If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(USA Today)   Saudi Arabia rejects UN security council seat, since they already own the US and don't want to stack the deck   (usatoday.com) divider line 21
    More: Strange, Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia rejects, United Nations Security Council, Saudi Press Agency, seats  
•       •       •

2291 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Oct 2013 at 10:24 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



21 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-10-18 10:27:06 AM  
If you read the article, subby, then you'd know that this is their way to protest the US not doing enough to 'stack the deck' in favor of Salafists everywhere.
 
2013-10-18 10:27:31 AM  
No kidding.
The Saudis snap their fingers, the US and A! sits and licks its balls.
 
2013-10-18 10:47:22 AM  
If the Saudi's and other Arab countries want something done in Syria, let them go to it. They have well funded, U.S. supplied & trained militaries. Let them send their "sons" to die in some Allah-forsaken desert shiat-hole for a change.
The constant need for the Arab countries to have the U.S. spent our capital and blood in their defense is ludicrous.
 
2013-10-18 10:54:56 AM  
FTA: [The UN] has failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sure they'll get Sisyphus right on it just as soon as he gets the boulder to stop rolling down the hill.
 
2013-10-18 11:07:21 AM  
Don't we produce more oil now than Saudi Arabia?
 
2013-10-18 11:13:39 AM  
Or, maybe it's in protest of the fact that a few countries on the council are more equal than the others, and a nay vote by any one of them can stall an initiative voted yes by every other.

Good work, Saudis. Stick it to them. Maybe one day the permanent council members will be told to piss off and join the world community on equal terms.
 
2013-10-18 11:16:03 AM  

Korzine: FTA: [The UN] has failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sure they'll get Sisyphus right on it just as soon as he gets the boulder to stop rolling down the hill.


Pffft?  That rock?  He's so over that.  No, he'll be leaving Hades and looking for a new gig, just as soon as he gets the daughters of Danaus that water they asked for.
 
2013-10-18 11:19:18 AM  
You want intervention? Saudi Arabia, you have the military capable of it. And lookee there, you're right in the neighborhood.
 
2013-10-18 11:34:08 AM  
bakarocket: "Maybe one day the permanent council members will be told to piss off and join the world community on equal terms."

And what happens without permanent council seats?
Do you really think the US/Russia/China are going to commit troops somewhere, because a handful of other nations outvoted it?
Hey, they can just abstain and let others do what they want, right? 
Yeah, just like they can right now. If SA, Turkey, et al really wanted to go into Syria, surely they *could*.  The UN isn't *stopping* them from making an outside alliance and pursuing their interests.

But there's the other wrinkle: do you really think the US/Russia/China are going to *not* defend an interest, just because the some other nations in the UN voted to commit UN troops to attacking it?
The permanent council seat vetoes are tantamount to a declaration that "we're willing to resist this militarily." 
You can work around the permanent members, but if they're declaring that they're willing to blow shiat up, the veto isn't so much a binding decision for another country, but a pretty clear cut warning that your proposed action would trigger a larger war than you likely want.

And because of that, we've managed to avoid major world conflicts. 
Much better Russia gets a veto over UN action in Syria, than SA plows in, triggers Russian retaliation, drawing the US in and igniting the whole damn region/world.

TL;DR: The benefit of the UN is preventing escalation, not whether or not they can send blue helmets somewhere.
To the end of preventing escalation, only unequal representation (recognizing the unequal power of UN member countries) is it at all useful.
 
2013-10-18 11:38:57 AM  

HotIgneous Intruder: No kidding.
The Saudis snap their fingers, the US and A! sits and licks its balls.


pbs.twimg.com
"Lick thah Sultan's bahlz, Kyle,"
 
2013-10-18 11:50:12 AM  

bakarocket: Or, maybe it's in protest of the fact that a few countries on the council are more equal than the others, and a nay vote by any one of them can stall an initiative voted yes by every other.

Good work, Saudis. Stick it to them. Maybe one day the permanent council members will be told to piss off and join the world community on equal terms.


And yet Australia spent over $20mil getting our temporary position on the Security Council.

The problem is HUGE nuke arsenals (should read: arse and alls), make certain 'sovereign' states more equal than others.

Pretty much suggests that the world is ruled by bullies and dangerous ones at that, who we should fear because they might just decide to vaporise everyone you know. So you better listen to them.

Do we dare to make an International Nuke Force?  The only group on the planet with nukes - multinational spread everywhere, but if you step out of line beware of the strap!

(probably no - cause most sane places have decided corporal punishment is counter productive.)
 
2013-10-18 11:52:16 AM  

ringersol: bakarocket: "Maybe one day the permanent council members will be told to piss off and join the world community on equal terms."

And what happens without permanent council seats?
Do you really think the US/Russia/China are going to commit troops somewhere, because a handful of other nations outvoted it?
Hey, they can just abstain and let others do what they want, right? 
Yeah, just like they can right now. If SA, Turkey, et al really wanted to go into Syria, surely they *could*.  The UN isn't *stopping* them from making an outside alliance and pursuing their interests.

