UN security counsel= joke?

[sean2002]

I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: sean2002
I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

Germany=, country responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 jews, thats equal to about 2000 Sept. 11th's

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass. Having only US and britain on the SC would be as useful as putting a crown on the US president and declaring him kind of the world.

The 5 permanent memebers (no, germany is not a permanent member, at least get that right) represent the 5 major world powers. It has nothing to do with their human rights records.

And before you critize Russia for trying to put nukes on Cuba, remember that is was the US that started it all by putting nukes in Turkey. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "opinion".

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: sean2002
I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

Germany=, country responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 jews, thats equal to about 2000 Sept. 11th's

Russia had to be on there, otherwise they wouldn't have joined and the UN would have fallen apart. The UN didn't exactly know how bad China was going to be because...well they aren't fortune tellers. France was a pretty good choice actually. And Germany doesn't have a permanent seat.

 

[sean2002]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: sean2002
I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

Germany=, country responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 jews, thats equal to about 2000 Sept. 11th's

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass. Having only US and britain on the SC would be as useful as putting a crown on the US president and declaring him kind of the world.

The 5 permanent memebers (no, germany is not a permanent member, at least get that right) represent the 5 major world powers. It has nothing to do with their human rights records.

And before you critize Russia for trying to put nukes on Cuba, remember that is was the US that started it all by putting nukes in Turkey. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "opinion".

I was not saying that only the US and Brittan should be on it, but I think they could have found better choices than , China and Russia.


You don't have to call me a dumb ass for making a mistake you know, you could have just corrected me.

 

[glenn1]

Someone floated the idea once that we grant Japan permanent member status in return for taking the UN (and the problems it brings along with it) outta NYC and moving it to Japan and letting them deal with the headaches of it. Sounds like a fair trade to me. I think in retrospect that Japan would have been a better permanent member of the Security Council than France, but that's life. This lets the French continue their harmless self-delusion that they're a nation that means diddly squat.

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: sean2002

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak

Originally posted by: sean2002
I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

Germany=, country responsible for the deaths of 6,000,000 jews, thats equal to about 2000 Sept. 11th's

I'm sorry, but you're a dumbass. Having only US and britain on the SC would be as useful as putting a crown on the US president and declaring him kind of the world.

The 5 permanent memebers (no, germany is not a permanent member, at least get that right) represent the 5 major world powers. It has nothing to do with their human rights records.

And before you critize Russia for trying to put nukes on Cuba, remember that is was the US that started it all by putting nukes in Turkey. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of your "opinion".

I was not saying that only the US and Brittan should be on it, but I thibnk they could have found better choices than Germany, China, and Russia

Germany is a fine country, but it's irrelevant since it doesnt hold a permanent seat(nor a veto). Russia and china were good choices. Like Hombre mentioned, do you think they would have joined the UN unless they were given power equal to that of the US?

 

[sean2002]

DId we need them to join? the US still funds 25% of the UN budget

 

[bolido2000]

China and Russia are military superpowers thats why they are included. France...well I guess England are France are the military superpowers of Europe (they have nuclear weapons). Japan is still a pretty wealthy country still, but they don't have a powerful military.

 

[BlueApple]

When the UN was created in 1947, the top 5 world powers were US, USSR, Great Britain, France, and China. And it is still pretty much the same. Now granted, in 2002, Germany or Japan are viable replacements to France, but France is still a large world power not only economically, but also as they have many former-colonies around the world that depend on them.

 

[ChrisIsBored]

Originally posted by: bolido2000
Japan is still a pretty wealthy country still, but they don't have a powerful military.

That's because WE still are their military power... if we backed out of Japan and for some reason broke off our ties with them... you can bet your ass China would take that rich island over in a heartbeat. But they don't, and they can't, because we're there.

 

[0roo0roo]

eh, many countries consider us savage for our use of the death penalty so not so "good choice" based on the standards which u judged other countries like china. gah.


not to mention last time i checked, china is neither islamic fundamentalist or sissyfied like the french.

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: sean2002
I think the idea of the united nations is a good idea but I have a problem with the permament members of the security counsel.

USA and Brittan = good choices

China= WTF? I communist country with the worst human right record next to nazi Germany.

Russia= WTF? A country who at one time tried to send Nuclear missiles to cuba to be faced at the US, and not to mention.

France= I won't even go there.

So... You want only countries that agree with USA in the security council? Countries that may have opposing viewpoints need to get the *uck out? And why couldn't a communist country be a member of the council?

 

[SuperTool]

UN security council is a thinly veiled continuation of 19th century empirialism. Basically why should UNSC resolutions be respected by countries who are not members of UNSC and have no voice in them? I have no problem with UN as a place for countries to meet and discuss diplomacy, but I think it having ability to pass and enforce resolutions on other countries is unacceptable.

 

[bolido2000]

That's because WE still are their military power... if we backed out of Japan and for some reason broke off our ties with them... you can bet your ass China would take that rich island over in a heartbeat. But they don't, and they can't, because we're there.

I agree with the first part. If the US didn't protect Japan they would have to spend much more money on defense, and I am sure they would come up with some good stuff (maybe a Varitek :Q) China has a huge army but it doesn't have any efficient way to move it around especially to invide an island. Lets not forget that China doesn't even have any modern heavy bombers.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

US: Murdering many thousands of native Americans, pointing nukes towards eastern Europe, being the only country who actually used nukes to murder thousands of innocent people.
Brittain: Pointed nukes at eastern Europe, was used as a base for the Vikings to attack the rest of Europe


Guess we can only let Switzerland be on it then?

 

[bolido2000]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
US: Murdering many thousands of native Americans, pointing nukes towards eastern Europe, being the only country who actually used nukes to murder thousands of innocent people.
Brittain: Pointed nukes at eastern Europe, was used as a base for the Vikings to attack the rest of Europe


Guess we can only let Switzerland be on it then?

Some things are not black or white ya know

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: bolido2000

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
US: Murdering many thousands of native Americans, pointing nukes towards eastern Europe, being the only country who actually used nukes to murder thousands of innocent people.
Brittain: Pointed nukes at eastern Europe, was used as a base for the Vikings to attack the rest of Europe


Guess we can only let Switzerland be on it then?

Some things are not black or white ya know

exactly Skyclad1uhm1's point, things aint black and white