Russia Playing America's Game

How you view Syria's action against its citizens versus the potential of a UN resolution condemning the alleged action versus the threat to veto by an original Security Council member depends on many, many things. Russia considers the Syrian government to be an ally and it likely considers the Syrian demonstrators to be insurgents who intend to remove a government Russia views as legitimate for whatever reasons it may.

Difference here is you may have read, viewed or witnessed Syrian government actions that you consider to be human rights violations and so you would support that resolution. In many cases, the myriad of UN resolutions against Israel were not viewed as legitimate from the outset, were considered constructions of propaganda organizations or staged in some way. Big difference.

I think you meant to say:

"In many cases, the myriad of UN resolutions against Israel were not viewed as legitimate from the outset by the US, were considered constructions of propaganda organizations by the US or staged in some way in the eyes of the US. Not really that big of a difference."

I'm commenting before I read Jims response, so if I say the same stuff, you'll know why.

I'm talking about the countries that bring the petitions to the table.. Those countries are making frivolous complaints, and there are enough countries that hate Israel that those frivolous complaints come to a vote. THEN the US vetoes them.

If the ME and Russia would stop petitioning for silly things, then perhaps something productive would come of it.. but seriously, condemn Israel because they dissed your countries leader? If your country is so feeble that it's leader can't take being dissed by the neighbor you hate, then you've got a lot of growing up to do as a country.

You think wrong.........

But you can read the list I posted above. What in them is silly? Maybe a few of them might not have required a UN meeting on the issue, but that majority of them definitely demanded international awareness. I don't see how you can call them silly. Sure, anyone can think 50 resolutions against a specific country are annoying, but having 50 resolutions against a country means something's wrong in that region. If we all continue to label these petitions as silly and frivolous, the US/Russia will keep vetoing for their pets and people will keep dying.

I think that UN votes shouldn't have to be unanimous. I'm sure that everyone see's how the US has been covering Israel's war crimes these past 40 years but they can't do anything about it because according to the rules, if the US alone says no, then it's a no. It's absolutely ridiculous. And now Russia's playing it and eventually China will. It's a game. The UN is a game.

You have a lot to learn.

the US, Russia, China, Japan, Great Britain and France all have veto power.. And the UN isn't a game.. it's a joke. They have no power, and none of the big 6 will ever grant them any. They're a bunch of guys who like to fly all over the world and posture for their countries, and make pompous claims, and they've got nothing to back it up with.

the UN costs the US more than 10 billion a year.. I'd rather see it gone and use that 10 billion to reduce our debt, or provide aid.

Unless Russia goes back to Communism the Cold War IS for all intents and purposes over. However, that doesn't mean we now get along over every issue. It doesn't even mean we necessarily trust each other. It just means we're unlikely to start WWIII over such issues. Even less so than in the 1970's, in fact.

As it does many other countries as well. The US isn't the only one suffering from this game.



That's not exactly a bad thing. Sure, it keeps everyone vetoing each other and staying powerless, but it doesn't allow for anyone else to have too much power like you said. That's a good thing. Less of a chance of creating a 21st century state that's the equivalent of Nazi Germany.

But for all the things the UN is bad about, don't you think it is still necessary to some extent? It acts as a meeting place for the entire world. It acts as a neutral (or at least tries to act as a neutral) organization that sends aid to all different parts of the world. As pathetic as the UN is in some areas that you've just mentioned, it still is of great benefit to everyone in other areas. Yes, countries can individually send aid or protection to any region in the world, but so far as there's an organization that takes a little from everyone to finish job makes the world a better community.

Communism was not the reason of the Cold War. The reason of the Cold War was the end of WW2. The US and Russia (which happened to be Communist at the time) were the last two standing giants and things just snowballed from there. And it might have officially ended when the USSR collapsed, but what happened was just an event. It was just coincidentally irrelevant. You don't have to call what we have now the Cold War if you want to deny that it still exists. That's fine with me. But the fact remains that both these countries are still attempting to spread their influence/weapons all over the world. Two very good examples are Syria and Israel. They're both being buffed up by each superpower and if things don't calm down around here, it's going to blow up real soon. What they were doing during the Cold War, they are doing now. So what's the difference?

Russia turning Communist played an important part. You can't deny that, but more importantly for this discussion is the fact the Soviet Union collapsed. It simply isn't the same government anymore, nor is it technically the same country. Like I said, that doesn't mean Washington and Moscow are best friends or completely trust each other, but they're far more friendly than even the mildest point of the Cold War. There's no real risk of WWIII simply because the US supports Israel and Russia supports Syria. THAT'S the difference, and it's a pretty big difference at that.

Alright, I will admit that the two countries are very different and for the sake of this argument, I'll even admit that they're "far more friendly than ever." But just as there are two sides to every coin, there are two sides to every relationship. There are the external affairs and there are the internal affairs. The external affairs are those which are exposed and those which people read and the internal affairs are those which are the truth and which are rarely exposed. What you are saying here is that both the external affairs and internal affairs (of either Russia or the US) are exact copies on one another, and all you can base that assumption on is what you get to read, i.e. the external affairs. But if you take history as a lesson and look at all the past grudges countries had on one another, their reconciliations, their pacts, you will come to understand that we don't live in such an ideal world where governments say and do what they mean. In fact, I think you understand that very well but are choosing not to see it for the sake of keeping your mind clear. The USSR was a name. That's all it was. The people that ruled the USSR are still in Russia. The Communists are still in Russia. The infrastructure of the USSR is still alive and kicking. This is all just under another name. Do you honestly believe that because the USSR collapsed that peoples' ideas and thoughts about it collapsed as well? That they just stopped thinking about it and forgot about it?