Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

Is United Nations just?

frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 4:32:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
According to me, UN(United Nations) have an unjust structure and so absolutely, it must be changed.
It is very funny, an establishment which has been for peace between disagreements, has 5 permanent members (USA, Russia. China,France and England).
Even if all other countries are fully in agreement on a matter, no acceptable that, as long as (even)one of the five is disagree!

Where is justice?
18Karl
Posts: 351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:28:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 4:32:58 AM, frbnsn wrote:
According to me, UN(United Nations) have an unjust structure and so absolutely, it must be changed.
It is very funny, an establishment which has been for peace between disagreements, has 5 permanent members (USA, Russia. China,France and England).
Even if all other countries are fully in agreement on a matter, no acceptable that, as long as (even)one of the five is disagree!

Where is justice?

What is justice would be a more viable question. Such abstract concepts aren't built upon nothing. Give me a definition of justice, or else via the Aristotelian definition, I'm pretty sure that the UN has been very just
praise the lord Chin Chin
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:11:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm not saying that they are still a threat today, just that it explains why giving those countries diplomatic power didn't make much sense when they choose who got to be a permanent member. Also, too many permanent members would lead to gridlock.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:25:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? The Soviet Union expanded by conquering other nations. The United Kingdom expanded by conquering other nations. The US expanded by conquering other nations. France imperialism?

The Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions of its own people. The war between the axis v. allies was not a simple scenario of good vs. evil.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:29:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:25:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? The Soviet Union expanded by conquering other nations. The United Kingdom expanded by conquering other nations. The US expanded by conquering other nations. France imperialism?

You're putting words in my mouth. Of course they were crazy and evil. But not giving Russia and China veto powers after WW2 would have made the UN meaningless.


The Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions of its own people. The war between the axis v. allies was not a simple scenario of good vs. evil.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:37:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:29:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:25:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? The Soviet Union expanded by conquering other nations. The United Kingdom expanded by conquering other nations. The US expanded by conquering other nations. France imperialism?


You're putting words in my mouth. Of course they were crazy and evil. But not giving Russia and China veto powers after WW2 would have made the UN meaningless.

"But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". "

I'm disputing your claim that winners were not as crazy and evil as the losers. Although you didn't say that they weren't evil and crazy. Just not AS evil and crazy.

Yes of course, the winners of WWII got the spoils of war. They were powerhouses that were victors of WWII and needed to be granted a voice to function. They had the spoils of war. It was a highly politicized move. But the winners of WWII is irrelevant to modern times.


The Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions of its own people. The war between the axis v. allies was not a simple scenario of good vs. evil.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:38:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:37:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:29:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:25:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? The Soviet Union expanded by conquering other nations. The United Kingdom expanded by conquering other nations. The US expanded by conquering other nations. France imperialism?


You're putting words in my mouth. Of course they were crazy and evil. But not giving Russia and China veto powers after WW2 would have made the UN meaningless.

"But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". "

I'm disputing your claim that winners were not as crazy and evil as the losers. Although you didn't say that they weren't evil and crazy. Just not AS evil and crazy.

No, actually you weren't: "Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? "

Yes of course, the winners of WWII got the spoils of war. They were powerhouses that were victors of WWII and needed to be granted a voice to function. They had the spoils of war. It was a highly politicized move. But the winners of WWII is irrelevant to modern times.


The Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions of its own people. The war between the axis v. allies was not a simple scenario of good vs. evil.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,337
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:41:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Germany and Japan are good examples why it's okay to fail and go bankrupt from time to time.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:48:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:41:12 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Germany and Japan are good examples why it's okay to fail and go bankrupt from time to time.

lol
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:48:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:38:55 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:37:46 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:29:59 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:25:24 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:20:13 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:16:21 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:08:24 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:44 AM, darkkermit wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:53:36 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
The veto gives those countries an alternative to going rogue against resolutions they strongly disagree with. It's obviously a good idea if peace is the goal.

Germany and Japan are much powerful economically than France or Great Britain. Plus they also have larger populations.

They also caused a world war.

If a system is based on the winners who get the spoilers of a war, how long can the system really last? Is WWII going to relevant 100 years after it occurred? 200 years?

But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". Nevertheless, I don't think it would be a bad idea to give Germany and Japan veto powers. Although, they would probably just side with the US/UK/FR most of the time.

Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? The Soviet Union expanded by conquering other nations. The United Kingdom expanded by conquering other nations. The US expanded by conquering other nations. France imperialism?


You're putting words in my mouth. Of course they were crazy and evil. But not giving Russia and China veto powers after WW2 would have made the UN meaningless.

"But in this case, "winner" was roughly synonymous with "not as crazy and evil as the losers". "

I'm disputing your claim that winners were not as crazy and evil as the losers. Although you didn't say that they weren't evil and crazy. Just not AS evil and crazy.

No, actually you weren't: "Since when was the Soviet Union not crazy and evil? Same with China? "

Yes, and this sentence proves what.....Do I have to explicitly state "I am disputing your claim that the winners were not as crazy and evil as the losers" when I respond showing examples of how the allies were crazy and evil.


Yes of course, the winners of WWII got the spoils of war. They were powerhouses that were victors of WWII and needed to be granted a voice to function. They had the spoils of war. It was a highly politicized move. But the winners of WWII is irrelevant to modern times.


The Soviet Union and Communist China killed millions of its own people. The war between the axis v. allies was not a simple scenario of good vs. evil.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
frbnsn
Posts: 353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2014 4:35:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Last year, there was a coup in Egypt and a president, who is elected by the votes of Egyptians, was deposed and who voted for the president slaughters.
And the UN do nothing against this injustice, under the influence of the members of Security Council.

Then how do you approve today's structure of The UN?!