Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NUKE on September 18, 2004, 06:03:50 PM
-
The UN is at it again. I'll bet they just hired a bunch of new writers.
The vote was 11-0. China, Russia, Pakistan and Algeria abstained due to objections to sanctions and other provisions, which they said could provoke the Sudanese government to end its cooperation with international efforts to cope with the massive humanitarian crisis.
Is it just me, or do China and Russia never seem to step up to the plate about ANYTHING. They abstained, thus they DID NOT object to the santions...otherwise they could have used their veto. But no....they have to ride the fence . They "abstained" which means they agree with the idea, but don't want to been seen as agreeing with the idea. They ride the fence.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20040918/D856AM3O0.html
-
so?
whats your point?
-
Originally posted by Nilsen
so?
whats your point?
My point is that Russia and China never seem to take a stand on anything. They have VETO power in the UN , yet say they object to the Sudan sanctions......but they abstain in instead.
If they really objected, they would vote NO and kill the sanctions. Instead they play games. They should have just voted for the resolution and given it more weight.
-
agree
-
Ohhh UN sanctions....smuggling will become lucrative..where's my pirate hat?
-
Originally posted by GScholz
Perhaps you need to learn a bit more of what you're talking about. A negative vote by any of the veto powers is a veto. It is not possible for the USA, Russia and the other veto holders to vote "no" without "using their veto". They can either vote yes, or abstain, if they vote no the resolution is automatically forfeit.
So your conclusion is wrong: "They "abstained" which means they agree with the idea, but don't want to been seen as agreeing with the idea."
They abstained, which means that they do NOT agree, but does not what to use their veto because the issue isn't important enough to risk the potential political fallout.
I wish you would try to get ONE thing right for once.
It's very simple. If they really dissagreed, they would have VETOED....otherwise they either could have agreed by voting yes. By abstaining to a measure that they KNEW was going to pass unless they VETOED....they in effect supported the measure.
They supported the measure but did not want the consequences of directly supporting or voting against it. Thus they are cowards and sit on the fence.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
You really don't know what "abstaining" means, do you?
Yeah, do you?
By abstaining, they cast away their VETO and decided to let the measure pass, even though they claimed they were against the measure. If they really were against the measure, they would have VETOED it.
Instead they issued a public statement objecting to the measure, yet in reality did nothing to stop the measure.
Cowards.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
If it meant enough to them they would have vetoed it. They just didn't think it was important enough to defy the rest of the UN.
Yeah the Russians are cowards, that show how much you know. [insert ghey rolleyes here]
so in other words, they did not take a stand "publicly" yet agreed to let the measure pass. They dissagreed publicly, yet in reality they did absolutely nothing in their power to stop it.
They could have easily stopped the measure if they did not like it. They CHOSE to let the measure pass.
-
When is the rest of the world gonna realize that the UN is a useless body..that just helps terrorists and rogue states by bogging everything down in committees and hearings giving them time to continue on their course or to hide evidence.
when i think of the UN..i am reminded of the galactic senate in "The phantom Menace" when faced with the fact that Naboo had been invaded, the senate refused to belive it until a commitee was sent to confirm it and refused to make a decision to do so.
-
I think what GScholz is sayin'....
There are times at work where the people around me, or the clients, will propose something ridiculous. Then 3-4 or them will jump all over it like it was the greatest idea ever in the whole world.
I'm thinking "dumb".
But I'm also thinking "should I say it's dumb?"
I weigh the consequences of letting the project go forward vs pissing on everyones parade by, yeah, vetoing it.
Some cases it's just worth it to let it go, despite disagreeing. Ya gotta pick yer battles. Jumping into every one of them just makes you an arse.
