should the UN have veto,s

[Dune Dx]

I think we shouldnt have vetos because if one country doesnt agree with something they can just stop it from happening and thats not democracy one voice being more important than the majority!!!

[Maynard]

Yeah , I agree and contary to what many people believe, the United States vetoes the most UN resolutions by a long distance. It was amusing to hear right wingers complain about France threatning to use it's veto. Also, the Soviet Union in it's existance, vetoed less resolutions than the United States, Great Britian and France, yet they were seen as an "obstruction".

Here (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2000.htm) is a list of vetoes the United States has used.

This one for example is interesting :1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes. They vetoed that.
Also vetoed this :1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
Why would any nation supposedly acting in the worlds interest veto such a resolution ?

Anyway , no nation should have a Vetoe but nations like the United States would work around this, by linking aid to how "supportive" nations are.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issue...25dollardip.htm (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/2003/0225dollardip.htm)

[Guest1]

A better question, shouldn't the UN have a legislative body more powerful than the general assembly, made up of democratically elected delegates across the world?

Shouldn't this body have a veto?

[Dune Dx]

ok then explain ur Ideas on this leagative body!

[BOZG]

The UN is an imperialist organisation, which will always act in the interests of the major imperialist powers, particularly the US. Nevermind about it not having vetoes, it should be disbanded.

[Dune Dx]

Then how can we keep nations in line and stop them doing things that are blatently wrong If we dont have the UN. If the UN vote on the iraqi war had gone ahead and America had lost then most of the coalition members would not of gone to war and maybe america wouldnt of either.

[Guest1]

The current body, the general assembly, becomes nothing but a suggestive body. It can table proposals, but can't do anything on its own. The security council in its current form is disbanded. Its powers are handed to a completely new body which is elected the same way the EU representatives are. Across the world, the people elect their own delegates, with countries having more or less delegates by population.

All veto power goes to this new body, all power to declare war, passed on to this body.

Of course, this can't work if the elections aren't guaranteed to be fair, so countries that refuse UN election inspectors would be suspended from this body.

The US, which currently uses those scary electronic voting machines, also currently refuses to allow international inspection monitors in. Hehe...

[Dune Dx]

preety cool mayb you should get some kind of support for that