Toronto Escorts

New UN Security Council Members

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
From Reuters today:

The two proposals to revamp the council are:

-- Six new permanent members without veto power: two from Asia, two from Africa, one from Europe and one from the Americas, plus three new nonpermanent members for a two-year term for a total of 24 seats.

Germany, which has made common cause with Japan, Brazil and India for four of the seats, intends to introduce a resolution in the General Assembly for this plan within the next month or so, diplomats said. The contest for Africa's two seats is between Nigeria, South Africa and Egypt, which argues that an Arab nation needs a permanent member.

-- The second recommendation is for eight seats in a new class of members, who would serve for four years, subject to renewal. They would include 2 each from Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. In addition, this plan foresees one nonpermanent two-year seat for a total of 24.

This proposal is supported by countries which have little chance for permanent membership and oppose leading contenders.

Italy, which does not want to be the only large European country without a permanent council seat, opposes Germany; Pakistan opposes India; and Mexico and Argentina oppose Brazil, a Portuguese-speaking country in a largely Spanish-speaking continent.


OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
DonQuixote said:
We have to reform the UN. It's our only choice for a rule of law!!
Yeah, a bunch of dictators wanting their vote - makes perfect sense to me. Although I suppose there really isn't any other option.

OTB
 
Jan 24, 2004
1,279
0
0
The Vegetative State
onthebottom said:
Yeah, a bunch of dictators wanting their vote - makes perfect sense to me. Although I suppose there really isn't any other option.

OTB
Well, of course, the largest dictatorship on earth already has a vetoing seat on the SC.

And no, I'm not talking about the US. ;)
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Drunken Master said:
Well, of course, the largest dictatorship on earth already has a vetoing seat on the SC.

And no, I'm not talking about the US. ;)
I know, Roosevelt really had a hard on for China - Churchill thought they didn't fit but after FDR saved his ass he had to let the US do what it wanted. In hindsight it probably makes sense, was FDR thinking 60 years ahead or just lucky?

Herd the other day that Goggle created a China only version that would ban sites that the Chinese government wanted banned - so much for a company with the motto "do no evil".

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
The US isn't remotely interested in SC reform. Many of the key members of the administration have stated, quite publicly, that they have committed themselves to going it alone, having utter disdain for the UN.

The faster this administration leaves, the better it will be for all of us.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ranger68 said:
The US isn't remotely interested in SC reform. Many of the key members of the administration have stated, quite publicly, that they have committed themselves to going it alone, having utter disdain for the UN.

The faster this administration leaves, the better it will be for all of us.
4 more years baby, 4 more years - and then we need to find someone to beat Billary - which I could do.....

LOL

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Might makes right, eh?
;)
Just admit it. It will obviate the need for debate.
And ditch this crazy notion of the moral superiority of the States at the same time.
Thanks.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ranger68 said:
Might makes right, eh?
;)
Just admit it. It will obviate the need for debate.
And ditch this crazy notion of the moral superiority of the States at the same time.
Thanks.
No, but they are not mutually exclusive either - and this administration isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
You're welcome.
More ignorance - thinking that I'm *jealous* of anyone living in the States. Uh ... thanks, no. LOL

Again, just admit that the US belief - and yours - is now "might makes right" and we can stop. Come on, go ahead. Everybody knows already.
;)
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
onthebottom said:
No, but they are not mutually exclusive either - and this administration isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

OTB
To espouse that view is immoral, which is what we're talking about.
Clear?
Yep - this administration isn't going anywhere - more's the pity for you who has to live there.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Ranger68 said:
To espouse that view is immoral, which is what we're talking about.
Clear?
Yep - this administration isn't going anywhere - more's the pity for you who has to live there.
I agreed with you on the might/right part but you have to agree that it is incumbent on powerful countries to lead - which is different that dictating. The US has played a very good Bad Cop to the EUs Good Cop on Iran for instance.

