Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: patrone on January 31, 2005, 06:02:23 PM
-
South-Africa, Egypt or Nigeria, who would you like to see as new permanent member in SC of UN?
-
None. Why would you make a nation that is completely insignificant a permanent member of the SC? Why need to get rid of some that are already there.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
None. Why would you make a nation that is completely insignificant a permanent member of the SC? Why need to get rid of some that are already there.
After understanding a lot of your posts you would like USA to leave. Would you even care who would take your place?
And what could you do about it if 2/3 of the UN would vote for this? Veto it?......:lol
After all, looking at the "Iraq" support, 30 out of 191, is rather "insignificant",,,,,,,,,,
-
Originally posted by patrone
After understanding a lot of your posts you would like USA to leave. Would you even care who would take your place?
That was quite the mindless asinine post.
Not that I expected more.
-
The problem is that Third World countries are gaining more and more control of the United Nations. Since the majority of these countries are full of Violent, Stupid, Self-destructive people it's really hard to see the point of caring one way or the other.
Better to just get out and forget it ever happened...
(Present company excluded)
-
Originally posted by Otto
The problem is that Third World countries are gaining more and more control of the United Nations. Since the majority of these countries are full of Violent, Stupid, Self-destructive people it's really hard to see the point of caring one way or the other.
Better to just get out and forget it ever happened...
(Present company excluded)
can you tell me exactly why a "third" country would have less saying than another one? Because they are stupid?
Taking some triple K lessons of corresponcance by any chance, Otto?
-
Originally posted by patrone
can you tell me exactly why a "third" country would have less saying than another one? Because they are stupid?
Taking some triple K lessons of corresponcance by any chance, Otto?
No, because they aren't a world power.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
No, because they aren't a world power.
Sorry, thats not the issue nor the essens, they need to have 2/3 of UNs 191 votes behind them.
And guess what, theres not enough banana republics left in the world to support ya, Martlet......as Iraq proved
-
Originally posted by patrone
Sorry, thats not the issue nor the essens, they need to have 2/3 of UNs 191 votes behind them.
And guess what, theres not enough banana republics left in the world to support ya, Martlet......as Iraq proved
It certainly is the essence. Are you even aware of why there are permanent SC members?
To have them be electable is pure idiocy. It takes the UN that much further into the absurd.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
It certainly is the essence. Are you even aware of why there are permanent SC members?
To have them be electable is pure idiocy. It takes the UN that much further into the absurd.
I canīt help it, USA where one of the countries that formed the rules of UN, kinda founding member, hate to see you leave, but.....
Playing by the rules where never a USA thing, was it? Not even when it was their own,,,,,,
-
Originally posted by patrone
I canīt help it, USA where one of the countries that formed the rules of UN, kinda founding member, hate to see you leave, but.....
I get it now. You don't have anything to say.
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
-
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 wasīnt 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.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I canīt help it, USA where one of the countries that formed the rules of UN, kinda founding member, hate to see you leave,
No hard feelings on our part. Send us a Postcard sometime...
-
Originally posted by patrone
South-Africa, Egypt or Nigeria, who would you like to see as new permanent member in SC of UN?
Why not Sudan?
Why not Uganda?
Why not Sierra Leone?
What guidelines are they planning on using for membership?
Population?
GDP?
Do they get a veto?
Do they get more than one vote ?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
None. Why would you make a nation that is completely insignificant a permanent member of the SC? Why need to get rid of some that are already there.
Why not, France got a seat.
-
Originally posted by Krusher
Why not Sudan?
Why not Uganda?
Why not Sierra Leone?
What guidelines are they planning on using for membership?
Population?
GDP?
Do they get a veto?
Do they get more than one vote ?
It was the African congress that put these candidates up. I dont know what kinda guidance they used.
The issue will be solved by a vote in the General Assambly of UN. 2/3 of the 191 votes is needed for a change of SC.
They might get a Veto, they might not. UN might even remove the Veto for all countries in the SC and extend it with atleast 7 more chairs for permanent members and to be in total 26, instead of 15.
This is a good thing for us all and it will bring more life into UN.
-
Originally posted by patrone
I canīt help it, USA where one of the countries that formed the rules of UN, kinda founding member, hate to see you leave, but.....
