Gaddafi calls for abolishing Security Council veto power

Sure, Muammar Gaddafi has his ways of dodging things, I guess. But when someone points out that the veto power itself flies in the face of the equality promised by the UN—well, they’ve got a point.

Link to the article:

So far, autocratic nations like Libya have always been the ones reaping the benefits of that veto power.
It’s always China or Russia stepping in to drop a veto to protect their totalitarian regimes abroad, causing every single resolution to fail.

That’s why, in this situation, it would be better for Muammar Gaddafi to just keep his mouth shut since he represents those same totalitarian systems.

But hey, he loves having that veto right up until China unilaterally blocks any resolution regarding Darfur. He doesn't seem to mind as long as those Sudanese groups are carrying out genocide in Darfur.

Honestly, Russia and China just need to hand those rights over to Germany and Japan...

Those two autocracies basically use their status as an excuse to back places like Zimbabwe and stuff like that...

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, Russia and China just need to hand those rights over to Germany and Japan...

Those two autocracies basically use their status as an excuse to back places like Zimbabwe and stuff like that...

So you think giving power to those genocidal states is the way to go? Wow! What a brilliant move. I bet the citizens of Košice and Nanjing would be totally on board with you immediately!

placidpuma24 said:Sure, Muammar Gaddafi has his ways of dodging things, I guess. But when someone points out that the veto power itself flies in the face of the equality promised by the UN—well, they’ve got a point.

Link to the article:

The so-called UN really just consists of five countries. All the others listed in the charter are basically just window dressing for that core group of five who grabbed all the power—and by extension, all the blame for their (lack of) action.

When the so-called UN sided with Ratko Mercer's forces in Srebrenica, the whole thing lost its meaning.
Talking about the UN being a guardian of world peace is pretty much a relic of the past at this point.

Best,
Frank Morgan2

briskfox65 said:So you think giving power to those genocidal states is the way to go? Wow! What a brilliant move. I bet the citizens of Košice and Nanjing would be totally on board with you immediately!

Look, Germany and Japan moved past their old sins a long time ago and turned themselves into actual democracies. Meanwhile, you’ve got Russia and China, which are still deeply undemocratic to this day—not showing even an ounce of regret or offering any apologies for all the crap they've done or are currently pulling.

Valderrama said:the Japanese?
they’re still basically the most racist people on the planet

Šajka, man, just chill out with all that nationalist nonsense. 😉

Frank Moore4 said:Look, Germany and Japan moved past their old sins a long time ago and turned themselves into actual democracies. Meanwhile, you’ve got Russia and China, which are still deeply undemocratic to this day—not showing even an ounce of regret or offering any apologies for all the crap they've done or are currently pulling.

And what exactly is this "crap" they're pulling?
Come on, give me some details here.☕

briskfox65 It seems that...
I suppose giving those genocidal nations any sort of justice would be a mistake. Honestly, that might seem like a wise move to some, but I suspect the citizens of cities like Nanjing might have a different opinion on the matter.

The citizens of Košice would likely be struggling just to afford basic groceries if Toyota hadn't established its primary regional manufacturing hub there for those Prius models—you know, the ones that are supposedly great for the environment and which urban liberals across the US seem obsessed with buying, much like kids ditching donuts for healthier snacks during summer break. I suppose you might have missed the bigger picture here. 😁

I suppose mentioning Germany and Japan in a "genocidal" context today only really resonates with certain Mexicans or perhaps some less sharp elderly folks in British nursing homes. It seems like a rather strange circle to run in for a high flyer like yourself, colleague. 😉

Valderrama said:And I guess I wonder what connection you're trying to make by bringing up the Mexican nation in this context?

I suppose I'm just mentioning it as an illustration, colleague; it's purely illustrative. It seems to me that this is one of those rare instances where the world is still divided into blocks similar to those seen during World War II. You see people talking about supposed German-Vatican conspiracies, or mentioning Jasenovac, and all sorts of other strange tales... so, in that sense, your perspective feels a bit... well... exotic to me...

