Talk:US Abuse of UN veto
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
POV
[edit]Much as I agree with the sentiment of the article, it is hopelessly POV, starting with the title. --Tagishsimon
I agree. To be neutral, the article should discuss the US's use (both good and bad) of its veto power since the formation of the UN. In any case, does this topic deserve an article of its own? I don't really think so - it could probably go into the UN article Enochlau 09:21, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Major Subject
[edit]Why not keep the article?
After all, this is 2004 and American politics affects the entire world; will it be Bush or Kerry?
Afghanistan, Iraq, France, Germany, Spain, Britain, the UN all feel the actions and decisions of the US in their own backyard.
Furthermore, when the US grants special nation status to a country or creates a free trade zone with one, thats politics of rewarding "friends" but it also affects the economy of that country, and its neighbours in the region.
Similarly, when the US uses its veto power, its telling all the peoples of the world "this subject is dear to our heart for whatever political or economic reasons and we want to protect our interests in this subject via a veto" and that sends political and economic and human rights repercussions vibrating throughout the region.
so i feel this is a major subject that should be explored more and of course moderated by the editors to be as fair as possible. i tried to keep it fair but the only way was to keep it short and simple.
thanks
--Mohammed Arafa 10:28, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To be fair, many do feel that such a thing exists. This has certainly been a valid reason for creating articles in the past. On the other hand, 'list of John Kerry flip-flops' was nuked at the earliest opportunity. On the third hand, that was outright propaganda while this has relatively much justification. -- Kizor 10:48, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yes i do think this deserves consideration due to the nature of world power at the moment centering heavily on American dominance, but Wikipedia should contain articles that contain both sides of the story Enochlau 12:19, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Then we put it in. Now that I found out that there already an article describing the US/UN relations, though, I agree with the redirect. -- Kizor 02:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)