i'd rather there at least be...


... than let one side have their way every time.
And you still don't get it.

So long as the veto exists, then that one side will have their way--via veto--every time. At least without a veto, the other powers have a chance--via diplomacy and the power of the majority--to get their way. An option they don't really have now.
and you still don't get it. as long as there's no balance in power diplomacy is impossible, so it doesn't matter if veto exists or not - "that one side" will get their way regardless. veto at least allows a chance to... how to phrase that... make a statement, to voice an opinion, to draw lesser powers still looking for co-operation and re-conciliation to your side, even though nobody can really stand against "that one side" even with the "power of the majority".
I get it. You're just missing the contradiction in your position.

So you're for giving power to a single nation to stop anything in a supposedly multilateral system? Even though you're complaining about the exact thing you're supporting. Makes perfect sense.

Not.

Cybargs wrote:

You need someone to enforce the resolutions. Most resos that do work are peacekeeping operations and interventions (Libya, Iraq etc).
This is called coercive diplomacy and is essentially the sole purpose of the UNSC. The problem is that coercive diplomacy only works if there is something to back up the demands associated with it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
2011-06-07 03:37:55
Shahter
Zee Ruskie
+295|6772|Moscow, Russia

FEOS wrote:

Shahter wrote:

and you still don't get it. as long as there's no balance in power diplomacy is impossible, so it doesn't matter if veto exists or not - "that one side" will get their way regardless. veto at least allows a chance to... how to phrase that... make a statement, to voice an opinion, to draw lesser powers still looking for co-operation and re-conciliation to your side, even though nobody can really stand against "that one side" even with the "power of the majority".
I get it. You're just missing the contradiction in your position.

So you're for giving power to a single nation to stop anything in a supposedly multilateral system?
no. the power already exists in that system and i'm against removing it, because that will make the already flawed system even worse - it will allow usa & co to legitimize everything they are doing now in the absence of any real opposition so that later, if/when the situation changes, they cannot be held accountable for anything.

Even though you're complaining about the exact thing you're supporting.
i'm not complaining at all. what you and many of the "usa, fuck yeah"-ers on these forums do not get, even though i said it on numerous occasions, is that i don't have any "ass case" against america at all. it would be like hating a pack of wolves for killing and eating kettle - stupid and pointless. but, as i said, some day the balance in power is bound to change. in the mean time, i'd rather the clowns we have for government in russia atm, who are perceived by the outside world as if they act in my name, had the opportunity to reject the bullshit that's happening around the globe because the global market financial pyramid run by the west must keep growing to go on.

Last edited by Shahter (2011-06-07 03:43:18)

if you open your mind too much your brain will fall out.
2011-06-07 03:44:49
FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6408|'Murka

But so long as there is the current veto structure, any shift in the balance of power won't be reflected.

Now do you get it?
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

 

Pages: 1 … 34 35 36 37 38 … 67

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard