Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

j8ear · 06-17-2005, 09:53 AM

Don't forget about the Balkins. Plenty of American GI's were invovled in the Balkins. Serbia, Bosnia, Hertzogovenia (sp?), They were under psuedo-UN command, and were operating as a peace-keeping mission.

Anyway, I think your mistaken about what the permanent members of the Security Council are all about. They are what are considered the great powers, and each has a veto on any resolution preesented to the council. It was so structured to ensure THE GREAT POWER Unanimity. Original inclusion was based on Nuclear capability, afaik. "Great power" involves economic clout, but is certainly based primarily on military capability.

I agree that it might be worthwhile to modify thes requirements, but again it requires GREAT POWER unanimity. I see that as too high a bar to over come.

The whole notion of fairness and representation, and all that feel good, ideal stuff (which is laudable but unrealistic), that doesn't even exist in the UN at all, is what the general assembly is supposed to be about. It doesn't exist because of the Security Council, more specifically it's permanent members.

Remember that the rotating members have no veto power.

It is partially for these reasons that the UN is such a joke. There is nothing democratic or particularly just about it. Essentially everything boils down to what the US, UK, France, Russia, and China can agree on. For this to change they must also agree.

-bear

06-17-2005, 09:53 AM	#17 (permalink)
j8ear Gentlemen Farmer Location: Middle of nowhere, Jersey	Don't forget about the Balkins. Plenty of American GI's were invovled in the Balkins. Serbia, Bosnia, Hertzogovenia (sp?), They were under psuedo-UN command, and were operating as a peace-keeping mission. Anyway, I think your mistaken about what the permanent members of the Security Council are all about. They are what are considered the great powers, and each has a veto on any resolution preesented to the council. It was so structured to ensure THE GREAT POWER Unanimity. Original inclusion was based on Nuclear capability, afaik. "Great power" involves economic clout, but is certainly based primarily on military capability. I agree that it might be worthwhile to modify thes requirements, but again it requires GREAT POWER unanimity. I see that as too high a bar to over come. The whole notion of fairness and representation, and all that feel good, ideal stuff (which is laudable but unrealistic), that doesn't even exist in the UN at all, is what the general assembly is supposed to be about. It doesn't exist because of the Security Council, more specifically it's permanent members. Remember that the rotating members have no veto power. It is partially for these reasons that the UN is such a joke. There is nothing democratic or particularly just about it. Essentially everything boils down to what the US, UK, France, Russia, and China can agree on. For this to change they must also agree. -bear __________________ It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.