Opposing Permanent seat for India

[Ahmad]

If India is awarded a permanent U.N. seat despite its poor human rights record then many countries around the world are qualified for Permanent U.N. seat as well.

i am not sure what is the requirement for a permanant un seat? although i know it is not the human rights issues, in that case china wouldnt have qualified either. i suspect it is the power, if you are powerful then you can be the member of the club.

 

[Developereo]

OIC should the organization for muslim countries going forward. UN would continue to loose strength since majority of the UN resolutions favor non-muslim countries.

They should probably give a UNSC seat to OIC.

It will be the most meaningless seat since the OIC members are all running their own agenda and the OIC can't agree on anything anyway. It is one of the silliest and most comically useless organizations in the world.

 

[Ahmad]

They should probably give a UNSC seat to OIC.

It will be the most meaningless seat since the OIC members are all running their own agenda and the OIC can't agree on anything anyway. It is one of the silliest and most comically useless organizations in the world.

OIC is a joke and waste of money, first they cant/dont agree and even if they agree then they cant do a damn thing.

 

[Capt.Popeye]

China does have a permanent seat and I can question India's human right record. This is a free forum no? As India has commit herself to being a liberal democracy with adherence to those rights, it can be presumed that she is campaigning on those grounds. If India doesn't herself fulfill those values to which her citizens like you criticize others for, there is little merit in the proposal as a whole.

It was about a month ago they ran a piece on CBC news where it reported over 300 Kashmiri Muslims have been killed by Indian security forces, this includes woman and children. The world hasn't forgotten, Shame!

(two can play this game buddy)

Just for the record, China's seat has nothing to do with its "human rights record". It has a permanent seat on the SC, period. So get real, Cardsharp.

 

[fast and furious]

If India is awarded a permanent U.N. seat despite its poor human rights record then many countries around the world are qualified for Permanent U.N. seat as well.

Sir, In Indian democracy everybody's opinion is heard and Considered.
Including the likes of Geelani who talk of breaking up the very nation which provides him this right and freedom.
Certainly people with weopons will be fought back and there is mutual damage(unarmed civilians ,Security forces personnel also die).

If this is not good record in human rights then what is ?

To Geelani:Heard you,Considered your opinion and rejected.

 

[indushek]

posting from mobile so will make it short. Membership has nothing to do with hr rec, alphatech was completely right. Cs is getting too much emo, i dont reply directly to him why he knows.

 

[Peacefulll]

Sir, In Indian democracy everybody's opinion is heard and Considered.
Including the likes of Geelani who talk of breaking up the very nation which provides him this right and freedom.
Certainly people with weopons will be fought back and there is mutual damage(unarmed civilians ,Security forces personnel also die).

If this is not good record in human rights then what is ?

To Geelani:Heard you,Considered your opinion and rejected.

The thread starter is a known anti-India flamer. He is a lying hypocrite who knows very well that over the years India's human rights record is better than most nations in the UN, including Pakistan, and also better than some permanent members!. But after all, he is a combination of three things: a) A jingo b) zero ability to logically think c) a Pakistani (and hence, by extension, is anti-India, and also, tries to behave more Chinese than the Chinese themselves)

Given this, it is no wonder that he asks such inane questions. As long as he can write some anti-India tripe, he does not mind looking stupid by trying to link so-called "human rights issues" with the UNSC seat, which has no relation at all! Fact of the matter is, Pakistanis all over, including him, are beginning to lose sleep over India's inclusion in so many exclusive clubs. So much so that even talk of future inclusion makes them break out into a sweat, and they try to bring up such inane questions.

 

[Spring Onion]

USSR & China had terrible human rights records on the 70, 80 & possibly 90's.

Till the 60's Non whites were discriminated against in US. France in the same period was cracking down in its N African territories.

All this while these nations were members of the UNSC.

Can we look for another line of argument ?

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.


2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.

3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.

B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.


C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.


The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.


4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.


A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.


5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.


If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

 

[indushek]

posting from mobile so will make it short. Membership has nothing to do with hr rec, alphatech was completely right. Cs is getting too much emo, i dont reply directly to him why he knows.

Had to come to a internet cafe to post my actual reply. So that not much of confusion persists(actually am in Chennai to attend a marriage)

Cardsharp is getting too annoyed because for any Indian here when speaking with a Pakistani China has to come up either way. Either the Pakistani guy brings up the topic or makes a comparision to score points and we have to reply. Over the time this becomes a habit, after all everybody is human here.

 

[indushek]

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.


2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.

3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.

B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.


C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.


The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.


4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.


A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.


5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.


