SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: jttmab who wrote (121467)12/13/2003 6:22:23 PM
From: Hawkmoon  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
That was creative.

As well as germane.

Those deemed the winners in WWII got the veto. Sort of a spoils of war.

Not true. It was decided to give Russia a permanent seat because of some foolish belief that it would encourage Stalin to be a respectable member of the international community. Very naive.

Didn't you just contradict yourself....totalitarian regimes preventing a tyranny by the non-democratic members of the UN. !!!!!

Only for folks like yourself who are apparently incapable of logical analysis of the issue..

It only takes one permanent member to veto a UNSC action.

Thus, the US, Britain, France, and originally Taiwan, could veto anything the Soviets attempted to pass in the UNSC, while the Soviets could do the same to them.

And all of them could veto any action by other nations to disadvantage those who were bearing the primary cost for supporting and financing the UN..

I have no doubt that you'll change your opinion when China becomes the dominant economic power in the world.

If they are willing to pay their share of the UN expenses for peace keeping and international assistance programs, I have no problem with it.

China is going to be an economic power regardless of whether it's on the UNSC or not.

Hawk
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext