|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 23, 2024 16:33:38 GMT
see I dont understand this monte. If this is the case , regarding being a nuclear power , then why are the uk and France on it but not Pakistan and India? Both are nuclear powers , and Pakistans population alone dwarfs the uk and France combined. Im told in national politics here in the yookay , the reason England gets to call the shots is Englands population dwarfs scotland irelands and Wales. Why isnt this rule then in place outside the uk ? Are the goalposts being moved? I think the excuses for the old European world powers , who are nothing more than regional powers in military terms now , are wearing thin. Its laughable. Britain and France are there as they are useful lap dogs to the Americans , nothing more . Economics , population , military power , are excuses that dont stack up. It's a combination - A spread of interests - ie splitting interest off into several camps USSR(Russia), China, US, Europe Soft power - The UK or France (believe it or not) has far more credibility than Pakistan - even for nations that might seem more aligned with Pakistan Large areas of the word were left out because they were / are basket cases who have no credibility and no power. The victors of ww2 If the US pulls out the whole thing will fold into a total joke. sorry dont really agree. I think India has far more credibility than France or the uk , and if the yanks need Europe represented to rubber stamp their orders , then surely the EU is far better then two old has been powers? I mentioned Pakistan merely as the weaker of the two sub continent nations that has nukes and a population bigger than both France and uk combined. however you split things , and how ever you determine who sits there on the permanent security council , France and uk lose every time. I think if the farce that is the Un carries on , eventually the yanks will replace both the uk and France with more powerful allies who are more credible at sitting permanently on the UN Security Council. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 23, 2024 16:36:45 GMT
see I dont understand this monte. If this is the case , regarding being a nuclear power , then why are the uk and France on it but not Pakistan and India? Both are nuclear powers , and Pakistans population alone dwarfs the uk and France combined. Im told in national politics here in the yookay , the reason England gets to call the shots is Englands population dwarfs scotland irelands and Wales. Why isnt this rule then in place outside the uk ? Are the goalposts being moved? I think the excuses for the old European world powers , who are nothing more than regional powers in military terms now , are wearing thin. Its laughable. Britain and France are there as they are useful lap dogs to the Americans , nothing more . Economics , population , military power , are excuses that dont stack up. The victors of ww2 the victors of World War Two were the Russians , ( and their vassal states) and the yanks ( and their vassal states) We are included in the latter group. ( ignoring china for the minute of course) Like I said , the old European powers of western and Central Europe are a shadow of what they were , and no longer fit to sit on the UN Security Council. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 16:48:44 GMT
It's a combination - A spread of interests - ie splitting interest off into several camps USSR(Russia), China, US, Europe Soft power - The UK or France (believe it or not) has far more credibility than Pakistan - even for nations that might seem more aligned with Pakistan Large areas of the word were left out because they were / are basket cases who have no credibility and no power. The victors of ww2 If the US pulls out the whole thing will fold into a total joke. sorry dont really agree. I think India has far more credibility than France or the uk , and if the yanks need Europe represented to rubber stamp their orders , then surely the EU is far better then two old has been powers? I mentioned Pakistan merely as the weaker of the two sub continent nations that has nukes and a population bigger than both France and uk combined. however you split things , and how ever you determine who sits there on the permanent security council , France and uk lose every time. I think if the farce that is the Un carries on , eventually the yanks will replace both the uk and France with more powerful allies who are more credible at sitting permanently on the UN Security Council. India doesn't have more credibility than France or the UK and the EU can't be a member of the UN because it isn't a nation. So, if it isn't France or the UK, who is 'representing, the considerable weight of Europe? The reality is far more dirty and messy than that, this is just one consideration. The US is undoubtedly exerting some force holding both position in place (as proxies), but it hard to see how the UN would get around that with falling apart The biggest influence is the united states - it contributes about 30% of the budget |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 18:36:58 GMT
No Monte, we got those big boy seats by being the countries that made the big sacrifices to win WW2. And except for the USA we got those seats before we got nuclear weapons could you define what you mean by sacrifices? Plenty of countries made great sacrifices , but they aren't on the UN Security Council like uk and France. Can "sacrifices" 80 years ago , in a long gone war that has no reflection on the world today really be deemed as the reason why certain states remain on the security council? Lives lost, economic sacrifices made coupled with results achieved. Yes there are good arguments that the permanent security council members should be changed or the countries changed but IMHO that would be way too risky. The UNSC and its work over the last 60+ years is an example of where good is good enough and seeking perfect would have led to disaster. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 23, 2024 18:42:05 GMT
the victors of World War Two were the Russians , ( and their vassal states) and the yanks . . Yes Russia won the war in Europe and the USA won the war in the Pacific however the UK won the war in Africa and was the only nation that stopped Germany winning the war in Europe in 1941. France and China paid horrible prices for resisting evil. No other nation compares. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 23, 2024 20:56:27 GMT
