Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 7

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 25th, 2004  
Hey, thanks for correcting me on that one. I didn't know Russia had gotten past its ridiculous Germanaphobia. They've seemed to carry an unreasonable fear that Germany will rise up and attack them again. Glad to hear that their leadership has gotten past it at least.

Yes, Germany is a solid candidate. Japan isn't due to their own stupid obstinance.
December 26th, 2004  
if anything no country deserves a perm spot more than any other, in fact leaving everything the way it is now, or taking france out of the mix is the best option if you ask me...
December 26th, 2004  
So its ok for britain to put out?
I mean we are part of europe wether we like it or not.
Why should i achnowledge what its ancestors did?
If thats the mentalty that the world wants then britain, america ,france,germany,russia,china and practically every nation on earth should admit to things its done wrong, especially UK and US.
UK invented death camps , but we are seen in good light?
US supported terror groups during cold war but fights terrorism?
Japan done wrong over 60 years ago yet you still blame them?

Also why do americans think the EU is a new gov? It isnt , its just an alliance of states who run thier own laws.
we can state problems of all countries for hundreds of years in the past... but thats worthless... i took the problems from the time around when the U.N. was formed, after WW2...
japan is not being blamed for anything... they should simply do more action if they want to be rewarded. germany has taken steps for reparation, japan has not done a thing. If they want to be a leader in an organisation founded because of a world war that japan started, then they should atleast do something in return... america and britain pay more than other countries, and atleastthey have the back bone to follow the resolutions that the worthless U.N. hands out.

about EU, its my view. they want to intigrate as one economic & military group, they they should also be one political group, you cant just win everywhere IMO.
P.S. France isnt a superpower... no european country is a super power... maybe as EU they are... and thats why they should all be one group to form a veto, this is the only way to stop the infighting thats happening between them all about who should be perm members (if you have read the thread)
December 27th, 2004  
Charge 7
I've been thinking more and more that the UN is losing its relevancy. It needs to shore up its operations and not add to the headache. It may still be possible to get it back on the right track. Right now it has too many internal problems as it is without a free-for-all over who gets on the security council and who doesn't. If you add any you'll just wind up pissing off those that don't get added but feel they should've been. If it remains as it is there will still be those who think they should be included but not the paralyzing discontent that would arise if they pick some but not others.
December 27th, 2004  
as long as the U.N. is run by facist dictatorships and terrorist appeasors, then it has no hope.
imo sometimes you just got to destroy the badly built building, to build a new apartment complex.
December 28th, 2004  
Personally I see the UN's problems as being parallel to the problems faced in most Liberal democracies. There are so many diverging views that it is simply impossible to band them together over for a significant period of time. The only reason that we can see this a as a new phenomenon, is that when the UN was formed they had to deal with the Cold War, and were the primary means of the two super powers discussing issues. Also; we can all see that NATO's efforts in the Balkans have been infinitely more successful then the UN operations; and this has further lead to the decline of the UN. What the UN needs is for the powers to be out of the chief decision making cycle. By powers I mean countries that have significant international interests: the Britains, Frances, Russias, Chinas and Americas of the world. We need the power in the hand of middle power nations that are not going to be as easily swayed by their own ambitions and interests. If the UN is going to work; the security council permanent members should be made up of nations like Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, Australia, and Japan.
December 28th, 2004  
talking about cold war, we can thank russia for the influx of dictatorship members
December 29th, 2004  
Worse dictatorships then say communist China?(US backed) Besides, I think most of the countries let in by the USSR have become at least pseudo democratic by now.
December 30th, 2004  
So, r there still many of u supporting Japan to get a VETO?

Please I am sick of it if anyone here would agree it.
January 9th, 2005  
Oh its tough to be in the middle