Fraudia, since you are living in the west, you will get a polite answer to your questions. In any case, the answer would be such that it does not threaten their hegemony, but rest assure that it will be polite. But if the same question is asked by the Iranian President, who is by the way a professor, he is referred to as a nut job in western newspapers and political circles. Now its your choice, are you willing to be called a nut job and stand behind your fair question or are you willing to take the "fair" answer and start minding your own business, I hope you understand.
to me it does not make sense, give each nation a vote..or give em votes based on population, but allow representatives of all humans an equal opporunity to have the voice of their constituents heard.
the debate regarding irans nuclear program isnt really a real debate. its just a lead up to sanctions and then war. but the US and western media concept is that iran is untrustworthy with nuclear weapons or even a civilian use for nuclear technology thats why Mr Ahmedinejad is potrayed like that. the equation is simple countries with weapons have power, power has political influence. this is what the US wants to stop. if iran or sadam had nuclear weapons say in 1st january 1995, the palestine liberation deal would have been signed by 2nd january 1995:)
The UN is not intended to be a democratic organisation. Bear in mind that it was born of alliance towards the end of World War 2 as a victor's club. Effectively, it was created to ensure that the victorious leading powers of World War 2 would continue to lead and guide the world as they saw fit.
The goal at the time was that those anti-fascist countries could thus contain or even prevent the emergence of any future facism. However, its founders failed to believe that one or more countries with veto power would end up acting in a fascist-like manner and continually veto motions against its own friends, regardless of how many other countries were opposed to that nation.....
The UN needs dramatic overhaul. If enough countries get frustrated and plot to leave en masse, the UN could be brought down much as the League of Nations - particularly if major contributors leave.
Of course, no country wants to leave. Every country believes that the UN even in its current, flawed, undemocratic form can prevent more hostilities than its absence would.
The veto power end up being a tool to further a nation's own interest. If you do not have veto power, you need only create a strong relationship with a country that does.
Israel does this with the USA. Iran does this with Russia and China. The very undemocratic nature of the UN creates a powerful lethargic force that makes it very hard to create a legal environment for war.
Maybe it’s my lack of sleep talking, but the veto power serves to avoid conflict by making it nearly impossible for the UN to authorize action against anyone. Without the veto power, you would most likely experience tyranny of the majority. Unpopular countries could be overwhelmed by popular vote; which in turn could lead to them acting rashly.