13 ms·

Yep, 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 othe

by gdy 13y ago

Yep, 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 ago
I 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.
- gdy 13y ago
  I'm afraid the "vast majority of the world" will be a coalition formed around a major power. Unilateral consensus in UNSC is needed for exactly this reason - to avoid abuse of power by an influential state. As for the "supporting dictators against their own people" I have a problem with the word "people" - often it is just a minor militarized group with foreign support presented by western media as "the people". As for supporting dictators, why don't you look at the US' Middle East allies - Bahrein and Saudi Arabia, for example. "trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there" I wouldn't call the UNSC resolution on Mali "trivial and unneccesary thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2071 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...

by gdy 13y ago

Yep, 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 ago

I 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.

gdy 13y ago
I'm afraid the "vast majority of the world" will be a coalition formed around a major power. Unilateral consensus in UNSC is needed for exactly this reason - to avoid abuse of power by an influential state. As for the "supporting dictators against their own people" I have a problem with the word "people" - often it is just a minor militarized group with foreign support presented by western media as "the people". As for supporting dictators, why don't you look at the US' Middle East allies - Bahrein and Saudi Arabia, for example. "trivial and unneccesary things can be decided there" I wouldn't call the UNSC resolution on Mali "trivial and unneccesary thing": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2071 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council...