"Good chance for German seat on Security Council"

Sorry but no schnitzel. The us plus 2 lapdogs (uk, france) is enough. Don't need a third lapdog. Besides, no country with a Holocaust in its history would get such a coveted position especially before India or Brazil.

"Too many backwards countries out there to let them make decisions for the rest of the world. I think the way it is now things are ok. I wouldn't a Burma, and Iran, a North Korea have equal voting power with a US, Russia, France, China etc etc. This is the case of having societies that are developed and I don't mean economically have more to say than societies that are not. I don't believe India, or Zimbabwe should get to decision powers that are equal to UK for example. One cannot be allowed to be that backwards and have such a power that would affect everyone's lives. The world and nations have not reached the level of progress where majority rule should be applied.
(johny, 27 September 2010 00:42) "

Would you please define for us what you mean by a "backward country"? And where would you classify "Kosova" -- "up there" with UK or down the dumps with the likes of India and Zimbawe (as defined by yourself)?

Interestingly enough, this isn't going to make the Security Council any better than giving it a 2010 cosmetic makeover to reflect global standings past 1945.

Putting Germany on the SC does little since India and Brazil are also candidates, and as long as permanent members have black-ball veto power, that's just adding a few more Russias and Chinas. In fact, as long as black-ball veto power remains a right for permanent members, an increase in numbers will only bring the UN into deeper gridlock.

Best to eliminate black-ball veto altogether, and raise the majority threshold from 50% to 66%. If black-ball veto is something that the permanent members don't want to give up, an extra provision of override should be introduced to avoid one state killing an entire resolution.

All I can say to Berline is -- keep on dreaming! No harm in wishful thinking.

The Security Council is unfair and undemocratic, why should there be five permanent seats with veto powers?. It was one of the US's conditions of joining the UN. It needs to be scrapped, everything should be decided via a democratic majority vote. One country gets one vote, that is the only fair democratic system. All countries should be equal in the UN.

The Security Council is unfair and undemocratic, why should there be five permanent seats with veto powers?. It was one of the US's conditions of joining the UN. It needs to be scrapped, everything should be decided via a democratic majority vote. One country gets one vote, that is the only fair democratic system. All countries should be equal in the UN.
(Ian, UK, 26 September 2010 16:42)

Too many backwards countries out there to let them make decisions for the rest of the world. I think the way it is now things are ok. I wouldn't a Burma, and Iran, a North Korea have equal voting power with a US, Russia, France, China etc etc. This is the case of having societies that are developed and I don't mean economically have more to say than societies that are not. I don't believe India, or Zimbabwe should get to decision powers that are equal to UK for example. One cannot be allowed to be that backwards and have such a power that would affect everyone's lives. The world and nations have not reached the level of progress where majority rule should be applied.

Sorry but no schnitzel. The us plus 2 lapdogs (uk, france) is enough. Don't need a third lapdog. Besides, no country with a Holocaust in its history would get such a coveted position especially before India or Brazil.

The Security Council is unfair and undemocratic, why should there be five permanent seats with veto powers?. It was one of the US's conditions of joining the UN. It needs to be scrapped, everything should be decided via a democratic majority vote. One country gets one vote, that is the only fair democratic system. All countries should be equal in the UN.
(Ian, UK, 26 September 2010 16:42)

Too many backwards countries out there to let them make decisions for the rest of the world. I think the way it is now things are ok. I wouldn't a Burma, and Iran, a North Korea have equal voting power with a US, Russia, France, China etc etc. This is the case of having societies that are developed and I don't mean economically have more to say than societies that are not. I don't believe India, or Zimbabwe should get to decision powers that are equal to UK for example. One cannot be allowed to be that backwards and have such a power that would affect everyone's lives. The world and nations have not reached the level of progress where majority rule should be applied.

Interestingly enough, this isn't going to make the Security Council any better than giving it a 2010 cosmetic makeover to reflect global standings past 1945.

Putting Germany on the SC does little since India and Brazil are also candidates, and as long as permanent members have black-ball veto power, that's just adding a few more Russias and Chinas. In fact, as long as black-ball veto power remains a right for permanent members, an increase in numbers will only bring the UN into deeper gridlock.

Best to eliminate black-ball veto altogether, and raise the majority threshold from 50% to 66%. If black-ball veto is something that the permanent members don't want to give up, an extra provision of override should be introduced to avoid one state killing an entire resolution.

All I can say to Berline is -- keep on dreaming! No harm in wishful thinking.

The Security Council is unfair and undemocratic, why should there be five permanent seats with veto powers?. It was one of the US's conditions of joining the UN. It needs to be scrapped, everything should be decided via a democratic majority vote. One country gets one vote, that is the only fair democratic system. All countries should be equal in the UN.

"Too many backwards countries out there to let them make decisions for the rest of the world. I think the way it is now things are ok. I wouldn't a Burma, and Iran, a North Korea have equal voting power with a US, Russia, France, China etc etc. This is the case of having societies that are developed and I don't mean economically have more to say than societies that are not. I don't believe India, or Zimbabwe should get to decision powers that are equal to UK for example. One cannot be allowed to be that backwards and have such a power that would affect everyone's lives. The world and nations have not reached the level of progress where majority rule should be applied.
(johny, 27 September 2010 00:42) "

Would you please define for us what you mean by a "backward country"? And where would you classify "Kosova" -- "up there" with UK or down the dumps with the likes of India and Zimbawe (as defined by yourself)?