Playing by the rules where never a USA thing, was it? Not even when it was their own,,,,,,
That mean we can boot your pals out of NYC then?
-
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
-
Patrone,
You are sort of 'new' to this board. You really need understand that a lot of us have really 'fixed' views on many things. Mine happened to be the United Nations and the Third World. Now....., there's no one going to change my mind about the first being a 'Joke' and the second 'Very Dangerous'.
I could go on, and on. Rwanda as an example of the only country to have a Nun charged with Genocide. I don't think Nazi Germany equaled that. But, in the end, what's the point?
I'm guessing that you're a 'Liberal'. One thing that has always baffled me is the Romanticism that liberals have for the Third World. Is it because they are supposed to be 'victims' of some kind? Who knows...?
Any way, it's not personal. I'm sure you're a fine 'Citizen of the World' who just wants to see 'Justice' for the poor and downtrodden.
But, it might be nice it you'd add your nationality to your 'avatar. That will give us a better 'target'...:)
-
Originally posted by Rino
That mean we can boot your pals out of NYC then?
Id be very fine with any decision that the People of the USA would make that would not harm another state, if this is what you want. Thereīs just the spot for it in Brussels or Strassburgh...Wait, Berlin,,yes, that would be the ultimate position.
But to tell you the truth....
(Hi, by the way Martlett, no catches on the other boards, maybe you should change bait, or sharpen the hooks?)
My reply to Martlet was just a depart from the original tread: Africa in SC.
If you donīt mind, I would like to talk about that. If you want to talk about USA leaving UN, please make your own post, will ya, Rino?
-
(http://dogsnot.net/pics/trolling.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Otto
Patrone,
You are sort of 'new' to this board.
No he is not. He was known as "Swedish Chef" and Crabofix in the times of old.
Bork Bork... You know Muppet Show ?
-
Originally posted by Otto
Patrone,
You are sort of 'new' to this board. You really need understand that a lot of us have really 'fixed' views on many things. Mine happened to be the United Nations and the Third World. Now....., there's no one going to change my mind about the first being a 'Joke' and the second 'Very Dangerous'.
I could go on, and on. Rwanda as an example of the only country to have a Nun charged with Genocide. I don't think Nazi Germany equaled that. But, in the end, what's the point?
I'm guessing that you're a 'Liberal'. One thing that has always baffled me is the Romanticism that liberals have for the Third World. Is it because they are supposed to be 'victims' of some kind? Who knows...?
Any way, it's not personal. I'm sure you're a fine 'Citizen of the World' who just wants to see 'Justice' for the poor and downtrodden.
But, it might be nice it you'd add your nationality to your 'avatar. That will give us a better 'target'...:)
yes I am very new to this board, Otto. It is good that you point out theese things for me. Thank you very much.
And no, I have no political view at all. I kick anyone in the apple if it is needed, Socialists and liberals in particular.
Read up a little about "bananarepublics" and you will realize why it is called a "bananarepublic" and also what this kind of politic does in making or keeping a country as a 3:rd world country.
As Maniac seems to have left (My old pal from WB) I am virtully the only Swede making posts here. I think it should not be to hard to remember.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
None. Why would you make a nation that is completely insignificant a permanent member of the SC? Why need to get rid of some that are already there.
Same here.
For the same reasons.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Why not, France got a seat.
So Africa already got a seat :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by straffo
So Africa already got a seat :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So it's finally offical, France has become the Islamic Emirate of Algeria?
-
Yeah and Spanish finally conquered new world :)
-
Originally posted by Staga
Yeah and Spanish finally conquered new world :)
Naw, Spain is now the Moorish Sultanate of Iberia.
-
After understanding a lot of your posts you would like USA to leave. Would you even care who would take your place?
There are many, many, folks in the US that would like the US to quit the UN all together. It provides no useful (or very limited) benefit for us. The US would be better off building coalitions on a regional basis.
I personally feel the same way. The US should leave the UN, not pay any more into it. It's a pointless institution in its relationship with the US. It's simply an international 'wealth distribution bureaucracy' run by feel good corrupt leftists who seem willing to keep a little for themselves. It only provides a 'soap box' for the insignificant nations and in particular for third world cesspools.