But I suppose you aren't alone in this... as I mentioned before, even residents in American nursing homes tend to bring up Germans in a negative, genocidal context, along with those remaining hunters of Nazi criminals and such... it seems to be a shrinking, somewhat bizarre little society...

For the rest of us, our impression of Germany and Japan is shaped more by their economies, their financial power, and their dedication to hard work and innovation—whereas you seem focused on conflicts from a similar era.

And I suppose that's perfectly fine—it's just something to keep in mind! 😉

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, Russia and China just need to hand those rights over to Germany and Japan...

Those two autocracies basically use their status as an excuse to back places like Zimbabwe and stuff like that...

Look, Gaddafi was an autocrat, a dictator, and honestly—probably someone dealing with some pretty heavy mental health issues. Plus, I’m pretty convinced that creature was probably on some harder drugs too—you know, the illegal kind. But still (there's always that damn "but"), that man managed to set up Libya—mostly through sheer force and tyranny—as a place where people could actually carve out a decent life with some dignity. Libya has incredibly low crime rates, and the bureaucracy and transit infrastructure actually run quite smoothly. When it comes to that, Libya is miles ahead of tons of other Arab nations, even the ones sitting on massive oil and gas reserves.

As for the veto power, let's be real: no single country should have that much control. Major decisions ought to be made during plenary sessions instead. Otherwise, historians down the road are just going to conclude that the UN isn't really a global body, but more like a private club for five people while everyone else is just there for decoration.

If we’re seriously considering keeping the veto, then we need to shake up the permanent members of the Security Council. First off, kick out the United Kingdom and France, and bring in India (which will soon be the most populous nation on Earth), Nigeria (representing Africa), Brazil (for Latin America), and Indonesia (as a sort of representative for the Muslim world). A seven-member group of actual representatives would actually have some logic and weight behind it—what we have now is just total garbage.

And hey, what's the deal with bringing in Germany or Japan? That’s nonsense—just like how it's nonsense to say we should strip Russia and China of their status because of how they run things internally. If you pull China and Russia out, the UN basically ceases to exist as an institution overnight.

On top of all that, I think the UN should move its headquarters out of the USA, given the massive crimes the country has committed and the fact that it's currently a participant in them. They should relocate to the perfect spot—Singapore (it's a melting pot of races, cultures, nations, and languages, plus it's super successful, organized, and stable...).

slybison8 said:

briskfox65 It seems that...
I suppose giving those genocidal nations any sort of justice would be a mistake. Honestly, that might seem like a wise move to some, but I suspect the citizens of cities like Nanjing might have a different opinion on the matter.

The citizens of Košice would likely be struggling just to afford basic groceries if Toyota hadn't established its primary regional manufacturing hub there for those Prius models—you know, the ones that are supposedly great for the environment and which urban liberals across the US seem obsessed with buying, much like kids ditching donuts for healthier snacks during summer break. I suppose you might have missed the bigger picture here. 😁

I suppose mentioning Germany and Japan in a "genocidal" context today only really resonates with certain Mexicans or perhaps some less sharp elderly folks in British nursing homes. It seems like a rather strange circle to run in for a high flyer like yourself, colleague. 😉

That’s a very interesting perspective. Considering what the Germans did in Košice, it’s surprising Mercedes hasn't opened a branch there or at least a DM soap factory. It's strange how a "crust of bread" can somehow wash away all the genocidal nonsense one commits through history.
It’s fascinating, really. It’s almost telling that the wise elders in those English nursing homes actually know who the genocidal ones are, and they aren't particularly interested in taking bread from the hands of tyrants or genocidal Huns.😁

briskfox65 said:That’s a very interesting perspective. Considering what the Germans did in Košice, it’s surprising Mercedes hasn't opened a branch there or at least a DM soap factory. It's strange how a "crust of bread" can somehow wash away all the genocidal nonsense one commits through history.
It’s fascinating, really. It’s almost telling that the wise elders in those English nursing homes actually know who the genocidal ones are, and they aren't particularly interested in taking bread from the hands of tyrants or genocidal Huns.😁

Yes—though I guess there is one small issue with that theory: even in Košice, Mercedes vehicles (along with many other German brands) sell much better than many non-German alternatives. That seems to sort of invalidate the whole theory, doesn't it?

