We’re just going to continue to buy their leaders off. We’re in the process of sending them a couple of billion dollars of “military aid” despite the fact that previous donations of billions since Sept 2001 have been shown to have been siphoned off by the country’s leaders, most of whom are military. Documents made public by the Wikileaks leak show that we know Pakistan is actually supporting the rebels against us, and that’s because Pakistan wants to make sure Afghanistan doesn’t have a western/India-friendly government. Their biggest foreign policy issue is obviously India, and Pakistan fear encirclement by India (India are worried about being encircled by China 
) so they’re going tokeep things destabilised in Afghanistan to prevent a government hostile to Pakistan from taking office.
Fighting a GWOT is self-defeating. You can’t fight an abstract noun with military force. Right now we’re creating massive radicalism in Pakistan just by bing over the border in Afghanistan. Look at the bombing in Karachi today. The longer we have boots on the ground over there blowing stuff up, the more the people there get to see images of civilian dead every time we screw up one of our drone bombings (every few days) we’re just going to create a massive terrorism problem.
I didn’t say we should be fighting a GWOT. I just doubt we’re going to get out of doing so anytime soon.
You have to look at this through history. The UN was an organization founded after WWII.
This means the USSR (Now Russia), the USA and Britian were the only nations that should’ve got permenent seats. Even Britian was too weak by the war’s end but considering they fought and kept the war going against Hitler, OK.
France was a third rate power before the war, but it had colonies and was an original member so it got in. China, no way, too weak, but it dealt with the war before its official 1939 European start. Then you had the mess when the Nationalists lost the war.
Mr Obama once again is making promises and calling for things, he knows damn well can’t happen. This gets him off the hook, with as usual he says “It’s not my fault.” Somehow making promises you can’t keep then saying “I tried,” is good enough.
India can’t become a member because Pakistan would simply never tolerate it.
Everyone believes they have a right to a seat. And there’s always opposition. Asia is big in population but low in human development. About 700 million Indians are below poverty level. 75% of Indians have latent TB. This is hardly a progressive nation that’s overcoming issues. India only looks good on the books 'cause it’s population is so large. It’s middle and upper class is about 300 million which is about the population of the USA. But that leaves out the other 700 million that are overlooked.
To be fair, China is no better with these statistics, but China was in for historical reasons.
Brazil wanted to be a permanent member of course Mexico and Argentina would object. An African permanent seat is out as only South Africa comes close to being able to handle it.
The Muslim word wants a permanent membership, but giving them a seat based on that leaves us back to where each religion would want it’s membership.
Mr Obama isn’t genuine in his call. He needs to build some support so he says “Gee what can I do to make myself look good, that will never happen.” This is solely a poltical exercise
It’s fun as a debate, and it’s interesting to discuss the merits of each nation’s right to a permanent seat. Or even whether the UN has a useful purpose.
But this has no basis in something that could actually happen.
Based on…?
Presumably on the fact that they beat the Axis.
Neither you nor he are under the impression that the USSR, US and UK were the only allied nations, I hope.
I was raised to believe the evil communists hate us and want to take over the world. We always looked at China as a weak and powerless giant. But our corporations changed all that.Thanks to them, they are an economic powerhouse that will have more power than we soon. America has been involved in so many disgusting and unpopular wars the last few decades, that we are not trusted by many countries.
India is huge and a growing economic power. If we can get them more powerful in the UN, they may be an ally. That is, if they can overlook Bho Pal and our use of child labor in India. The country is stronger but the people are being exploited by our corporations. It is never simple when we allow amoral corporations to take the lead.
You do know that they can make our evil corporations stop exploiting their children, right? Child labor is simply a fact of life in some parts of the world. Ending it isn’t going to solve any problems overnight*; it’s just going to leave a lot of families hungry.
*except the problem of child laborers not being able to attend school, which is up there.
So a kid in an Indian village sewing soccer balls from the age of 8, with no chance of going to school, is a good thing. If they paid a couple bucks more and hired their parents, there would be no problem. Kid labor is exploitive and wrong. They get the balls sewn for practically nothing and charge a bundle for them. It does not lower the price. it increases profits. The old maximization of profits at all costs argument, allows anything. It is unethical and immoral.
I didn’t say it was a good thing. In fact, if you actually read my post, you would note that I specifically addressed the school issue, with an asterisk.
They were the ones whose leaders posed for that picture at Yalta. That’s what counts.
It was pretty well accepted at the time that while plenty of nations took part in the allied effort, the US, UK and USSR were the undisputed leaders.
Which brings us back to the original point: the US, UK and USSR deserved to be there because their leaders were at Yalta? Kind of a circular argument, no?
France wasn’t a third rate power before the war and wasn’t expected to be a third rate power once it would be back on its feet, either.
Besides, the UK wouldn’t have acepted to leave France out. Not out of gentleness or anything, but because both countries had similar interests and concerns (Regarding for instance the situation within Europe, the colonial issue, etc…), that nor the the USA nor the USSR shared, so they wanted a solid and influential France that would hopefully side with the UK wrt many international issues.
Well I tend to hear that a lot, either GB or France being a third rate power. Probably a lack of grasp on English vocabulary.
Not being a Superpower does not make you go directly to the third rate power square, it usually (and logically) makes you a Middle power, or Greater Middle power. Which is exactly what France and GB are (and have been for nearly a century). If we go by that count the only Superpower is the US and that would mean that only the US has the right to sit at the USNC table, a fantasy that seems to fill many wet dreams of the “American Internet Pop” (a really specific breed, apart both from the common American pop, and from the Human Race altogether).
No, but Yalta was proof - if any was needed - that it was accepted by everybody, including the other allies, that those three nations were the leaders of the alliance. As the UN started out as just the anti-Axis alliance by another name, it makes sense that these three would be given leadership status.