The UN does not seem very democratic if any one off the five permanent members can veto a decision. Shouldn't it work on a system that the more money you donate,the more votes you get but no veto.
2007-05-15 18:24:57 · 6 answers · asked by Darth Vader 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I agree 100 percent with you. I wish we would pull out of that money hungry organization.
2007-05-15 18:32:32 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ Mel 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Say what? The US would dominate if it was based on monetary donations. You can't endorse the buying of votes in a democracy.
In our democracy, the President can veto legislation, just as the permanent 5 can at the U.N.
You'd have to be arguing that the US isn't a Democracy either?
2007-05-16 01:31:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
UN, should be represnted by one country one vote princpal, but also bar countries that pratice brutal repressive rule partcipation. The reasoning democaries dont kill each other like autocratic dicatatoship do.
Politburo in USSR was criminal orgainization where loyalty meant a nice villa in the crimea, or hellesh extience in sibera.
UN should be reformed so poorer countries get more say, and it should be only country that are socially, and economically free to participate.
2007-05-16 01:40:03 · answer #3 · answered by ram456456 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The UN isn't a democracy t was never designed to be in the first place. I do agree that the US should pull out the UN has never been a very functional agency.
2007-05-16 01:33:40 · answer #4 · answered by firetdriver_99 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Neighbors getting together to resolve their differences peacefully? yeah, what an awful idea.
2007-05-16 01:31:39 · answer #5 · answered by kappalokka 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
USA GIVES U.N THE MOST FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND HAS THE MOST INFLUENCE. SO YES THEY MUST BE DAMN COMMUNIST. THEY MAY BE A TERRORIST TOO!!
2007-05-16 01:49:17 · answer #6 · answered by macmanf4j 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