-
Call the Russians cowards? I think not. They've started just as much **** in this world as we have. It doesn't matter anyway...to quote myself
When is the rest of the world gonna realize that the UN is a useless body..that just helps terrorists and rogue states by bogging everything down in committees and hearings giving them time to continue on their course or to hide evidence.
when i think of the UN..i am reminded of the galactic senate in "The phantom Menace" when faced with the fact that Naboo had been invaded, the senate refused to belive it until a commitee was sent to confirm it and refused to make a decision to do so.
What is the point to argueing this?
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think what GScholz is sayin'....
There are times at work where the people around me, or the clients, will propose something ridiculous. Then 3-4 or them will jump all over it like it was the greatest idea ever in the whole world.
I'm thinking "dumb".
But I'm also thinking "should I say it's dumb?"
I weigh the consequences of letting the project go forward vs pissing on everyones parade by, yeah, vetoing it.
Some cases it's just worth it to let it go, despite disagreeing. Ya gotta pick yer battles. Jumping into every one of them just makes you an arse.
:) Nash
I hear ya......Nations are "human" just like we are.
-
Originally posted by Nash
I think what GScholz is sayin'....
There are times at work where the people around me, or the clients, will propose something ridiculous. Then 3-4 or them will jump all over it like it was the greatest idea ever in the whole world.
I'm thinking "dumb".
But I'm also thinking "should I say it's dumb?"
I weigh the consequences of letting the project go forward vs pissing on everyones parade by, yeah, vetoing it.
Some cases it's just worth it to let it go, despite disagreeing. Ya gotta pick yer battles. Jumping into every one of them just makes you an arse.
:) Nash
I hear ya......Nations are "human" just like we are. Just don't like fence sitters much.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
U.N. Threatens Sanctions Against Sudan
Quick... someone warn the Sudanese that the U.N. isn't going to do squat. :rolleyes:
-
the UN should just be disbanded. it has no real purpose.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
the UN should just be disbanded. it has no real purpose.
The UN employs a lot of high educated people who may be dangerous to humanity if employed elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by B17Skull12
the UN should just be disbanded. it has no real purpose.
For once you and I are in agreement..How much money does the US throw into this useless organization?
-
Sudan is a big mess and will be very hard to fix, everyone knows this. Some feel compelled to try because not doing so is unconscionable. Others are willing to stand by and watch, eager to ridicule any negative results even if those results are much better than the alternative. Yes, we live in a very political, competitive, and harsh world.
-
They just didn't think it was important enough to defy the rest of the UN.
How the heck do you know what they were thinking?
-
Originally posted by ra
The UN employs a lot of high educated people who may be dangerous to humanity if employed elsewhere.
you mean countries of the UN employ alot of highly edumacated people, and in reallity all the UN employs is weapons inspectors that really serve no purpose because countries can throw them out.
Then they pay people to help othes in countries that are poor.
-
Originally posted by GScholz
I couldn't agree more. Many countries and both the UN and the AU have been working on improving the situation for the last 10 years. Of course their efforts have been ridiculed time and time again on this board by people who never have and never will get involved themselves.
Like this guy?
"The UN, USA, Britain and Germany have complicated the situation in Darfur and hindered our efforts there", he said.
It seems to me that Al Jazeera would like for the UN to mind it's own business and not interfere in Sudan. Could it be because they support the Muslims that are intent on exterminating a people?
http://www.sudan.net/news/posted/9837.html
-
Hmmm, could this be why China "abstained"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3040111.stm
"China National Petroleum (CNPC) and the Sudanese government are planning to invest $1bn (£610m) in the African country's oil infrastructure, according to Chinese state media."
If you believe that state supported genocide isn't taking place in Sudan you may want to read a few the articles here:
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-sdn/index
-
Originally posted by AKIron
It seems to me that Al Jazeera would like for the UN to mind it's own business and not interfere in Sudan. Could it be because they support the Muslims that are intent on exterminating a people?
Would someone tell me what the h311 is the UN's business PLEASE.
Russia and China to think its worth much, that is obvious.
What is everyone were to abstain the next vote.
Useless I tell you they are just useless
UN= Useless Knuckleheads