Congress Wants to Boot Russia From U.N. Security Council

The Newly US led Republican Congress is demanding, seeking Boot Russia From U.N. Security Council.

But seeking ways to put in their money laundering nation Ukraine.
Instated on focusing on the actual which the congress is supposed on doing they are further seeing to escalate tensions with Russia.

Remember its ok to boot Russia over Ukraine but not the US over Iraq, Libya interventions, invasion of Iraq.


Congress Wants to Boot Russia From U.N. Security Council

The Bipartisan Helsinki Commission

That is the same The Bipartisan Helsinki Commission which called on US to use decolonization of russia as a strategic importance.

According to this The Bipartisan Helsinki Commission.

The organization stated that the Russian Special Military Operation allegedly contradicts the "purposes and principles of the UN" and the Charter.

But US forces in Syria dont violate the UN nor the Charter? considering there was no vote in congress nor at the UN to allow, approve the presences of US forces in Syria.


I am sure the Republicans are coming around!

originally posted by: vNex92
The Newly US led Republican Congress is demanding, seeking Boot Russia From U.N. Security Council.

But seeking ways to put in their money laundering nation Ukraine.
Instated on focusing on the actual which the congress is supposed on doing they are further seeing to escalate tensions with Russia.

Remember its ok to boot Russia over Ukraine but not the US over Iraq, Libya interventions, invasion of Iraq.


Congress Wants to Boot Russia From U.N. Security Council

The Bipartisan Helsinki Commission

That is the same The Bipartisan Helsinki Commission which called on US to use decolonization of russia as a strategic importance.

At this point in time with the Biden Admin full of lost souls, I seriously doubt he takes anything serious. He is also searching for proof of the underwater fuel line. When that day comes, for real, all hell will break loose in Ukraine.

a reply to: vNex92

Ummm...

Russia is one of the founding members of the UN, with veto rights, just like the USA. Exactly when did the US Congress assume authority over the UN?

I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats saying it, the very idea that Congress has any say-so on the UN Security Council is ludicrous. Russia would have to agree to anything the UN does.

TheRedneck

a reply to: vNex92

Its a ridiculous suggestion and it won't happen.
No-one has the right to do that and I don't for one minute think that anyone will be taking it seriously.

a reply to: TheRedneck

The Soviet Union was a founding member. And I think it's fair for Russia to inherit that, because Ukraine, Belarus etc where separate founding members. But why did Russia get the veto?

a reply to: Cutepants

But why did Russia get the veto?

The same reason the USA, UK, France and China did.
It was in the immediate aftermath of WWII and it was seen as a means to ensuring WWIII didn't happen anytime soon - it hasn't, touch wood.

Take it from one then you have to take it from all of them.

I'm not entirely sure that would be a good idea.

a reply to: Freeborn

No, it was 30 years ago. And the point I'm making is that it's all about power. The UN doesn't have real authority over the US, like TheRedneck says. And you may think Russia should have the veto for historical reasons, I just think it's because they have nukes.

a reply to: Cutepants

Same as the other countries.

Should any country have the power of veto?

Its really a moot point anyway, the UN is a toothless tiger.
Yes, it can express moral outrage and take the high ground and can provide 'peacekeeping' forces when trying to settle conflicts but it lacks any real or significant power.

a reply to: vNex92


Honestly I didn't open any of the links. I am only responding to your thread title. IMHO Russia may possibly have more ground to stand on in regards to the crap U.N. than the US.

a reply to: Cutepants

At the time, Russia was considered a military superpower. The veto power was necessary to get the superpowers to sign on, and without the superpowers signing on, the UN wouldn't have been worth anything.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Cutepants

At the time, Russia was considered a military superpower. The veto power was necessary to get the superpowers to sign on, and without the superpowers signing on, the UN wouldn't have been worth anything.

TheRedneck

The UN isn't worth anything now. It is nutless, a financial black hole.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Exactly when did the US Congress assume authority over the UN?

The ones who are pushing this are the war hawks, chicken hawk Republicans.

a reply to: Creep Thumper

The UN isn't doing anything to prevent the human trafficking in Libya in fact they encouraged it.

Rather than “vote Russia off the island” how about Congress vote the UN out of the US and resign their seat?

a reply to: TheRedneck

Bingo

Congress has no right to insist on anything here. They have no jurisdiction.

I'm not surprised.
Republicans are just as big of warmongers as democrats.


As we sit on the brink of WWIII it's hard to feel the UN is effectively doing their job.

YOU HAD ONE JOB!!!

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: vNex92

Ummm...

Russia is one of the founding members of the UN, with veto rights, just like the USA. Exactly when did the US Congress assume authority over the UN?

I don't care if it's Republicans or Democrats saying it, the very idea that Congress has any say-so on the UN Security Council is ludicrous. Russia would have to agree to anything the UN does.

TheRedneck

Yes what you said , the Rest is bs.

originally posted by: Ahabstar
Rather than “vote Russia off the island” how about Congress vote the UN out of the US and resign their seat?

Better yet,start a new international body,without russia or china.