But there's the other wrinkle: do you really think the US/Russia/China are going to *not* defend an interest, just because the some other nations in the UN voted to commit UN troops to attacking it?
The permanent council seat vetoes are tantamount to a declaration that "we're willing to resist this militarily." 
You can work around the permanent members, but if they're declaring that they're willing to blow shiat up, the veto isn't so much a binding decision for another country, but a pretty clear cut warning that your proposed action would trigger a larger war than you likely want.

And because of that, we've managed to avoid major world conflicts. 
Much better Russia gets a veto over UN action in Syria, than SA plows in, triggers Russian retaliation, drawing the US in and igniting the whole damn region/world.

TL;DR: The benefit of the UN is preventing escalation, not whether or not they can send blue helmets somewhere.
To the end of preventing escalation, only unequal representation (recognizing the unequal power of UN member countries) is it at all useful.


That's...a good reason to keep permanent members, actually.
 
2013-10-18 12:24:48 PM  

bakarocket: Or, maybe it's in protest of the fact that a few countries on the council are more equal than the others, and a nay vote by any one of them can stall an initiative voted yes by every other.

Good work, Saudis. Stick it to them. Maybe one day the permanent council members will be told to piss off and join the world community on equal terms.


LOL.  News flash, nations are not equal and some nations matter more than others in world affairs.  When other countries gain capabilities and drive to actually affect the world community, then maybe they can have a voice that matters in security situations.   If you want to have a vote that matters in world affairs, you need to have power to back up that decision.  The US, Russia, China, UK, and France all have militaries and the will to use them so that when they speak, they matter much more than India, Brazil, or Indonesia. Economic power and demographics are nice, but if you cannot utilize that to put boots on the ground when the going gets tough, you will always be sidelined when decisions are made.
 
2013-10-18 12:46:29 PM  
Actually the Saudi's made a couple good points, a couple not all of them.  Having a U.N. that hesitates getting involved and then once it does, it does little to warrant their involvements.  The Saudi's were basically saying (or so I read it this way) what's the point of joining an all but meaningless organization and until that organization gets serious about it's actions, they will say thanks for the offer but, to put it crudely, come back later when you've grown a pair! 
This is not just a statement of military power, as one of the post above has mentioned, it covers honoring sanctions, something many countries have a hard time doing, and making sanctions that will actually have a real impact on the country or government it is being applied to. Honoring the commitments being in said group requires when it's needed and doing so quickly and concisely.
 
2013-10-18 12:50:28 PM  

Korzine: FTA: [The UN] has failed to transform the Middle East into a zone free of weapons of mass destruction.

I'm sure they'll get Sisyphus right on it just as soon as he gets the boulder to stop rolling down the hill.


The rock in the sidebar?

www.gannett-cdn.com
 
2013-10-18 01:20:54 PM  

Quackadam: Actually the Saudi's made a couple good points, a couple not all of them.  Having a U.N. that hesitates getting involved and then once it does, it does little to warrant their involvements.  The Saudi's were basically saying (or so I read it this way) what's the point of joining an all but meaningless organization and until that organization gets serious about it's actions, they will say thanks for the offer but, to put it crudely, come back later when you've grown a pair! 
This is not just a statement of military power, as one of the post above has mentioned, it covers honoring sanctions, something many countries have a hard time doing, and making sanctions that will actually have a real impact on the country or government it is being applied to. Honoring the commitments being in said group requires when it's needed and doing so quickly and concisely.


The thing is, they're not proposing any new solutions to the problems. They're just saying that the UN has failed to solve them. If they were actually serious about solving them, they wouldn't just keep from helping the UN, they'd start putting their own solutions in place.

I think they've decided that they don't want to have even a symbolic obligation to do anything about solving these problems.
 
2013-10-18 02:39:28 PM  
Most countries only want to be in the UN, or the security council if they get Veto ability.

Never going to happen
 
2013-10-18 02:46:39 PM  
If they hadn't wanted to win a seat, they wouldn't have been elected to the UNSC by the General Assembly. Both the Saudis, and the nations that elected them, planned it this way.
 
2013-10-18 03:48:54 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: No kidding.
The Saudis snap their fingers, the US and A! sits and licks its balls.


at least there's foreplay

www.politifake.org
 
2013-10-18 04:51:32 PM  

shanteyman: If the Saudi's and other Arab countries want something done in Syria, let them go to it. They have well funded, U.S. supplied & trained militaries. Let them send their "sons" to die in some Allah-forsaken desert shiat-hole for a change.
The constant need for the Arab countries to have the U.S. spent our capital and blood in their defense is ludicrous.


We're broke dude.

That won't stop us mind you, but we're broke.
 
2013-10-18 04:52:15 PM  

ReverendJynxed: shanteyman: If the Saudi's and other Arab countries want something done in Syria, let them go to it. They have well funded, U.S. supplied & trained militaries. Let them send their "sons" to die in some Allah-forsaken desert shiat-hole for a change.
The constant need for the Arab countries to have the U.S. spent our capital and blood in their defense is ludicrous.

We're broke dude.

That won't stop us mind you, but we're broke.


And I read that wrong. Ignore me, I'm stoned.
 
Displayed 21 of 21 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report