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.
FYI, Kofi Annan was the UN head of peacekeeping during the Rwandan massacre, heck of a job he did there.
You can read the above as typical Ami 'French-bashing' or 'Euro-bashing' if you wish. However, I am just qualifying my reasoning. If it ends up coming across as 'euro-hating' so be it.
As a left wing Swede you may not quite understand some Americans rejection of the 'Internationale' but the 'rewards' aren't worth our (US citizens) 'investment'.
can you tell me exactly why a "third" country would have less saying than another one? Because they are stupid?
Not all nations, opinions, and / or value systems are equal and deserving consideration. Some things deserve to be ignored. It's simple egalitarian non-sense to think otherwise.
-
Wotan has hit the nail on the head I think. To the average American the UN is obsolete and actually harmful to American interests. Now you might not agree or you may say that the UN is helpful to American interests but that is pointless. What is important is what the man on the street thinks, and the man on the street wants the USA out of the UN and the UN kicked out of the USA. Actually I've heard the word "Isolationism" coming from allot of American mouths lately, and they aren't speaking poorly of it, if you get my meaning.
-
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 wasīnt 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".
(http://www.starfish.govt.nz/shared-graphics-for-download/trolling.jpg)
Karaya
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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 Iīm full...burrrppp
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 Iīm full...burrrppp
So you had no point what-so-ever, you just couldn't stop yourself from brattling on?
-
Here
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
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
All that says is they can add more permanent members as long as the US says it's ok.
Yes, but it also means it can be done.
And it also means, you could never ever get rid of France....................... .....
My real input is about what country from Africa would qualify for the SC among the mentioned 3.
For USA, and the rest of the security council, the situation with using "Vetos" might not be the best way to solve the problems that UN are facing.
But as you are against UN, you wouldīnt care to make it work, do you, Martlet?
Democratic choices are not in general your thing?
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes, but it also means it can be done.
And it also means, you could never ever get rid of France....................... .....
My real input is about what country from Africa would qualify for the SC among the mentioned 3.
For USA, and the rest of the security council, the situation with using "Vetos" might not be the best way to solve the problems that UN are facing.
But as you are against UN, you wouldīnt care to make it work, do you, Martlet?
Democratic choices are not in general your thing?
Again, the answer is none. None qualify. Zip. Zero. Nada. Nor will any ever become members.
-
A tradeembargo against you would really mess you guys up.
Nonsense the US is the largest consumer economy in the world. That means we buy the worlds products (remember trade deficit?). Economic engagement is part of US foreign policy. Folks are less likely to go to war with you if they depend on you to feed their family. Thats why the US treats China as it does. No country will cut their nose off just because the mean 'ole USA doesn't respect your vaunted UN Charter. Maybe Sweden can test out a unilateral embargo and see if us US folks even blink an eye.
Without the US the UN can hardly afford to do much of anything let alone enforce a trade embargo. What Navy is going to take on that job?
No matter how much you shout, 'My opinion means something' it won't make it a reality.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Nonsense the US is the largest consumer economy in the world. That means we buy the worlds products (remember trade deficit?). Economic engagement is part of US foreign policy. Folks are less likely to go to war with you if they depend on you to feed their family. Thats why the US treats China as it does. No country will cut their nose off just because the mean 'ole USA doesn't respect your vaunted UN Charter. Maybe Sweden can test out a unilateral embargo and see if us US folks even blink an eye.
Without the US the UN can hardly afford to do much of anything let alone enforce a trade embargo. What Navy is going to take on that job?
No matter how much you shout, 'My opinion means something' it won't make it a reality.
I know that my opinion doesīnt mean anything, but do you know yours donīt?
Fact are facts and no matter of opinion, you are still a member of both UN and the SC.
I am pretty sure that some kind of embargos against both EU products and USA products have been threatned in diffrent negociations about trade, etc, etc.
Do not over estimate the ability to use such messures if needed.
The trade balance is not in our favour, so to say.
Please, never mind what I think, all is just hypotetical, but the question about adding a permanent member is not, it is a reality.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Please, never mind what I think, all is just hypotetical, but the question about adding a permanent member is not, it is a reality.
