Quote from: redsn0w on April 17, 2015, 03:46:58 PM

Quote from: bryant.coleman on April 17, 2015, 11:02:22 AM

Quote from: redsn0w on April 17, 2015, 10:24:23 AM

Hmmm I do not think it is only a question of money but I agree with bryant.coleman, why is it needed this VETO? We can't call it a democracy vote where 1 nation = 1 vote but if one (or more) of those 5 nations will express the VETO, it can block everything ( Roll Eyes

this is really insane).

May be we should give more importance to either GDP or the total population. Giving 1 vote each to Monaco (which is having a population of 30,000) and China (population of 1.3 billion) is not fair either. The US is able to get dozens of votes by default, from its minuscule vassal states such as Micronesia and Marshall Islands, which puts it in an advantage when compared to the others.

Yes of course, but they cannot stop the action with the VETO. it should be removed, because 5 nations can't 'decide' to all the others. I can say at 99% that USA doesn't want to help the Palestinian people instead I can say they want help 'only' the israeli government.

Waiting a reply from J. J. Phillips (if you want Wink

) without any sort of blame or offense by you, thanks.

I'm behind on this thread, so I'll just assume the past few pages is a lot of "Gee I wish the U.S. didn't have a veto so the U.N. could kill the Jews."

As was mentioned before, the U.S. has a veto on the security council. It also has some extra influence on a number of countries because the U.S. gives a hell of a lot of countries a hell of a lot of money. Maybe you should spend more time trying to convince countries to refuse U.S. aid.

Pretend it's a hypothetical world in which the U.S. is out of the picture at the U.N. Now countries can vote however they want on the security council, at the general assembly, or however you imagine the U.N. works. Now, what exactly could/would/should the U.N. do in regards to the Arab-Israeli conflict?

Someone earlier mentioned that the U.N. could patrol the seas near Gaza to prevent weapon shipments. I see no evidence that "the U.N." (whatever that even means in this context) wants to prevent weapon shipments to Gaza. Frankly, I see no evidence that most of the people on this board want that.

But do you think "the U.N." would vote to enforce a weapons blockage on Gaza? (Since you won't answer, I'll answer for you: no, you don't.)

OK. Maybe you think "the U.N." will vote to recognize a Palestinian state as was discussed earlier. Well, maybe they would. And that would change...what...exactly. I asked earlier, and someone responded with "a lot would change." I'm sure he's given specifics to flesh that out since I've been away.

Now let me let you in on a little open secret. The U.N. is a fucking joke. Yes, it's anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian, if you care to look into it. But that's hardly a problem because the U.N. quite literally doesn't matter.

You say the U.N. doesn't stop the evil Zionist Jews from hurting those poor peaceful people who just want to live in peace with neighbor oh yes, we'd never lie to KILL THE JEWS THERE'S ONE BEHIND THAT TREE!

Well, yes, the U.N. doesn't stop them. The U.N. is powerless (fortunately). But that cuts both ways.

If all those countries that would vote against Israel at the U.N. to "stop Israel" just formed an alliance to take some action, the U.N. could and would do nothing to stop them. They really can't use the excuse "The U.N. won't let us" except on very uninformed people.

What is the action you think would be helpful here if "the U.N." took it? And why can't the countries form a coalition and simply take that action?

redzeronazi says:

Quote from: redzeronazi

they cannot stop the action with the VETO

"The" is used when there is a clear, unique referent, so I assume I missed this clear, unique action which the U.N. could take but is being stopped because of "the VETO." Can you save me the trouble of reading the past few days of posts and repeat what this action is? (<- This is a question and is being asked because I'm hoping you'll answer it. An answer would be in the form "The action the U.N. could take is ___." where you replace the ___ with a phrase that can be clearly interpreted as an action.)

What is it you really want? Since you guys don't answer questions, I'll answer for you again. You want dead Jews. Don't worry, eventually a coalition will be formed, the Jews will be killed, and you can hand out candy on the streets while cheering. The only thing that's delaying it is most people who want to do it want someone else to pay for it. And the fact that post-Hitler the Jews learned you have to shoot back, so the next people who try to kill the Jews might find themselves dead instead.