European Tribune

Display:
I don't think the US should have veto power over anything, frankly.  Nor should any other organization.  That's a major problem with the UN in my book.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Tue May 22nd, 2007 at 07:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]
As I have argued before, the function [though not the stated purpose] of the UNSC is to prevent open warfare among "World Powers" by allowing them to draw lines in the sand for each other by means of vetoes. I used to have a lot of problems with veto until I (recently) realised this.

As long as (at least) China, the US and Russia have the potential for Mutually Assured Destruction, they need to have veto power at the UNSC.

What is deeply disturbing is that the US doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the UNSC, or the global balance of power, and they even seem to think they can achieve a nuclear first strike capability soon.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue May 22nd, 2007 at 07:15:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Interesting.  The "US not giving a rat's ass about the UNSC or global balance of power" is a Bush thing, not an American thing per se.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Tue May 22nd, 2007 at 07:45:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Look at my sig.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 23rd, 2007 at 05:14:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, there is some truth to that, given that so many people voted for him; however, those people have to be considered a decided minority at this point.

ProgressiveHistorians: History For Our Future
by Nonpartisan on Wed May 23rd, 2007 at 02:41:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
No, that's not what I mean.

Bush is a symptom, not the disease.
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed May 23rd, 2007 at 05:17:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Debates
Campaigns
Occasional Series