Author Topic: African state new SC permanent member? (Read 1447 times)

Masherbrum · « **Reply #30 on:** February 01, 2005, 09:58:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Ok, after waving goodbye to Martlet , who just set of for a fishing trip, lets return to the Issue.

South Africa, a country Supressed by apartheid for many year, will it make history, taking a chair in the Security council?

Or will it be the "Arab" country Egypt?

Nigeria is a Dictatorship? (if it was´nt changed since I last heard of it. "Yellow cake" might also say a little.)

I give South Africa my bet of grabbing that chair of as a permanent in SC. Something that Africa deserves.

You're so full of shi* patrone. Go cook up some fried monkey balls.

BTW, maybe this will assist you in your "Crusade".

Karaya

john9001 · « **Reply #31 on:** February 01, 2005, 10:18:08 AM »

i don't think the UN charter allows for the adding of any new "permanent member " to the SC, the temp SC members are added on a rotating basis.

Krusher · « **Reply #32 on:** February 01, 2005, 10:55:33 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Wotan
France certainly shouldn't have a seat on the SC, in fact at this point 'Euro-nation' should get but 1 seat in the UN all together. After their performance in Rwanda (along with Belgium) and their ignoring of Sudan (France has oil interests in Sudan) they should be given a seat in the back row.

Agreed, the EU should only have one vote or the US should get 50. We saw Chirac strong arm other EU members during the Iraq debate. We also saw him try and intimidate EU wannabees into voting as a block. If the point of the EU is to run the world via the UN It is time the US pull out of the UN and ask for a refund of our dues.

patrone · « **Reply #33 on:** February 01, 2005, 04:31:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
i don't think the UN charter allows for the adding of any new "permanent member " to the SC, the temp SC members are added on a rotating basis.

Sorry John9001, but the rules of the SC are set by the General Assambly of UN. They decide how many and who sits in the SC.
Who is permanent and who will have a Veto. If 2/3 of the 191 members of UN agree with a change of the SC, it will be changed.

If you do not like the rules that USA created in cooperation with other countries during the fundation of UN 1945, you might want to leave. If you leave, the UN charta will not apply to you but the International law set by the UN Charta will.

You guys can think and threat to leave, but it will not change the facts that the rules of the UN Charta still applies. If you want to make a change of the UN Charta, you must have support from the General assambly.

Now back to the question: What African country would you like to see in SC as permanent member? South Africa, Egypt or Nigeria?

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #34 on:** February 01, 2005, 04:36:15 PM »

None. Few African countries really even deserve to be in the UN let alone on the SC.

The only changes worth maling to the SC is to kick out France and relace it with Japan.

Finrod · « **Reply #35 on:** February 01, 2005, 06:55:34 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
If you leave, the UN charta will not apply to you but the International law set by the UN Charta will.

So who is exactly going to enforce this much vaunted charter and law on us?

Martlet · « **Reply #36 on:** February 01, 2005, 06:57:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Finrod
So who is exactly going to enforce this much vaunted charter and law on us?

Duh, the new African replacement. Zimbabwe or some crap.

Heck. Maybe France.

patrone · « **Reply #37 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:02:32 PM »

Your objection on this BBS about the Rules of UN does mean very little. No matter how much you cry about it, USA was one of its funding members and have signed the charta, agreeing to the rules.

Finrod
Dont underestimate the importance of other countries for you existance and daily life.
A tradeembargo against you would really mess you guys up.

Anyway, as you still are members of UN, everything you ask are just pure speculations.

Martlet · « **Reply #38 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:04:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Your objection on this BBS about the Rules of UN does mean very little. No matter how much you cry about it, USA was one of its funding members and have signed the charta, agreeing to the rules.

SO?

patrone · « **Reply #39 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:09:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Martlet
SO?

I just love you and your bright inlays. The very thoughtfull and carefully inserted facts you always seem to present to prove your points.

Nope, like GRUN you use to dull hooks....and I´m full...burrrppp

Bodhi · « **Reply #40 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:11:04 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Sorry John9001, but the rules of the SC are set by the General Assambly of UN. They decide how many and who sits in the SC.
Who is permanent and who will have a Veto. If 2/3 of the 191 members of UN agree with a change of the SC, it will be changed.

If you do not like the rules that USA created in cooperation with other countries during the fundation of UN 1945, you might want to leave. If you leave, the UN charta will not apply to you but the International law set by the UN Charta will.

Nice troll crabofix. Read the UN charter some time.

The UN security council has 5 permanent members, which, according to it's charter are NOT replaceable and are as it states permanent members of the council. No matter how many members decide to vote fo more permanent seats on the board, it requires but one veto to stop it. So, in essence, there will be no more permanent members on the SC in our lifetimes.

So solly.

patrone · « **Reply #41 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:31:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Nice troll crabofix. Read the UN charter some time.

The UN security council has 5 permanent members, which, according to it's charter are NOT replaceable and are as it states permanent members of the council. No matter how many members decide to vote fo more permanent seats on the board, it requires but one veto to stop it. So, in essence, there will be no more permanent members on the SC in our lifetimes.

So solly.

I hate theese kind of replies, It actully means I have to start to post facts to people who can read the stuff themselfs. But, ok, I do it.

Martlet · « **Reply #42 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:37:38 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
I just love you and your bright inlays. The very thoughtfull and carefully inserted facts you always seem to present to prove your points.

Nope, like GRUN you use to dull hooks....and I´m full...burrrppp

So you had no point what-so-ever, you just couldn't stop yourself from brattling on?

patrone · « **Reply #43 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:42:04 PM »

Here

Quote

AMENDMENTS
Article 108
Amendments to the present Charter shall come into force for all Members of the United Nations when they have been adopted by a vote of two thirds of the members of the General Assembly and ratified in accordance with their respective constitutional processes by two thirds of the Members of the United Nations, including all the permanent members of the Security Council.

Sorry

Martlet · « **Reply #44 on:** February 01, 2005, 07:44:33 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by patrone
Here

Sorry

All that says is they can add more permanent members as long as the US says it's ok.