Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 2




View Poll Results :Do you think there should be new permanent UN Security Council members?
Yes 8 44.44%
No 3 16.67%
Yes, but without veto powers like the originals 5 27.78%
Yes and also increase the number of 2 year term members to balance it out 2 11.11%
Voters: 18. You may not vote on this poll

 
--
 
December 15th, 2004  
03USMC
 
 
Not a problem. I think Italy currently can be one the few countries to wiegh in without overt bias towards the UK or the US.
December 15th, 2004  
Italian Guy
 
 
Yeah, that's thanks to our current government (rightwing)
By the way our President is having lunch with Bush right now while we talk. Really.
December 15th, 2004  
SwordFish_13
 
 
Hi

Italian Guy , I don't think Italy has Bid for a UNSC seat ?

I belive Storng contenders are India, Nigeria, Brazil, Japan, Germany and South Aferica . .....they all have bid for a Seat and currently working on gathering Support.

Italy and Pakistan have actually jointly Voed to block the UNSC expansion because ..............Italy is Against Germany's canditure and Pakistan against India's.
Source

Form what i know Italy says Germany By Bidding for a permenent Seat has threatned the EU unity and........... EU as a whole should be included not Germany

It's getting Interesting Argentina opposes Brazil's bid, Italy that of Germany, South Korea Japan's , while India has had to contend with Pakistan

But the thing is first hurdle is getting Support of the 5 permenant members because one veto and 1/3 rd majority will be useless ..............so first get 5 votes them work for the 1./3 majority


Interesting Article http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/FJ26Df01.html

Peace
-=SF_13=-
--
December 15th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
Germany and India.

Germany: I like Germany.

India: should be there.
December 15th, 2004  
godofthunder9010
 
 
It's already a pointlessly ineffective body -- lets just give every nation on the planet a veto and be done with it.

Seriously, if more vetos are added, it only makes the UN that much more ineffective as a system.
December 15th, 2004  
FlyingFrog
 
No VETO more.

Just make it 7 nations UNSC:
PRC, Russia, India, France, Germany, UK, USA

Just votes, 4:3 then deal done.
December 16th, 2004  
ChineseCanadian
 
India must be in, how can a country with 1/6 of popluation of world not be a permanent memeber..

japan...en....i am not so sure,
December 16th, 2004  
DarkSmari
 
disgrace, japan should be
December 16th, 2004  
ChineseCanadian
 
yeah, japan should be too, but first not with veto power, see if japanese government can behave well but not becoming too excited
December 16th, 2004  
Xion
 
They need 2 members from Asia, 2 from Africa, 1 from Europe and 1 from South America.
6 new members in all.
From Asia its gonna be India and Japan, from Africa Nigeria and South Africa, from Europe Germany and from South America, Brazil.

These nations are the top nations to get UN Security Council seats, all other nations like Argentina and Italy can only get temporary 2 year seats.

To get a seat in the UNSC, they see how much a nation has representation in the UN and how much is the nations military and economic might.
India if considered is well above the norms.