Should new perm members be added to the UN security council? - Page 8

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

January 9th, 2005  
Do you guys think a totally democratic system in the UN would work?
I mean with out the security council..
January 9th, 2005  
Originally Posted by Ezechiel
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.
IF Japan would grow up and take responsibility for its past rather than hiding from it, I do believe that they merit consideration. Much of that is dependent upon how they go about making restitution for the crimes their nation has committed against other nations of the world.

They are very qualified in most other areas for such a position. One of the most advanced nations on the planet technologically, economically and culturally. They are just absolutely determined to take a very childish attitude in the fact that they deny all wrongdoing in events that killed, maimed, wounded or raped millions and millions of people. They don't deserve consideration for a Permanent Seat until they can be more responsible for these things.

As far as Veto power? I don't believe anybody should have it including those who already do. At least the Veto should be more akin to the power of the US President's Veto. So 2/3 vote could overcome it, and truly important matters are not killed instantly by the whim or special interests of one permanent member of the Security Council.
January 9th, 2005  
agree with u, Japan should be a permenant member , (the second largest economy in the world cannot be a permenat member???)

but japan must admit their mistakes first like Germany

Germany should become a permenant member..