5 ms·
The entire point of the UN and "the law" is that Russia gets to veto the same as the US gets to veto.
by cdash 13y ago
The entire point of the UN and "the law" is that Russia gets to veto the same as the US gets to veto.
- haberman 13y agoThat may be, but Putin is making a case against intervention while omitting his huge conflict of interest. He is making self-serving arguments under the guise of caring about lofty ideals that his own actions demonstrate he has no regard for.
- rooshdi 13y agoThe same can be said about the United States. Every nation has an agenda in the region.
- chrischen 13y agoYou say that as if everyone's equal...
- foxhedgehog 13y agoI guess that I missed the Obama administration's op-ed opining about life in Russia.
- Phlarp 13y agoPresidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Americans.
- foxhedgehog 13y agoYes and Russian presidents get much larger platforms from which to sell their opinions on foreign policy to Russians. What's your point?
- darkarmani 13y agoYou are completely missing the point. Putin is stating that the reason no one should intervene in Syria, because we need to follow the law (the security council). When the truth is he could easily not veto and intervention would be lawful. That's why it is disingenuous. Vote for it and your dilemma is solved!
- gruseom 13y agoThis is a bad argument. There are many illegal things a person can make legal by consenting to them. Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law? (It's also inapplicable, since even if Russia consented, China wouldn't.)
- darkarmani 13y ago> Is it hypocritical to both refuse consent and cite the law? No, but it is circular reasoning to base your argument for refusing consent by saying it is illegal. It's much less compelling if he comes right out and says: "Don't do it, because I don't want you too." So he tries to make the logic convoluted.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- iSnow 13y agoYou are wrong, he states "you are not allowed do this if we don't consent, and we don't consent" which is according to international law.
- darkarmani 13y agoHe actually never says that. >> "The potential strike by the United States against Syria, despite strong opposition from many countries and major political and religious leaders, including the pope..." >> From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future. We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international law. Right there they mention that they are for peaceful dialog because they are trying to protect international law. If they were really concerned with international law, why would they veto? Obviously, because they don't want it to happen, not this nonsense about them being all of a sudden concerned about international law.
- Sagat 13y agoReplace "Putin" with "Obama" is this sentence and there you have it, a perfect description of the United States. Waxing about freedom and human rights while manipulating and coercing the whole world according to their manifest destiny.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y agoIf Putin is publicly opposing our war effort, it goes without saying that he will veto a UN resolution to that effect.
- PeterisP 13y agoThe difference is that Russia, unlike US, seems to use their veto EVERY SINGLE TIME when there's some thance that UN might do something. UN Security Council could have had a role in the world - but Mr. Putin is a major reason making UN Security Council useless and nonfunctional.
- xerophtye 13y agoeh? "unlike US" ?? O_O please refer to this gentlemen's post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6372646 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6372646 on this very thread
- gdy 13y agoYep, that US propganda is a sneaky thing J Next time you want to write something in caps ask youself how do you know this and do fact-checking. And in all other cases too J
- PeterisP 13y agoI know that the USA is blocking any Palestine solutions in the Security Council as well, but it only makes the same point - the concept of "veto" makes Security Council useless. I'm not saying that Putin is the cause of that, but he is one of them (together with USA and China) - his veto power is part of the problem. I was singling out Russia because of (propaganda-induced-opinion?) a pattern I've seen of Russia systematically supporting dictators against their own people. If there is unilateral consensus, you don't need formal bodies to do stuff, since everybody agrees anyway. However, if we want the global community to be effective, then we need an ability to make decisions and do stuff even if Russia or USA or China is against that, if the vast majority of the world understands that, say, a massacre must be prevented. Currently we can't do that. As I said, in a number of cases Russia has prevented any progress by using the veto or threat of it. USA has done the same regarding Israel/Palestine - my impression is that it's their major use, media doesn't represent others much. China has as well - often things are abandoned simply because it is clear that it will be vetoed anyway. In essence, only trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there, but any serious things that matter - can't, as definitely someone with some interest will veto that. So the veto powers should be reformed.