'Restricted UNSC prevents small nations' voice to be heard'

[master_13]

But Japan and India have already been in the UNSC

- being represented by their Master US & UK all the times.



That happens quite a lot when one deals with Indian beggars :

if you refuse to give money, he will spit on your shoes.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most people on this board are still quite slow to comprehend the following 2 basic and fundamental facts, talking about average IQ!

1. UNSC 5 was, is, and will be in the forseeable future, critically important & useful. They have done a great job so far. UNSC 5 don't give a hoot about your chitchat, but world-wars. UNSC 5 is the only reason that you still live today being able to bullsh!t here on this board instead of being radioactive dust long ago in an all-out worldwide nuclear exchanges.

2. UNSC was formed on a sea of blood, thier enermies' and their own's. Hence UNSC is highly discriminative, rightfully so. You gotta be daydreaming if you fancy just walking in as one of bosses without showing the world how much you're worth - it's blood for blood, fair and square. If you think you have a thicker stick that you can still stand there breathing after terminating any one of UNSC 5, let it known. If no, you can go STFU, oke?

Love it when you said it's formed on a "sea of blood". Indian contribution in that regard is minimal at best, not saying they haven't contributed, but too insignificant to worth mentioning.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

Don't be an a$$ you are talking like a Pakistani. The UN is not a Rambo movie to jump around the world firing out four barreled machine guns


So you agree that claiming that India has nothing going for it other than population is an incorrect argument? To reiterate when China got the veto in 1971, it was as poor as a church mouse and country of famine where people were selling there own children to feed themselves.
The UN was set up to prevent another world war, so far it has been successful. It is as you say a political organization. So as per you India has insufficient status? What status did China have in 1971? Or indeed what status does Russia really have today? It is an isolated country selling gas and oil at rock bottom prices to keep afloat. It is not even able at this point to protect its own legitimate interests without being sanctioned.

Can you tell me which part if the speech you found so annoying? To me the whole thing seems like normal diplomatic speak. A country works for its own best interest at several fronts at the same time. Diplomatic speeches at the UN does not mean that the indian government is not working on other fronts as well.

One last point, Germany is included in the p5+1 but not Japan, where is the fairness in that ? (Yes, I know you agree with me that the whole thing is totally biased) as far as I can see Germany is included despite two other EU nations already with veto power because they are blonde haired and blue eyed and the Japanese are not because they are black haired and slanty eyed - exactly the same reason why during WW2 German and Italian immigrants in America went about their business while Japanese were rounded up into concentration camps.

china in 1971 had manufactured its own nuclear submarine, developed thermonuclear weapons before even France, developed an ICBM, invented the malaria drug artemisin and had comparable life expectancy and literacy with india in the 90s.

India today doesn't have thermonuclear weapons, icbm nor can it manufacture any submarine by itself.