No it isn't. It will never happen.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Here
Sorry
Appreciate the apology.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Appreciate the apology.
:D
-
Wotan, My thoughts exactly. Trade Embargo? Yeah thats likely to happen...NOT!
-
I know that my opinion doesīnt mean anything, but do you know yours donīt?
Fact are facts and no matter of opinion, you are still a member of both UN and the SC.
You can have whatever opinion you like, but if that opinion is just based on an emotional re-action very few are likely to listen to it.
First the facts are, the USA does not have to abide by anything the UN puts forth whether we are members or not. It may make you feel good to hide behind the skirt of the UN but even if you believe the UN to be some 'world government' the fact is it's the US who are the world's 'police men'. No matter how large the gaggle of crooks and despots you gather together none of them have the military, economic (as in independent from the US economy) or political power to force the US to comply.
I am pretty sure that some kind of embargos against both EU products and USA products have been threatned in diffrent negociations about trade, etc, etc.
Do not over estimate the ability to use such messures if needed.
The trade balance is not in our favour, so to say.
The US isn't wholly dependent on EU products, at least not to the degree that the EU is dependent on US consumers to buy EU products. If the EU were to start a trade war with the US then the affect of such a trade or sanction war would be huge on the EU and world economy.
Certainly countries like Japan, Mexico, Canada and many others wont follow the EU if it goes that way, it would harm their economies exponentially.
So all your dreams of UN and EU power are just that.
Please, never mind what I think, all is just hypotetical, but the question about adding a permanent member is not, it is a reality.
It's more then hypothetical it defies reality. The best a poor Swede can do is organize some sort and march and carry some clever slogan on a placard protetsting the evil US. However, nobody I know cares much about that outdated '60s hippie garbage. Most of us just laugh.
-
Well guys, the fact that EU will start selling weaponary system to china, might cause a scenary, whitch might inclued some goods being halted for trade between USA and EU.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well guys, the fact that EU will start selling weaponary system to china, might cause a scenary, whitch might inclued some goods being halted for trade between USA and EU.
There will be no worthwhile trade embargo between the US and EU. The two are too economically dependent. That theory is about as stupid as your African permanent SC member theory.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Well guys, the fact that EU will start selling weaponary system to china, might cause a scenary, whitch might inclued some goods being halted for trade between USA and EU.
More nonsense, the US doesn't rely on China to buy our products be they military or otherwise. The US buys China's products.
I am sure the US arms and weapons manufacturers would like to sell their goods to China as well but in the overall scheme of things it doesn't matter if China makes its own weapons systems or buys from else where.
The Chinese aren't stupid enough to start a war and cut off one of hands that helps feed it.
I know its a hard thing for you to grasp but the US is the largest consumer economy in the world. That means the US market is vital to the world economy.
Any war or economic sanction or embargo that upsets that not only hurts America but it hurts the world.
-
Why do we need a security council? We have the good old American govt to tell us all what to do, how to do it etc. And if we don't agree well they have lots of big guns to make us agree!
We can all have freedom as long as its Bush's version.
:rolleyes: :lol
-
Oh and I'd go for South Africa as the new SC member. think their military would be the most effective.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
More nonsense, the US doesn't rely on China to buy our products . The US buys China's products.
You got that right...! Try and find something in a store for less than $20.00 that's NOT made in China....:(
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Oh and I'd go for South Africa as the new SC member. think their military would be the most effective.
Thanks Zulu, for the first "answer" in this thread.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
More nonsense, the US doesn't rely on China to buy our products be they military or otherwise. The US buys China's products.
I am sure the US arms and weapons manufacturers would like to sell their goods to China as well but in the overall scheme of things it doesn't matter if China makes its own weapons systems or buys from else where.
The Chinese aren't stupid enough to start a war and cut off one of hands that helps feed it.
I know its a hard thing for you to grasp but the US is the largest consumer economy in the world. That means the US market is vital to the world economy.
Any war or economic sanction or embargo that upsets that not only hurts America but it hurts the world.
You are totaly up in the blue arent you? As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU.
It has nothing to do about USA trading with China, but the relations between EU and USA.
-
Originally posted by patrone
Thanks Zulu, for the first "answer" in this thread.
