Russia VETOES UN resolution regarding Syria chemical attacks

[littlepotter 76,626]

17 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

Why?

There are 5 countries with veto rights. Why does 1 of them have the right to dictate what the other 4 (and the rest of the world) does? 

Why can't the other countries veto the decision NOT to intervene? a mess

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

Just now, Saint Laurent said:

France was liberated during WWII and was on the side of the victors, hence their permanent seat.

You're very wrong about China actually. China fought Japan for 15 years during the wars and lost a lot of men doing so (14 million I believe?), hence their permanent seat.

The remaining 3 are fairly obvious.

I wasn't entirely sure about China & as for France, they basically lost but were on the side of the victors of the war!  

 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

Just now, littlepotter said:

There are 5 countries with veto rights. Why does 1 of them have the right to dictate what the other 4 (and the rest of the world) does? 

Why can't the other countries veto the decision NOT to intervene? a mess

In order to prevent a world war one would presume. As I said earlier, if Russia's vote was ignored, the situation would escalate to World War potential.

There is no decision to not intervene, that isn't a competence of the UNSC. They have only the competence to recognise humanitarian crisis and authorise military action.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

I wasn't entirely sure about China & as for France, they basically lost but were on the side of the victors of the war!  

 

They didn't lose at all, France played a major role in WWII and contributed tremendously to the victory. You might want to be careful trivialising the death of millions.

[littlepotter 76,626]

1 minute ago, Saint Laurent said:

In order to prevent a world war one would presume. As I said earlier, if Russia's vote was ignored, the situation would escalate to World War potential.

There is no decision to not intervene, that isn't a competence of the UNSC. They have only the competence to recognise humanitarian crisis and authorise military action.

I'm not talking about this particular situation in any way (and if you're right then thank god for russia). I'm just talking about the system in general, it makes no sense to me how things work.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 minute ago, Saint Laurent said:

They didn't lose at all, France played a major role in WWII and contributed tremendously to the victory. You might want to be careful trivialising the death of millions.

They lost!  I never said they didn't contribute, but you don't have to be liberated if you won!!!  

 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

Just now, littlepotter said:

I'm not talking about this particular situation in any way (and if you're right then thank god for russia). I'm just talking about the system in general, it makes no sense to me how things work.

The UNSC has many competences, one of them is to authorise military intervention in the event of humanitarian crisis.

If the UNSC wishes to exercise their power to do so, all 15 members must either vote in favour, against or abstain. While there are 15 members, only 5 of those members have permanent seats, meaning that they cannot be removed from the UNSC.

When voting the 5 members with permanent seats have a veto power, which means that if they choose to veto a decision (only 1 member veto is required) then the UN can basically do nothing.

When that happens, either everybody forgets about intervention and just keeps the situation monitored, or they choose to intervene without UN authorisation (this would usually be done through NATO in this situation).

For this there would be sanctions such as arms embargos etc. since it is, arguably, in breach of international law.

-

The reason there are 5 permanent members is clear, they are the victors of WWII. Since the primary responsibility of the UN is to preserve international peace, it only makes sense that those pursuing peace during the World Wars are given permanent seats on the body preserving that exact thing.

This is precisely why Germany do not have a permanent seat on the UNSC.

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

6 minutes ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

They lost!  I never said they didn't contribute, but you don't have to be liberated if you won!!!  

 

Being liberated is winning.

Hitler et al lost, not France.

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

1 hour ago, Born To Slay said:

How can Russia alone veto it? Do the countries not vote?

Mess 

that's how the UN Security Council works

[littlepotter 76,626]

2 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

The UNSC has many competences, one of them is to authorise military intervention in the event of humanitarian crisis.

If the UNSC wishes to exercise their power to do so, all 15 members must either vote in favour, against or abstain. While there are 15 members, only 5 of those members have permanent seats, meaning that they cannot be removed from the UNSC.

When voting the 5 members with permanent seats have a veto power, which means that if they choose to veto a decision (only 1 member veto is required) then the UN can basically do nothing.

When that happens, either everybody forgets about intervention and just keeps the situation monitored, or they choose to intervene without UN authorisation (this would usually be done through NATO in this situation).

For this there would be sanctions such as arms embargos etc. since it is, arguably, in breach of international law.

-

The reason there are 5 permanent members is clear, they are the victors of WWII. Since the primary responsibility of the UN is to preserve international peace, it only makes sense that those pursuing peace during the World Wars are given permanent seats on the body preserving that exact thing.

This is precisely why Germany do not have a permanent seat on the UNSC.

King of explaining what my history teacher could never

[The Fame Joanne 5,985]

13 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

They didn't lose at all, France played a major role in WWII and contributed tremendously to the victory. You might want to be careful trivialising the death of millions.

They actually lost pretty soon in the war and then even collaborated with Nazi Germany (although Le Pen seems to disagree)

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

3 minutes ago, Saint Laurent said:

Being liberated is winning.

Hitler et al lost, not France.

Being liberated is winning!???  WTH!???  

They were on the same side as the winning side, but in the interim they lost to Germany...

 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

1 minute ago, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Being liberated is winning!???  WTH!???  

They were on the same side as the winning side, but in the interim they lost to Germany...

 

Well then you clearly view the war as a series of battles, I prefer to look at the bigger picture: WWII as a whole.

[En_Sabah_Nur 9,366]

1 minute ago, Saint Laurent said:

Well then you clearly view the war as a series of battles, I prefer to look at the bigger picture: WWII as a whole.

Semantics*

 

[Saint Laurent 4,862]

Just now, En_Sabah_Nur said:

Semantics*

 

Don't be such a know-it-all