US sets condition for India’s UNSC seat

[faithfulguy]

I agree that adding India as the permanent member would only complicate things. UN carries out most of its responsibilities just fine. I was just saying that UN doesn't have the power to stop any wars between any countries bcuz of the way it is set up. Other than that it is doing fine with things such as peacekeeping, helping refugees, etc.

Well, it's not set out to militarily fight wars. Korean War didn't turn out to well for UN. After Korean War, UN stop fighting wars.

 

[MultaniGuy]

India will never get UNSC seat. China would never allow it

 

[Thəorətic Muslim]

The French resistance was almost entirely supported by the British and their intelligence agencies. Also just because some Frenchmen did something in World war 2 (70+ years ago) doesn't mean they deserve a seat on one of the world's most powerful positions especially when there are more important countries with more people/resources/ and history that could replace them. I mean forcefully remove from their seat not abdicate.

As much as we all have the right to make fun of the white flag waving army, the french held their own. Occasional support from the Brits required the French to carry out missions the Brits wanted done.

You are correct 70 years is a long time, but the status quo is built, tested, and refined to the liking.

Any removal of a UNSC will require a resolution, the UNSC isn't going to permit it because the other 4 members could gang up on one. Imagine if a resolution on how to remove a UNSC was adopted for the reason to remove France, but on voting day the US was removed.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

P.S. I'm not against UN per se, I just think it's unable to do the job it was intended for bcuz of the way it was structured.

You are right, the stated purpose of the UNSC is to maintain global peace and security, something that it has clearly failed to do.

However, what is the real purpose of the UNSC? In my opinion, the UNSC is not about maintaining global peace and security (like it officially says) but rather to serve the interests of the P5 as well as prevent wars between these major 5 powers.

It's just geopolitics in the end.

 

[Han Patriot]

You are right, the stated purpose of the UNSC is to maintain global peace and security, something that it has clearly failed to do.

However, what is the real purpose of the UNSC? In my opinion, the UNSC is not about maintaining global peace and security (like it officially says) but rather to serve the interests of the P5 as well as prevent wars between these major 5 powers.

It's just geopolitics in the end.

It was to maintain peace between the powers. What is the use of permanent membership without veto? US is just screwing India up.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

It was to maintain peace between the powers. What is the use of permanent membership without veto? US is just screwing India up.

The irony is that even without veto, India still won't get the UNSC permanent seat. For the same reason they won't get the NSG seat, even if it is just a token gesture.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Well, it's not set out to militarily fight wars. Korean War didn't turn out to well for UN. After Korean War, UN stop fighting wars.

Correct it can't militarily fight wars bcuz it has no military of its own. It wasn't meant to fight wars. It's predecessor the League of Nations established in 1919(if I recall correctly) was supposed to prevent wars, which failed and world war broke out. UN as its successor was also established with the same goal...to provide a platform for nations to work out their conflicts through dialogue instead of going to war...and yet wars happened.
Anyways this discussion is becoming more philosophical in nature. I agree with the fact that adding India as a permanent member would change the status quo...and since status quo seems to be working alright for the most part, there's no need to add India.

 

[Han Patriot]

Correct it can't militarily fight wars bcuz it has no military of its own. It wasn't meant to fight wars. It's predecessor the League of Nations established in 1919(if I recall correctly) was supposed to prevent wars, which failed and world war broke out. UN as its successor was also established with the same goal...to provide a platform for nations to work out their conflicts through dialogue instead of going to war...and yet wars happened.
Anyways this discussion is becoming more philosophical in nature. I agree with the fact that adding India as a permanent member would change the status quo...and since status quo seems to be working alright for the most part, there's no need to add India.

Nobody in the P5 except maybe France wants to share power.

 

[Jackdaws]

And how do you imagine that will happen, considering what even Nikki Haley said herself, that none of the P5 will be willing to dilute their own veto power.

Hell, even a UNSC permanent seat without veto power will be impossible to get for India, unless they are willing to give up more territory to China like they just did with Donglang.

Lol. Is that what the Communist media is saying? That India gave up err Bhutanese land to China? Haha. In the democratic world, the narrative is a bit more sane.

 

[beijingwalker]

Lol. Is that what the Communist media is saying? That India gave up err Bhutanese land to China? Haha. In the democratic world, the narrative is a bit more sane.

You mean theocratic?

 

[Jackdaws]

You mean theocratic?

No, I mean democratic. But I can see why a communist regime would peddle that narrative too.

 

[Baby Leone]

So US want to Use India as a counterweight against Pakistan and China.

Best of luck indians

 

[noksss]

India should not be given permanent seat at UN Security Council.

It is a war mongering country. It fought wars with 3 neighbors. exchange of fire several times with a 4th. Does have serious conflict with every neighbor.

Looks like India has to improve from its 3 border dispute to atleast half of what china has

http://www.firstpost.com/india/sikk...a-could-be-david-to-this-goliath-3796261.html

 

[Han Patriot]

Lol. Is that what the Communist media is saying? That India gave up err Bhutanese land to China? Haha. In the democratic world, the narrative is a bit more sane.

Hhaha, you just withdrew and we are now based there, you don't have to be a genius to know what just happened.

Looks like India has to improve from its 3 border dispute to atleast half of what china has

http://www.firstpost.com/india/sikk...a-could-be-david-to-this-goliath-3796261.html

Not sure how you get 18, Spratly is disputed between all 6 nations not just with China and we have settled all land borders except with India and Bhutan(you know who the shit stirrer was) and one island dispute with Japan. Technically speaking only 2 islands group and 1 land border is under dispute.

 

[Khatri_pune]

Just one suggestion to GOI.... NSG membership without nuclear state status AND UNSC membership without VETO is of no use....

I may not say it correctly but " Khudi Ko mar buland itana ki Khuda bands se khud puche bol teri Raza kya hai"
Let's wait for a decade or more, make ourself strong and then grab our right.