Should UNO take off Veto power ?

I believe UNO at the moment is a complete JOKE with Veto power handled to some countries.UNO is being acted as a tool for realizing those countries specific missions.Whats your opinion?

Why is a organization formed by the leadership of so called "democratic country" that is america isnt democratic?

I don't agree with veto power either, and it's at the core of the UN's inability to act decisively in many matters, but are you calling America undemocratic?

UN should be reflective of the international relations we live in, not some detached fairy land. If Veto power is removed all of the 5 largest powers will do even more stuff outside of UN.

it doesnt matter as long as countries with less power are superpower countries little bitches!

I am against the veto system too, but I would keep it until a MUCH better system is proposed.

extend the damn security council to add more permanent members

Veto system is way outdated.Of the countries with Veto only Us and China has real authority.

Seriously Britain or France are hardly the most important countries nowadays for them to have Veto power.Both of them should be removed with Euro - union getting a Veto along with India(FFS we represent one sixth of world population).

BeautifulGame wrote:Veto system is way outdated.Of the countries with Veto only Us and China has real authority.

Seriously Britain or France are hardly the most important countries for them to have Veto power.Both of them should be removed with Euro - union getting a Veto along with India(FFS we represent one sixth of world population).

not to mention economic growth rate of 9 percent, nuclear power ,fourth largest army, fifth largest air force , large source of food crops, agriculture, lot of human resources, a future superpower.. its time we got a veto too

Russia and China just vetoed the decision to call on Assad to stop down. *bleep* ridiculous. Now watch as more Syrians die protesting for their rights.

Veto power should be removed.

The veto powers won't be removed, not in the near future anyway. The U.S. has proposed a coalition outside of the UN and that's probably the best bet for Syrians right now ...

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/05/146430265/u-s-floats-coalition-on-syria-after-u-n-veto

The situation in Syria is bs: protestors and gov need to consolidate. Ffs, Asad is too stubborn, he will end up as Qaddaffi if he continues to ignore protesters

Grande_Milano wrote:The situation in Syria is bs: protestors and gov need to consolidate.

Why should the people consolidate with government? A government is supposed to serve the interests of its people and the Syrian government does the exact opposite.

Ffs, Asad is too stubborn, he will end up as Qaddaffi if he continues to ignore protesters

I hope so!

Mmm, Asad also has ppl support behind him, Qaddaffi had around 50%, so they should not be ignored too. He should provide options for people in Syria and give the place in gov, while they in exchange do not impeach him

Grande_Milano wrote:Mmm, Asad also has ppl support behind him, Qaddaffi had around 50%, so they should not be ignored too. He should provide options for people in Syria and give the place in gov, while they in exchange do not impeach him

Just...

as much as i hate whats going on in syria all i have to say is bravo russia and china for once in a life time the us get slammed with a veto

7amood11 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:Mmm, Asad also has ppl support behind him, Qaddaffi had around 50%, so they should not be ignored too. He should provide options for people in Syria and give the place in gov, while they in exchange do not impeach him

Just...

You may not like it but every single revolution and civil war is either 50/50 or 1/3 pro, 1/3 anti, 1/3 in the middle. Thats a fact. Polls show if he had elections heldhe would probably get 50, around that. Major cities were for him

supra969 wrote:as much as i hate whats going on in syria all i have to say is bravo russia and china for once in a life time the us get slammed with a veto

Bravo mighty superpowers for showcasing the giant d*cks that you are at the cost of civilians being murdered in Syria! BRAVO!

Here are a couple of bravos from the grave, too!

Grande_Milano wrote:

7amood11 wrote:

Grande_Milano wrote:Mmm, Asad also has ppl support behind him, Qaddaffi had around 50%, so they should not be ignored too. He should provide options for people in Syria and give the place in gov, while they in exchange do not impeach him

Just...

You may not like it but every single revolution and civil war is either 50/50 or 1/3 pro, 1/3 anti, 1/3 in the middle. Thats a fact.

A "fact"? To whom? You?

Go ahead and teach yourself a bit about the civil war in Bosnia and see how well your "fact" corresponds with reality.

Polls show if he had elections heldhe would probably get 50, around that. Major cities were for him

Source?

Yugoslavia is special case, many nations in one country

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/185602.html
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628592


Revolution is never one sided, whoever has more international support and media support, wins. Dont take this as apology of Qaddaffi from me, just being one sided on issue never works.

Current US gov approval rating? I doubt its more than 50

supra969 wrote:as much as i hate whats going on in syria all i have to say is bravo russia and china for once in a life time the us get slammed with a veto

Yeah, way to go Russia and China! You just went against the US' wishes, who gives a shit if probably thousands more are going to be tortured and killed?

You are an idiot.

7amood11 wrote:

supra969 wrote:as much as i hate whats going on in syria all i have to say is bravo russia and china for once in a life time the us get slammed with a veto

Yeah, way to go Russia and China! You just went against the US' wishes, who gives a shit if probably thousands more are going to be tortured and killed?

You are an idiot.

Lavrov yesterday went to Syria to make Assad end violence. Third way. Lets wait see, if this fails, then resolution should go through

you guys were :vagi:


im not in support of whats happening in syria having my grandfather and many other relatives dead after the massacres that took place 20-30 years ago

Grande_Milano wrote:Yugoslavia is special case, many nations in one country

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/185602.html
http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=628592


Revolution is never one sided, whoever has more international support and media support, wins. Dont take this as apology of Qaddaffi from me, just being one sided on issue never works.

Current US gov approval rating? I doubt its more than 50

yeah but that doesn't mean a serious revolt/uprising is even possible here. if the govt approval rating was 15% people wouldn't do anything but complain, if that. but our govt has systems and techniques in place that quell or suppress any serious opposition.


i get your point though, but modern day revolution is about whoever can get the most intl support and media support (or whoever presents the opportunity to serve the US's economic interests... )

It's nothing to do with "government systems and techniques," mate. First and foremost, approval ratings tend to be unreliable at best and outright lies at worst. They are simply tools of the media to stir up discussion and gain viewers/readers/attention. Second, the US government is set up in such a way that, should the majority of the populace become unhappy with it, they have the power and chance to change the government and those employed by it via non-violent and organized means... you know, elections.

Elections? Never heard of em

The problem is if the American people want to change their leader they would have to wait until the end of his/her term to do it, unless the President is already in their second term then all they have to do is wait for it to end. It's not like there can be a referendum where people can vote to remove their current leader at anytime during their 4 to 8 year term, unless there's something I don't know about.....

I agree with approval ratings, that stuff is blatantly made up I can't believe people fall for them over and over again.

There's a reason for the terms, as well. You can't expect a government to be at all effective if the leaders and representatives are changed every time the populace decide things are exactly as they'd like. The elected leaders need time to enact their policies and try to make things work... I'd venture so far as to say that 4 years, in the current system, might not even be enough, especially when the opposition hold the Legislative Branch.