As for the residents of those American nursing homes, whispering about "Krauts" while stroking their beards, I suspect they might be too affected by Alzheimer's to notice that even during a recession, the top performers in London City—and thus the biggest contributors to the taxes that fund those very nursing homes—are often banks with names like Kleinwort Dresdner.

Meanwhile, an American who dares to "go off" regarding the genocidal nature of Germany or Japan is almost performing a political "harakiri" worthy of The Last Samurai, especially considering the accusations that American science and historiography have had to grapple with since 1945, coming from our eastern neighbors...

Nancy Wood6 said:Look, Gaddafi was an autocrat, a dictator, and honestly—probably someone dealing with some pretty heavy mental health issues. Plus, I’m pretty convinced that creature was probably on some harder drugs too—you know, the illegal kind. But still (there's always that damn "but"), that man managed to set up Libya—mostly through sheer force and tyranny—as a place where people could actually carve out a decent life with some dignity. Libya has incredibly low crime rates, and the bureaucracy and transit infrastructure actually run quite smoothly. When it comes to that, Libya is miles ahead of tons of other Arab nations, even the ones sitting on massive oil and gas reserves.

As for the veto power, let's be real: no single country should have that much control. Major decisions ought to be made during plenary sessions instead. Otherwise, historians down the road are just going to conclude that the UN isn't really a global body, but more like a private club for five people while everyone else is just there for decoration.

If we’re seriously considering keeping the veto, then we need to shake up the permanent members of the Security Council. First off, kick out the United Kingdom and France, and bring in India (which will soon be the most populous nation on Earth), Nigeria (representing Africa), Brazil (for Latin America), and Indonesia (as a sort of representative for the Muslim world). A seven-member group of actual representatives would actually have some logic and weight behind it—what we have now is just total garbage.

And hey, what's the deal with bringing in Germany or Japan? That’s nonsense—just like how it's nonsense to say we should strip Russia and China of their status because of how they run things internally. If you pull China and Russia out, the UN basically ceases to exist as an institution overnight.

On top of all that, I think the UN should move its headquarters out of the USA, given the massive crimes the country has committed and the fact that it's currently a participant in them. They should relocate to the perfect spot—Singapore (it's a melting pot of races, cultures, nations, and languages, plus it's super successful, organized, and stable...).

Believe it or not, I'm actually on board with this...

slybison8 said:Yes—though I guess there is one small issue with that theory: even in Košice, Mercedes vehicles (along with many other German brands) sell much better than many non-German alternatives. That seems to sort of invalidate the whole theory, doesn't it?

As for the residents of those American nursing homes, whispering about "Krauts" while stroking their beards, I suspect they might be too affected by Alzheimer's to notice that even during a recession, the top performers in London City—and thus the biggest contributors to the taxes that fund those very nursing homes—are often banks with names like Kleinwort Dresdner.

Meanwhile, an American who dares to "go off" regarding the genocidal nature of Germany or Japan is almost performing a political "harakiri" worthy of The Last Samurai, especially considering the accusations that American science and historiography have had to grapple with since 1945, coming from our eastern neighbors...

It is completely irrelevant whether Mercedes sells well in Pittsburgh or if "Maple... whatever" does well in the UK.
Where would this thesis lead us, dear colleague, if we looked at mundane examples from World War II? The Finns dealt some brutal defeats to the Russians, and they did it using Russian weapons, believe it or not. Does that automatically mean they love Russian weaponry, or just that they couldn't do without it? No, let's agree: it simply means they were forced to use what was available.
Furthermore, just because a Mercedes is a technical masterpiece and citizens in Pittsburgh love them, does that absolve Germany of responsibility for the massacres committed in their name?
The point was raised specifically regarding the right of veto and a seat on the UN Security Council.
In my view, neither Germany nor Japan should ever be granted such power.

