Should Russia be removed from the UN security council?

[kvnchrist]

Seeing their backing of The assad regime in Syria and their exploits in the Ukraine, should we allow them to be able to have veto power over the body of nations that are supposed to keep the peace?

[Harbringe]

No , this is a silly question . US/Britain and this thing called Iraq . If you make what Russia is doing now the basis of membership in Security Council , it will call into question the legitimacy of others and they wont allow that kind of legal precedent to be established.

[kvnchrist]

No, I don't think this is a silly question at all. It's a very valid one since it brings up the entire justification to have a security council. If the powerful nations within the security council can simply veto any authorization for action to prevent unlawful acts and atrocities, then what is the use for the UN in the first place. Member nations who side with one or another of these powerful nations and be forced to adhere to that countries ideology and desires to continue the protection they receive from that relationship.

 

Is this truly what the UN was established for and if not why has it been allowed to continue? In my experience things created that don't work have been discarded unless it is kept alive by something else. My mind goes towards the ideal that it gives tyrants the legitimacy they need act according to their desires under the cloak of benevolence.

[dudutz18]

Yes. They have not invaded enough countries to keep up with the West and more importantly the G8. I'm sure you know my opinion on this.

[JimboUK]

Maybe the US and UK should be removed for their support of Jihadi terrorists in Syria, a Nazi coup in the Ukraine and the naked aggression against Libya and Iraq? If we're looking for aggressive countries to remove then we need a look a lot closer to home. The obvious answer is not to have permanent members of the Security Council in the first place, none of them are fit to act as the worlds policemen.

[kvnchrist]

Yes. They have not invaded enough countries to keep up with the West and more importantly the G8. I'm sure you know my opinion on this.

 

I really don't think this should be taken in the context of morale equivalency. I always look at the timeline and the era that anything happens. You can't judge peoples actions in the past by today's sensitivities. You can condemn what they did but you can't remove the fact that those things are the learning moments that brought the world around to thinking as we do today. If they had not happened, could you be certain that human rights issues would hold the position it has in today's society.? If the holocaust would not have happened, would we see the danger in supremacists philosophy or would we just think they were just another neighborhood wacko group.

 

 

Maybe the US and UK should be removed for their support of Jihadi terrorists in Syria, a Nazi coup in the Ukraine and the naked aggression against Libya and Iraq? If we're looking for aggressive countries to remove then we need a look a lot closer to home. The obvious answer is not to have permanent members of the Security Council in the first place, none of them are fit to act as the worlds policemen.

No one is fit to be the worlds police, since no one country is immune to self interest. What is needed is a wholly selfless body that is more interested in the people withing any country than the country that surrounds them. I think that most aid that is given to a country is given under the auspicious of leveraging the government instead of aiding the people, which guarantees that bad governments enrich themselves and continue the status quo.

 

Heck, If you look at it many of the countries, especially the third world countries have, by conquest or war have been redrawn and sometimes around people without their consent. Whole groups of people have been removed from their ancestral homes to wholly foreign lands to be governed over by officials that were picked by people entirely ignorant of the culture of these people.

 

This shake and bake method of dealing with issues and conflicts that might be ages long is more a quick covenant band-aid on a situation that the powers that be slap on the less influential and then through money at these people instead of respecting them as human beings. Money is not the answer, but it seems those that value it almost always think it is.

[HeyYou]

It's all a matter of perspective. As I recall, the folks in Crimea VOTED to join Russia. Why should we not respect that decision?

 

I also disagree with the premise "What we did was ok, because of when we did it, but, now, Russia doing it is no ok." Terribly sorry, that reasoning just won't fly. Russia actually had MORE justification to go into Crimea, than we did to go into Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. If you want to look at the way the scales balance here, the US should be the ones given the boot.....

[kvnchrist]

It's all a matter of perspective. As I recall, the folks in Crimea VOTED to join Russia. Why should we not respect that decision?

 

I also disagree with the premise "What we did was ok, because of when we did it, but, now, Russia doing it is no ok." Terribly sorry, that reasoning just won't fly. Russia actually had MORE justification to go into Crimea, than we did to go into Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. If you want to look at the way the scales balance here, the US should be the ones given the boot.....

 

A vote from people under occupation doesn't square in my books. My question would be wither there would have even been a vote if Russia hadn't placed boots on the ground.

 

No country has the right to go into another country unless in great need or an authorized legitimate power, such as the UN mandates it.

[JimboUK]

 

Yes. They have not invaded enough countries to keep up with the West and more importantly the G8. I'm sure you know my opinion on this.

 

I really don't think this should be taken in the context of morale equivalency. I always look at the timeline and the era that anything happens. You can't judge peoples actions in the past by today's sensitivities. You can condemn what they did but you can't remove the fact that those things are the learning moments that brought the world around to thinking as we do today. If they had not happened, could you be certain that human rights issues would hold the position it has in today's society.? If the holocaust would not have happened, would we see the danger in supremacists philosophy or would we just think they were just another neighborhood wacko group.

 

 

Maybe the US and UK should be removed for their support of Jihadi terrorists in Syria, a Nazi coup in the Ukraine and the naked aggression against Libya and Iraq? If we're looking for aggressive countries to remove then we need a look a lot closer to home. The obvious answer is not to have permanent members of the Security Council in the first place, none of them are fit to act as the worlds policemen.

No one is fit to be the worlds police, since no one country is immune to self interest. What is needed is a wholly selfless body that is more interested in the people withing any country than the country that surrounds them. I think that most aid that is given to a country is given under the auspicious of leveraging the government instead of aiding the people, which guarantees that bad governments enrich themselves and continue the status quo.

 

Heck, If you look at it many of the countries, especially the third world countries have, by conquest or war have been redrawn and sometimes around people without their consent. Whole groups of people have been removed from their ancestral homes to wholly foreign lands to be governed over by officials that were picked by people entirely ignorant of the culture of these people.

 

This shake and bake method of dealing with issues and conflicts that might be ages long is more a quick covenant band-aid on a situation that the powers that be slap on the less influential and then through money at these people instead of respecting them as human beings. Money is not the answer, but it seems those that value it almost always think it is.

 

 

A selfless body is not possible, it will come under pressure from vested interests or just be ignored. What will this body consist of? will the members be elected? if not then we have a unelected body overriding elected governments, if it is elected then those electing it will no doubt vote in their own self interest.

 

 

It's all a matter of perspective. As I recall, the folks in Crimea VOTED to join Russia. Why should we not respect that decision?

 

I also disagree with the premise "What we did was ok, because of when we did it, but, now, Russia doing it is no ok." Terribly sorry, that reasoning just won't fly. Russia actually had MORE justification to go into Crimea, than we did to go into Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc. If you want to look at the way the scales balance here, the US should be the ones given the boot.....

 

A vote from people under occupation doesn't square in my books. My question would be wither there would have even been a vote if Russia hadn't placed boots on the ground.

 

No country has the right to go into another country unless in great need or an authorized legitimate power, such as the UN mandates it.

 

 

The referendum was overseen by international observers who found no problems, it was certainly more democratic than the coup in the west. Crimea was given to the Ukraine by Khrushchev without consulting the people, this actually rights a wrong.