Don't pity us too much, the stock market when up on Nov. 3rd! LOL

OTB
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
YES, FINALLY! It is incumbent on powerful countries to lead.
Should the US be espousing a view of "preventive war", in contravention to international treaties? Should it be setting this precedent? Should it not be setting an example? The US needs to be MORE involved in the UN, not less. Fact is, I'd *rather* it was the US being the leading nation of the UN over other choices. But they have to constrain themselves within the confines of the organization, of the agreements they've signed, as frustrating as that sometimes may be.

The US stance on Iran has been, to this point, perfectly acceptable. It's yet another corrupt regime in the region that doesn't want to get along with anybody and doesn't want to join the rest of us - the sooner they change, the better. (After having typed that, one wonders how applicable it is to the current *US* administration.) To imagine that an illegal invasion with the purpose of regime change is going to be beneficial for ANYBODY is just baffling.

That I think there's a distinct possibility that the US is going to invade sometime during this term is chilling.
 

langeweile

Banned
Sep 21, 2004
5,086
0
0
In a van down by the river
Ranger68 said:
You're welcome.
More ignorance - thinking that I'm *jealous* of anyone living in the States. Uh ... thanks, no. LOL

Again, just admit that the US belief - and yours - is now "might makes right" and we can stop. Come on, go ahead. Everybody knows already.
;)
Judging by your comments you are a very smart guy, and you have enjoyed a high level and good education.. You have probably read a lot of books, which I have the greatest respect for, honestly.
Your problem is, that your book world doesn't match reality. Anytime somebody confronts you with reality, you fall back on people bashing, because you can't understand while not evrybody has read the same book.
My guess is, that you have never lived anywhere else in the world, except to go on vacations.
I had less than high school education, but have worked my ass off to get to where I am today.
My knowledge of the world is mainly composed of personal experience, which might be silly to you.
I appreciate your time an effort and thank you for some of your enlighting ( and some not so enllightining comments).
Unfortunately we have digressed in to name calling, not a healthy way to talk.
Auf Wiedersehen
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
Yes, the recourse of those who have nothing left to say.
Argumentum ad hominem.

Of course, you're TOTALLY wrong, which just makes it all the more delicious! LOL

Buh-bye.
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
I thought you were gone?

Really? I'm dreaming about what's happened in my life? Hmm. Who'da thunk it?

LOL

One more time - BUH-BYE.
 

strange1

Guest
Mar 14, 2004
807
0
0
How about getting rid of the vetos alltogether (and for that measure, the security council's prominent decision making capacity). How does a democratic process include the possibility that a 99% majority decision can be contermanded by one country opposing it.

It also wouldn't hurt if there were some consequences to go with the resolutions.
 

shasowmaster

New member
Dec 10, 2003
79
0
0
Drunken Master said:
Well, of course, the largest dictatorship on earth already has a vetoing seat on the SC.

And no, I'm not talking about the US. ;)

humm, which country used veto the most since the disassemble of the soviet union? I know you are pointing your fingers at China, but when was the last time China use veto in the SC? China always play low in international stage, and I guess that's not enough for you then... I wonder if China acted like the soviet union, you may find it to be more beneficial to the world then!
 

Ranger68

New member
Mar 17, 2003
3,665
0
0
strange1 said:
How about getting rid of the vetos alltogether (and for that measure, the security council's prominent decision making capacity). How does a democratic process include the possibility that a 99% majority decision can be contermanded by one country opposing it.

It also wouldn't hurt if there were some consequences to go with the resolutions.
The vetos were put in place for a very good reason. In order to get all of the superpowers of the day to sign up, it had to offer them a special deal - vetoes to allow them to block any action they especially don't like. The UN, in effect, could not act against the perceived special interests of any of them. It's neither fair not pretty, but how else were the founders of the UN going to get them *all* to sign up, and what use would the organization have been if some of them were outside it?

I'm not sure the situation is improved very much - clearly *some* "superpowers" are interested more in their own agendas than listening to the UN. Were it to propose that no nation sitting on the SC is entitled to a veto any longer, I think you'd push some of them even further away, or perhaps out altogether. (We all know who we're talking about here, right? ;) )
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts