Opinion of the United Nations

[dead0man]

I am NOT a fan of Israel, but I think the UN is also rabidly anti Semitic.

Yeah, but antisemitism with no teeth isn't all that bad is it?

Do you guys realize Israel basically has a free pass to do whatever the hell it wants due to US veto power?

Then why don't they?  Do the other countries with veto power have "pets" too?  Why are they rarely talked about?  Probably has something to do with what Sanchez was talking about above.
Those of you bitching about the supposed lack of US power in the UN do realize the US is one of five countries to hold permanent veto power? Those dictators you guys are so concerned about are basically powerless beyond giving speeches.

[dead0man]

I am NOT a fan of Israel, but I think the UN is also rabidly anti Semitic.

Yeah, but antisemitism with no teeth isn't all that bad is it?

Do you guys realize Israel basically has a free pass to do whatever the hell it wants due to US veto power?

Then why don't they?  Do the other countries with veto power have "pets" too?  Why are they rarely talked about?  Probably has something to do with what Sanchez was talking about above.

Of course the other countries with veto powers have pets as well, though it's mainly the US now. Back in the day, the USSR obviously had many. This is an interesting chart of vetoes by the five countries during different periods of time.

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?  Also, it's interesting that the US total, even with all the protecting of Israel they do, haven't even come close to what the Soviets did before 1965.  Clearly the US is abusing the system.

[dead0man]

So why doesn't Israel do "whatever the hell it wants" if it has the US protecting it?

It pretty much does. I can't think of any instance where Israel had to restrain itself out of fear for a UN intervention, can you?

Has anybody ever restrained itself due to fear of UN intervention?  Israel has, of course, restrained itself due to international pressure though.  Why else haven't they removed the native population of Gaza or the native Arab population in Jerusalem and the West Bank, it certainly isn't because of a lack of ability.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The high number of USSR vetoes might have to do with the facts that a) the UN as a whole was dominated almost entirely by the West and its allies untill the great decolonisation waves made the numerical balance of power shift towards the Third World. A fact the US was quite adept at exploiting, as evidenced by the way they played the institution during the Korea War, and b) the USSR was completely on its own in the SC well into the '70s, as Taiwan had the Chinese seat in that council and wouldn't give it up untill, what, the Shanghai Communiqué (?) (Honestly can't remember, I suppose it must have been then.)
[/quote]k

[dead0man]

I wasn't exactly trying to say the US is overly abusing the system (everyone abuses it to protect their interests and buddies), just pointing out how much more powerful it is than the tin foil dictators everyone is complaining about here. The UN's peacekeeping side of the ledger is pretty ineffective, and that is due to the design of the body. And yes, the US is also complicit in making it ineffective. Maybe we should have UN forces in the Gaza strip and the West Bank to protect them from the Israelis. What chance does that have of getting past the council?

If they are protecting both ways and are effective, I wouldn't have a problem with it and I doubt Israel or the US would either.  I take it you think otherwise?

But then that's like saying that Israel can't do what it wants becaus it can't colonise the moon. Some things are just impossible. In modern politics the genocide, which used to be a helpfull resource, has become a form of political suicide. No country on earth (and certainly not those in the West's sphere of influence) could easily get away with a direct massacre of a specific ethnical group. 

Perhaps I should have chosen my words more carefully.  I didn't mean to imply genocide.  I meant fully taking over and shipping out anybody that starts sh**t.  I'm also not suggesting they could do this on a whim, that wouldn't be kosher.  But as we all know, once a decade or so we can be certain some douchebag group or another will give them a good excuse.  If they were the genocidal asshats some people like to think they are they would do it.  But they don't because they are not.  That's my point.  Thank you for letting me make it more clear.

[dead0man]

Not at all. I think most of you buy into their (the actual anti-semites) propaganda a bit too much, but that's true of nearly everybody on some topic or another (myself no doubt included).  But no, I don't think everybody that falls on the wrong side of this debate is an anti-semite.