the point that since Nixon vetoed something completely unrelated in 1972 before I was born I have no cause for complaint? Sorry but that doesn't fly for reasons stated.
The point that the Security Council is a load of bull makes your complaint irrelevant. I think I've cited that often. ...And the 36 or vetoes the US has passed since Nixon would provide you a glimpse into the "Security Council", is all.
Was China and Russia's veto based on your "load of bull" opinion? If it were a load of bull why would they even bother? hello - zimbabwe is on the phone for you - and it doesn't understand how your tangent on perpetual joint and several estoppel liability for UNSC vetos matters
I'm saying the Security Council is a load of bull since it's more or less a politcal battle of wills; we saw it with the USSR, we saw it with the USA, there's a possibility of seeing it with China. Of course the countires involved in it play it all out, but from my perspective, it's compeltly counterproductive. It's nothing new that certain countries will veto positive resolutions just to flex some muscle on the international stage; it's a fact of life. The fact is, the Security Council is mostly (there have been some positives, I'm not saying the UN is a waste of time...but it is seriously flawed) useless, since it is handicapped by the threat of veto and thus cannot deal with extremes or anything that might touch the nerves of the "permeanent members". The system is flawed. You shouldn't be criticizing the individual members (although your zeal for attacking China has obviously led you to done that) but the system itself, that allows for such things (as an example, the Iraqi war, which the SC was powerless to stop, no matter how many resolutions it lobbed at the States) The system is highly relevant to this discussion. Yes, China/Russia's veto may have been in poor taste and you can rightfully criticize them, but I'm saying that it is consistent with the history and patterns of those who have veto power; hate the game, not the player. This is hardly out of the norm for Security Council vetoes. As an example... All I'm saying is that the SC is a game of politcal handwringing, where people and results don't matter as much as the big boys going for each other. Your op-ed author is trying to elevate this to some "China is irresponsible on the world stage, not fit to lead the world , watch out for the human rights monster China etc.", when it's more or less been the standard practice of all world powers for the last couple of years on the SC (and actually China was a country that has relativly been quiet when it comes to vetoes). Deplorable? Yes. But welcome to the world of the UNSC.
