India says UNSC should have 25 members

[ksgokul]

Absolutely.......... 20 members from China, and other from north korea, libya and countries of ur choice.

I agree with you fully.

Oh! man, that was really timely.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

Hey @harpoon congratulations for ur 5000s post
Clock more mate !!

If they are not traitors and deserters what would you call them??

U can see post 88!

 

[JanjaWeed]

this whole UNSC & veto thing is flawed & outdated. Handful of countries shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for rest of the world. Scrap this whole permanent members & veto c£$P. All the members should have equal rights & the decision of majority members should be the basis for any resolution & its implementation.

just my two penny...

 

[Aramsogo]

That's just for Singapore 30,000 / 40,000. Hong Kong probably the same percentages.

I'm not the one here bragging about the British Indian Army. Nothing to brag about.

Wiki

"The Germans and Japanese were relatively successful in recruiting combat forces from Indian prisoners of war. These forces were known as the Tiger Legion and the Indian National Army (INA). "

Go and read wiki again. The total strength of British Indian Army was around 2,500,000 who fought everywhere from Hong Kong to Europe. Majority of them joined up bcs they believed that British are lesser evils when compared to Nazis. British Indian Army was the main backbone of the British Forces. Also when you call them traitors, you also offend Pakistanis & Bangladeshis.




But they are entirely 2 different countries.



They were loyal to their motherland, which is India.

 

[Rajaraja Chola]

That's just for Singapore 30,000 / 40,000. Hong Kong probably the same percentages.

I'm not the one here bragging about the British Indian Army. Nothing to brag about.

Well u dragged British indian army here, not us!

 

[harpoon]

That's just for Singapore 30,000 / 40,000. Hong Kong probably the same percentages.

I'm not the one here bragging about the British Indian Army. Nothing to brag about.

Then you must have said it clearly. British Indian Army was 2.5 million strong. Anyways they were not traitors, they were loyal to their motherland aka India.

 

[Gautam]

Bangladesh should be included as the permanent member with a veto power. Infact India cant be allowed as permanent member unless PK and BD given the same status.

Ctrl + F bangladesh = No Results Found!
and you talk about getting into the security council? why you are trolling dude?

 

[Aramsogo]

Well u dragged British indian army here, not us!

No, I didn't.

 

[harpoon]

this whole UNSC & veto thing is flawed & outdated. Handful of countries shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for rest of the world. Scrap this whole permanent members & veto c£$P. All the members should have equal rights & the decision of majority members should be the basis for any resolution & its implementation.

just my two penny...

Thats a contentious issue. Should US be considered equal to Fiji...I don't think so. The best way is to have a voting pattern developed in lines of the Indian Presidential election where MLAs from different states have different weightage to their votes based on the population of their respective states. I say we develop a voting pattern based on country's population, economic prowness, military strenth etc for every country.

 

[Hello_10]

this whole UNSC & veto thing is flawed & outdated. Handful of countries shouldn't be allowed to make decisions for rest of the world. Scrap this whole permanent members & veto c£$P. All the members should have equal rights & the decision of majority members should be the basis for any resolution & its implementation.

just my two penny...

sir, there can’t be any deal between grown and growing economies . Developed economies would like to have terms and conditions based on the current power structure/ economic influence, while the emerging economies like BRICS or G7 would like to have a deal based on the projected power by at least 2025 and terms and conditions would be based on it, which the US/ West won’t accept right now. So it is foolish to think for any change in the structure of UN which is based on power exercise during WW2, which helped the WW2 winners, the P5s, get permanent seat in UN with Veto power also, with nuclear weapons also. Neither WW2 winners like Britain and France would like to be categorized with the similar sized countries like Pakistan, Nigeria, Thailand etc who will level these two of P5s members by 2025, Nor, India is strong enough to just get a permanent seat in UN straight away. We do need to wait till 2025 to have the luxury of our own terms and conditions while dealing the international politics

India third most powerful nation: US report

Washington: The new global power lineup in the US for 2010 compiling the world's most powerful countries/regions recognised India as the third most powerful country behind the US and China, and predicted that its clout as well as that of China and Brazil would further rise by 2025.

India third most powerful nation: US report - Talk to China Daily - China Forum

 

[harpoon]

No, I didn't.

Yes you did.

Russia, then China. Look it up. It certainly wasn't Indians, who did nothing and now want a free seat.

 

[ephone]

That will have zero possibility.

India says UNSC should have 25 members | Firstpost

 

[JanjaWeed]

Thats a contentious issue. Should US be considered equal to Fiji...I don't think so. The best way is to voting pattern developed in lines of the Indian Presidential election where MLAs from different states have different weightage to their votes based on the population of their respective states. I say we develop a voting pattern based on country's population, economic prowness, military strenth etc for every country.

well.. you do have a point. Then again the current UN structure is discriminatory & the proposed future one will be the same, but to a lesser extent. You have to protect the rights of every nation & it's people. This is about giving equal opertunity to every one. C'mon..all this bigwings of UN keep harping about minority protection, no racial discrimination, human rights protection & the rest.. then why is this discrimination when it comes to making decision for other countries? Only five are allowed to have a say.. & it takes only one to pull the plug for the rest....

 

[Hello_10]

That will have zero possibility.

The same used to be said about G7 in 90s and now we find finally G20 is stronger than G7, isnt it? We have seen too many Nawabs and Thakurs of their time and now their new generation doing road jobs now days. The way China and India were the 2 largest economies till 17th century, maintaining top two largest economies positions from the 1st to 17th/ 18th centuries, you will see a dramatic change in this world by just next 10 to 15 years from now, write down somewhere

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)

 

[longyi]

In all fairness the UNSC should have a P7 of:

US, Russia, Britain, China, India, South Africa and Brazil.

Too many perms become political deadlocks, and too little is unfair.