The comparisons our neighbors make about us are utterly insane, and they only affect those who allow themselves to be provoked. I would include anyone who doesn't understand how the Mexican machinery lied and manipulated things during the pre-war period in that group.
So, to summarize this issue: anything coming from our Eastern neighbors regarding our relations is a total fabrication!

I suppose your argument regarding Mercedes-Benz is a bit shaky 😉 - I mean, nobody feels forced to drive a Mercedes these days since there are plenty of other technically flawless brands out there. People driving Wall Street firms, for instance, rarely opt for German cars anymore; some people just have more backbone.

briskfox65 said:It is completely irrelevant whether Mercedes sells well in Pittsburgh or if "Maple... whatever" does well in the UK.
Where would this thesis lead us, dear colleague, if we looked at mundane examples from World War II? The Finns dealt some brutal defeats to the Russians, and they did it using Russian weapons, believe it or not. Does that automatically mean they love Russian weaponry, or just that they couldn't do without it? No, let's agree: it simply means they were forced to use what was available.
Furthermore, just because a Mercedes is a technical masterpiece and citizens in Pittsburgh love them, does that absolve Germany of responsibility for the massacres committed in their name?
The point was raised specifically regarding the right of veto and a seat on the UN Security Council.
In my view, neither Germany nor Japan should ever be granted such power.

The comparisons our neighbors make about us are utterly insane, and they only affect those who allow themselves to be provoked. I would include anyone who doesn't understand how the Mexican machinery lied and manipulated things during the pre-war period in that group.
So, to summarize this issue: anything coming from our Eastern neighbors regarding our relations is a total fabrication!

I personally feel that the entire veto system as it stands is inadequate and probably needs a thorough overhaul, mostly because it essentially recycles a vision of the world as it existed back on May 8, 1945. At some point, we really ought to break away from that, given that nothing is quite the same as it was in 1945. If the system were to change, perhaps privileged positions should be reserved for those who are economically most powerful, provided they actually use that economic leverage to support human rights and individual freedoms. By that standard, Germany and Japan would certainly deserve a privileged role, whereas the PRC might not, though perhaps due to their nuclear capabilities and massive population, some level of status should be accorded to them to allow for a policy of constructive engagement aimed at encouraging internal changes within the PRC.

Richard Wilson4 said:Honestly, Russia and China just need to hand those rights over to Germany and Japan...

Those two autocracies basically use their status as an excuse to back places like Zimbabwe and stuff like that...

So you’re just going to brush off the sheer scale of China's population or Russia's global influence? I guess.
It’s actually the Americans who really ought to lose their veto. More often than not, they've used it just to push their own agendas at the expense of justice. And when they run into someone else's veto, they just decide to ignore the UN entirely.

Linda Adams said:So far, autocratic nations like Libya have always been the ones reaping the benefits of that veto power.
It’s always China or Russia stepping in to drop a veto to protect their totalitarian regimes abroad, causing every single resolution to fail.

That’s why, in this situation, it would be better for Muammar Gaddafi to just keep his mouth shut since he represents those same totalitarian systems.

But hey, he loves having that veto right up until China unilaterally blocks any resolution regarding Darfur. He doesn't seem to mind as long as those Sudanese groups are carrying out genocide in Darfur.

By the way, since 1966, the USA has been the undisputed leader when it comes to utilizing the UNSC veto:
wikipedia: UNSC_veto

Take the walls, for instance—even today, you rarely see German cars driving there. Some people actually have a backbone.

Can you actually back that up with some facts, or are you just saying it because it happens to suit your argument right now?☕