Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ?

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Pages: 1 2

swami RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/6/2004 2:03:45 AM

As long as it does not have a veto associated with it, I think it would be a good idea. The Security Council needs to more accurately reflect the powers of the 21st Century instead of the powers of 1945. Japan should also get a permanent seat. And the British and French seats should be consolidated into a EU seat.

Quote Reply

dudley RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 11/11/2004 10:37:18 PM

Yes they should considering their population and rising GDP,If France and England have it India damn well deserves it.

Quote Reply

PeregrinePike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 3/16/2005 12:39:26 PM

Nope... not until Laloo dies and none remotely blood-connected to him is in any official position. Its not hard to imagine them selling veto to the highest bidder?

Quote Reply

Schackleford RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 6/4/2005 5:33:03 PM

Yes, and so should many others. I agree completely with Samuel P. Huntington on his ideas of reforming the SC. The SC should have a permanent member representing every civilisation (or culture if you prefer that term) in the world. That means the US and one (and only one) European nation, Russia, one key Moslem state, China, India and Japan and finally one African country (South Africa or Nigeria) and one South American country. The UN must reflect the world before it can represent the world. The current SC is way to heavily loaded in favor of the West, as it reflects the Western dominated world of 1945 and not the global village of 2005.

Quote Reply

Mother of Pakistan RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 9/20/2005 2:11:53 PM

even though i am a Pakistani i think it well deserved a damm UN seat.There shud be a second 3rd world representative in UN security council. Anyways Security council cannot do anything. only prestige in the title -MOP

Quote Reply

bennywombat RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 9/21/2005 3:14:32 AM

yes india should have a permanent seat on the un security council and so should a few others. India, Japan, Germany, Oceania, African Union and A South american nation probably argentina or brazil. if the security council does need change is there anywhere on the web where i can get more info on it.

Quote Reply

counterstrike RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 12:58:48 AM

nileraider, know the statistics India's muslim population almost equals paks popultion of mulsims and u still say India is against muslims. And if pak has a BOOMING economy, then that BOOMING economy still has a lot of stairs to climb to reach the INDIAN ECONOMY. INDIA IS MORE THAN A DESERVING CANDIDATE FOR AN UNPSC, BCOS IT IS A MIGHTY POWER IN ASIA ( no second thoughts abt that). AND COULD DO A GOOD JOB REPRESENTING ASIA & THE MUSLIM POPULATION IN ASIA.

Quote Reply

bennywombat RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 9:36:59 PM

Here Here

Quote Reply

HoundOfHello RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? 10/9/2005 10:12:50 PM

I would say yes. The whole G4 (Germany, Brazil, Japan, India) should get seats on the council IMO. All four of these nations are regional and world powers (or rising powers in India and Brazil's cases) and are poised to shape the military and economic history of this century. The UNSC still reflects the power structure of 1945 (as someone else mentioned) and should be adjusted to today's and tomorrow's world. Side note for NileRaider: What are you smoking? Pakistan in no way, shape, or form is even close to achieving global force projection economically or militarily. As long as you can't even theoretically project your military strength beyond neighboring countries, you will never be a truly global power worthy of a permanent seat on the UNSC. Just look at your list. You took off the UK in favor of Pakistan?!?!?! <>NR ---Wrong! UN and world power is shifting AWAY from Europe. America in the West will soon be balanced by India and China in the East. <>-NR ---Any evidence? Most muslim governments are friendly towards Washington (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, PAKISTAN, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.) Only Assad has a problem with the US. Even Ghadafi is warming up to us! <>-NR ---One simple question: Is Pakistan a member and/or capable of influencing the actions of the Arab League and other Muslim nations like Indonesia or even Bangladesh? Strategic location in what sense? Maybe now during the first stages of the WoT, but after Afghanistan is stablized you won't be "strategic" anymore. Even in the Iraq campaign you weren't strategic. Finally, "booming economy" in what sense? Each of the permanent nations on the UNSC and the G4 have much larger and stronger economies than Pakistan. Even by Asian standards Pakistan isn't booming. Maybe that's why when people think of the "Asian Giants", Pakistan's name is never uttered alongside those of China, Japan, and India. Think about it. -HoH

Quote Reply

HoundOfHello RE:Should India be given a permanent seat in the SC ? w/ sidenote for nileraider 10/9/2005 10:17:02 PM

I would say yes. The whole G4 (Germany, Brazil, Japan, India) should get seats on the council IMO. All four of these nations are regional and world powers (or rising powers in India and Brazil's cases) and are poised to shape the military and economic history of this century. The UNSC still reflects the power structure of 1945 (as someone else mentioned) and should be adjusted to today's and tomorrow's world. Side note for NileRaider (I hope it works this time): What are you smoking? Pakistan in no way, shape, or form is even close to achieving global force projection economically or militarily. As long as you can't even theoretically project your military strength beyond neighboring countries, you will never be a truly global power worthy of a permanent seat on the UNSC. Just look at your list. You took off the UK in favor of Pakistan?!?!?! "UN POWER IS TILTING TOWARDS EUROPE AND ASIA"-NR ---Wrong! UN and world power is shifting AWAY from Europe. America in the West will soon be balanced by India and China in the East. "WEST HAS BAD RELATIONS WITH MUSLIMS"-NR ---Any evidence? Most muslim governments are friendly towards Washington (Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, UAE, PAKISTAN, Indonesia, Turkey, etc.) Only Assad has a problem with the US. Even Ghadafi is warming up to us! Only the madrassahs have bad relations with us! "KEY MUSLIM PLAYER.STRAGETIC LOCATION.BOOMING ECONOMY."-NR ---One simple question: Is Pakistan a member and/or capable of influencing the actions of the Arab League and other Muslim nations like Indonesia or even Bangladesh? Strategic location in what sense? Maybe now during the first stages of the WoT, but after Afghanistan is stablized you won't be "strategic" anymore. Even in the Iraq campaign you weren't strategic. Finally, "booming economy" in what sense? Each of the permanent nations on the UNSC and the G4 have much larger and stronger economies than Pakistan. Even by Asian standards Pakistan isn't booming. Maybe that's why when people think of the "Asian Giants", Pakistan's name is never uttered alongside those of China, Japan, and India. Think about it. -HoH

Quote Reply

1 2