If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

Finally my dear u don't have proofs for these to be presented before the World. Either this or ur government is waiting for the right time

 

[kingofkings]

Finally my dear u don't have proofs for these to be presented before the World. Either this or ur government is waiting for the right time

After 26/11 rest of the world ( even Obama during his visit to India said Pak should take necessary actions against accused )

Everyone knew who was behind, But still there is only one thing which they say " what's the proof".

I think it's time we ask " what's the proof"

 

[lionheart1]

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.


2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.

3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.

B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.


C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.


The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.


4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.


A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.


5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.


If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

where is the proof of human right violation, except pakistan which country(super power ) talking about human rights violations

terrorism what kind , i think name India is enough to terrorize your army and your people (remember 90k pows). even if we are supporting bla where is the proof, even if you have proof why should'nt we when you are supporting terrorist in kashmir
AFP: Musharraf: No rush against anti-India militants
Pakistan has no morel right to talk about India(regarding terrorism).

 

[Hawkeye]

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.
Jana, Am back @ this forum after a while..... but now remember why i liked it so much ! Allow me to clarify, as required

2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.
Yes i agree there has been human right abuse in India, especially in Kashmir
3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.
There is no East pakistan. Bangladesh was formed by bengali muslims who desired their own country. History must be realised and respected. Your point here the kind of rhetoric we see this side with the baiters in the the RSS desiring to rebuild temples
B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.
A complex situation, akin to kashmir in some ways. However to set the record right, the LTTE only had the support of the Tamil populace in India. The accord India had was with Sri Lankan Government - not the LTTE.

C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.
And the proof is....... ? ! Again rhetoric. The simplest way to deflect hurting issues is to point fingers and or stonewall. Hardliners in Pak/India use this ploy regularly

The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.


4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.
India is a country which has never in history attacked another nation or provoked attack. Border disputes are a result of the little thought of or planned partition our earswhile british masters left us to contend with.

A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.
India is the 2nd fastest growing economy in the world and the most desired investment country - after china. Investors who have created wealth want to come here and invest. Believe me, they would not be fools and invest in an unstable country

5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.
The dynamics of the world have changed. Main powers have now been reassessed.....The World?s Largest Economies | Economy Watch
India now stands at #4. This must now be accepted by all

If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

And about time

 

[fast and furious]

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.


2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.

3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.

B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.


C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.


The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.


4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.


A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.


5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.


If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

All these points have been debated in earlier threads.

Too bad Pakistan Cant Veto India's Entry into UNSC.
That seems to be the only way you can Stop US.All the best.

 

[prototype]

And they are founding members/ and reason for formation of UN.

Founding members dont comprise the new world order,some of them r no more world powers,not even financial power's

2. Indian human rights violations is only one aspect.

And that aspect had no validity,let see what r the other aspects

3. There are many pressing reasons why India should not given permanent seat

Hmmm listening

A. India has been patronising terrorism at state level i.e Indian State terrorism in East Pakistan.

The world consider that as an open war,for which Pakistan itself was responsible,the pressing human right violation's it had done their,we had power we intervened using military,if u feel their is any going in India u r also welcome

Anyway i had heard history is twisted in Pakistani text books,but if it is not u can come with some evidence

B. India had partonised the most dangerous terrorist outfit LTTE in Sri Lanka.

A little off topic-LTTE is not the most dangerous outfit,that must probably go to the,oh leave it

Meanwhile Sri lanka(read-its govt) had not provided us any evidence about out patronage,but i think Pakistan have bucket loads of evidence

C. India is patronising BLA terrorists.

That was the most hilarious,and what is the evidence-tata salt

The bottom line is UNSC meant to stop any such activity by using its veto power along with acting on many other critical issues.

The bottom line is that UNSC members r self indulged in this activities and r using their power to veto any movement to bring the topic on tables,so never mind

4. India has border disputes with almost all of its neighbours hence India in UNSC will never bring peace to this region.

Most of the nation's have border dispute,that is not a point,China itself at one time had dispute with all it's neighbors,and still many running on,so that means they r using their power to deny peace in their region

A country that is part many pressing issues with regards to peace and stability of this vital region can NEVER be made judge for giving a fair verdict on its own role.

Have u ever noticed,most of the world had even noticed or uttering anything about the pressing peace violation's India had done

5. Any issue pertaining to vital interests of main powers i.e US, China and Russia put in UNSC with veto power in hands of India will further jeopardised the world peace.

Now u r on point,India with a veto power means shattered aspiration for many of them,anyway each and every member of SC had already used their veto against each other,so i assume world power is already in disdain

If India vote or even abstain it will imbalance the equilibrium

That is the whole point of getting the power,is not it