it seems I have missed thee first veto : On March 17, 1970, . The first U.S. veto in history was a gesture of support for Britain, which was under Security Council pressure to end the white minority government in southern Rhodesia.
Two simple questions: Do you think the Palestinians have a right to launch rockets into Israel? Does Israel have a right to respond if Palestinians launch rockets into Israel? My feeling is that if the UN is not going to stop the first, then they have no business trying to stop the latter. I am curious your take on it. (I know that if you pose the question, it would be the reverse order with Israel attacking first, so we can get to that later - but I am curious your answer to this particular question) I don't know too much about the history of Rhodesia, but I do know that Britain had a policy of not wanting to allow independence until such time as the black majorities would be fully enfranchised. It may seem odd, but it seems like much of their effort was to prevent counties like Rhodesia from becoming ruled by a small white minority once granted independence from England. Like I said, I don't know too much about that period in that country nor do I have any idea what that particular resolution was about or the reasons to support or oppose it. I can only assume since Britain had its own veto, that the US vote was largely symbolic.
That kind of question is childish . Lets close eyes on resolutions banned just becouse of "some silly , arabs died " .. But they look much more important( I could copy some of them , maybe I missed some: I dont know much about Rhodesia too. As it was the first veto US used, I have just added it too. p.s : U.S. veto has been used 289 times. Of these, 109 vetoes were for israel's benefit
I have no idea what you are talking about. I do not value any one life above another. Can you explain to me how we have resolutions drafted against Israel but there is no mention of Palestinian government sponsored attacks on Israel? How can you justify resolutions that are one sided?
We are talking about vetoed resolutions...109 vetoes out of 289 were for benefit of israel. it is about 37 percent of used vetoes . It looks like israel is having a sit in UN security council .. 6 resolutions were not about attacks, were not about victims. I guess they were important vetoes
I am not sure of your point. The US decided it was in our and the world's best interest to issue those vetoes. While you are greatly disturbed by the fact these votes seemed to benefit Israel, that alone is no reason to have any problem with the votes. Let's get back to the substance. Resolutions are meaningless pieces of paper. What ACTION do you want the UN to take?
If I start abusing you, that would bring no harm to you but still you would be pissed off . likewise the vetoed resolutions might be meaningless but still they would irritate those against whom you decide to veto again and again why UN can't do anything? why not military and economic sanctions for isreal? why not military action against isreal, if UNO can mess in other parts of the world than why not isreal ? that being said, it is not the topic of this thread veto right for anyone is against the principles of democracy and equality so should be abolished, you are still to provide me some sane reason that why veto for few countries are justified ?