African state new SC permanent member?

[Otto]

• Texas
• Wyoming
• Utah
• South Caorlina
• Alaska

[/b]

[Wotan]

The non-permanent members are rotated to give the impression that the 'big 5 'value the opinion of the rest.

That is 'feel good'. The reality is quite different especially considering the 'permanent 5'  have veto powers and obviously have no faith in the rest of the members.

Decisions on substantive matters require nine votes, including the concurring votes of all five permanent members.

Now show me something meaningful that ever originated from one of non-permanent members?

The 5 permanent members (especially the US and the old USSR) were able to pressure the other members.

Their 2 year term is not because anyone cares or desires a 'differing point' of view. They are there to help create balance between the big 5.

It certainly isn't because of some egalitarian non-sense such 'embracing diverse points of view'.

I see that the inability to face reality isn't restricted to Ami liberals but is world wide. There seems to be a highly virulent strain in Scandinavia.

Anyway, keep dreaming, UN nirvana is almost at hand!!! Bring on South Africa...

[patrone]

Ouch, hurts dosīnt it?
To be speaking against yourself, telling us that: "USA rule the UN" cause they can veto anything!!"
and in another post,
"USA has no responsibility, what so ever".

Just twist the things around so they fit your agenda for the day.

Good work, your words means less and less for every time you post. Keep on, you might end up beeing a politician.

Oden....

[Wotan]

The CO2 you are breathing will eventually kill you...

I didn't say the US rules the UN. Quote where I did...

I didn't the US has no responsibility. Quote where I did...

What I said was:

the 'permanent 5' have veto powers and obviously have no faith in the rest of the members.

Anyone of those 5 can derail any action by the UN SC by their veto.

You are either blind, incapable of understanding what you read or a liar. I would bet its a bit of all three.