No, it's the first answer you chose to accept. Like a true liberal, you toss out anything you disagree with.
-
The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.
-
You are totaly up in the blue arent you? As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU.
It has nothing to do about USA trading with China, but the relations between EU and USA.
No it is you who are clueless, the context of my replies are set around your claim as stated here:
A tradeembargo against you would really mess you guys up.
That's the point I replied to. Your English isn't good enough to change directions mid-discussion.
As Mrs Rice have threatned these kind of messures if the weaponsembargo on China is disposed of by the EU
The US would rather China not have modern weapon systems and can use its status as the largest consumer economy to get its point across. This is a design of American foreign policy. The US can better weather a targeted embargo on EU products better then other way around.
As such the US can threaten the EU or China because the effect of an embargo on EU and Chinese products is greater then the it would be the other way around.
A grand trade war would have a huge negative impact on the world economy.
-
Originally posted by straffo
The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.
Yes, or to enlarge it to 25 members and to take away the "Veto" option for thoose who are permanent members.
USA guys are Crying over that their war in Iraq actully are unlegal because of other countries vetoing their case.
Because of this 1 event, the whole UN is corrupt. They forget that they more or less are runing the UN and calling themselfs names.......:lol
-
Originally posted by patrone
Yes, or to enlarge it to 25 members and to take away the "Veto" option for thoose who are permanent members.
USA guys are Crying over that their war in Iraq actully are unlegal because of other countries vetoing their case.
Because of this 1 event, the whole UN is corrupt. They forget that they more or less are runing the UN and calling themselfs names.......:lol
Who vetoed anything? Or is your English just so horrible you aren't making sense.
-
Originally posted by straffo
The real solution is not to change a member of the SC but to get ride of the SC.
Have France step down first :D
-
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.
According to that it seems that you need a 2/3 majority vote AND ALL permanent members of the SC to vote yes as well.
-
No worries Patrone glad to oblidge! my neck isn't red enough for some of the chaps in here!
;)
-
From Africa the Republic of South Africa probably has the best claim based on it's status as the greatest regional power and economy. It is also more politcally developed than any other candidate. Egypt would come second.
India, however, has a better claim on a permanent SC seat than any other nation outside the SC right now. Of course letting India in would upset Pakistan (important for the US) and China sees India as a direct local rival.
-
With regards to the UN: the whole purpose of the UN was to prevent strong nations weilding power over weaker nations (or at least allow some king of pressure to applied). For a powerful nation there is an obvious downside of this.
Both Chruchill and Stalin objected to the fact the that weaker nations could use the UN to thwart the plans of the the powers (i.e. themselves), and the SC permanent seats were a concession to them. The USSR and the US both saw in the UN an vehicle for weakening the Imperial powers (i.e. France and UK) by encouraging nation states.
A concession by whom? The US: the UN was the US's idea, just like the League of Nations before.
The phrase "hoisted by your own petard" comes to mind.
Another fact that is often ignored is that the US has weilded the veto more often than any other permanent member.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Have France step down first :D
Not only , the kind of nobility the SC is ,like all nobility should be beheaded...
It serve no purpose,except being an artifact from the past.
-
The SC is about the only really usefull thing about the UN. The problem is its make up. Of the 5 permanent members France really shouldn't be there. I said why above and we can start another thread if you wish to expand. Ultimately though the EU should be given only 1 seat and made a permanent member of the SC.
- China
- Russian Federation
- United Kingdom
- United States
- France
As it stands I could think of a few othe Nations that deserve to be there like Japan, Argentina or even Brazil etc...
FYI all three are currently serving terms on the SC.
Right now there's countries like Benin, United Republic of Tanzania and Algeria on the SC. Insignificant nations that are just there as a 'feel good' messure.
-
Wotan; they are not there because it just "feels good" but to give another point of view to the issues and balance the SC.
Without them SC, and whole UN, would become a playground for permanent members.
I know US would like that but there's few other countries (well +200) in the world who also has a right to give their voice in SC at least sometimes.
-
- Texas
- Wyoming
- Utah
- South Caorlina
- Alaska
[/b]
-
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...
-
Ouch, hurts dosīnt it? :lol
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....
-
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.