the victors of World War Two were the Russians , ( and their vassal states) and the yanks . . Yes Russia won the war in Europe and the USA won the war in the Pacific however the UK won the war in Africa and was the only nation that stopped Germany winning the war in Europe in 1941. France and China paid horrible prices for resisting evil. No other nation compares. The whole thing rests on a concept of 'victor' which is far more pragmatic. The Russians relay did little but prevent their own invasion. At the end of the war they wielded very little power |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 24, 2024 5:57:06 GMT
could you define what you mean by sacrifices? Plenty of countries made great sacrifices , but they aren't on the UN Security Council like uk and France. Can "sacrifices" 80 years ago , in a long gone war that has no reflection on the world today really be deemed as the reason why certain states remain on the security council? Lives lost, economic sacrifices made coupled with results achieved. neither the uk or France come out top to warrant their places in any of these...... |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 24, 2024 5:58:55 GMT
sorry dont really agree. I think India has far more credibility than France or the uk , and if the yanks need Europe represented to rubber stamp their orders , then surely the EU is far better then two old has been powers? I mentioned Pakistan merely as the weaker of the two sub continent nations that has nukes and a population bigger than both France and uk combined. however you split things , and how ever you determine who sits there on the permanent security council , France and uk lose every time. I think if the farce that is the Un carries on , eventually the yanks will replace both the uk and France with more powerful allies who are more credible at sitting permanently on the UN Security Council. India doesn't have more credibility than France or the UK and the EU can't be a member of the UN because it isn't a nation. So, if it isn't France or the UK, who is 'representing, the considerable weight of Europe? The reality is far more dirty and messy than that, this is just one consideration. The US is undoubtedly exerting some force holding both position in place (as proxies), but it hard to see how the UN would get around that with falling apart The biggest influence is the united states - it contributes about 30% of the budget the uk isnt a nation either , its a multi national state , while the EU is a supranational entity. before we go further , I think we need to define what you mean by credibility , and how that definition warrants the uk and France being permanent security council members compared to other more deserving nations. |
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Jul 24, 2024 6:07:33 GMT
the victors of World War Two were the Russians , ( and their vassal states) and the yanks . . Yes Russia won the war in Europe and the USA won the war in the Pacific however the UK won the war in Africa and was the only nation that stopped Germany winning the war in Europe in 1941. France and China paid horrible prices for resisting evil. No other nation compares. The uk was fighting to preserve its empire in place like Africa . if winning a war in Africa was a prerequisite of being a permanent security council member I think loads of nations would be in with a shout historically. rubbish. The only difference between the uk and France at the start of the war was 20 miles of water saved the uk that the French didnt have between them and the germans. Russia , not the uk , stopped the germans winning the war in Europe , drawing the majority of the German armed forces might over to the east to face the soviets , where the majority of German casualties fell after the British and what remained of the French had fled Europe with their tails between their legs in 1940. Again though, we are talking about a war 80 years ago , that isnt a reflection of the world today , and does not justify the continued membership of the uk and France on the permanent security council . Singing we won two world wars and one world cup and once had an empire doesn't cut the mustard . Like I said , to any right thinking person with their eyes open , you are merely there as American puppets. When Washington says jump , you say how high. Once you outlive your usefulness to Washington , ( France too) see how quickly you get booted off the council irrespective of two world wars and one World Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 24, 2024 10:30:53 GMT
India doesn't have more credibility than France or the UK and the EU can't be a member of the UN because it isn't a nation. So, if it isn't France or the UK, who is 'representing, the considerable weight of Europe? The reality is far more dirty and messy than that, this is just one consideration. The US is undoubtedly exerting some force holding both position in place (as proxies), but it hard to see how the UN would get around that with falling apart The biggest influence is the united states - it contributes about 30% of the budget the uk isnt a nation either , its a multi national state , while the EU is a supranational entity. before we go further , I think we need to define what you mean by credibility , and how that definition warrants the uk and France being permanent security council members compared to other more deserving nations. Th EU isn't a country either. I think you agreed earlier with my pragmatic power analysis, but you now you engage in silly mind mush about the deserving nature of India. Please knock yourself proving how 'deserving' India is as it's pretty irrelevant. I sense this conversation is going to be a bit pointless as we have driven into one of your fixations (the UK). |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 24, 2024 15:16:50 GMT
Yes Russia won the war in Europe and the USA won the war in the Pacific however the UK won the war in Africa and was the only nation that stopped Germany winning the war in Europe in 1941. France and China paid horrible prices for resisting evil. No other nation compares. The whole thing rests on a concept of 'victor' which is far more pragmatic. The Russians relay did little but prevent their own invasion. At the end of the war they wielded very little power Eh? Who took Berlin after retaking Poland etc on route? Who was it that crushed the main part of the German Army? The Russians. Stalin may have been evil but he knew how to win and without his country's contribution the other Allies wouldn't have got beyond the Normandy beaches. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 24, 2024 16:44:03 GMT
The whole thing rests on a concept of 'victor' which is far more pragmatic. The Russians relay did little but prevent their own invasion. At the end of the war they wielded very little power Eh? Who took Berlin after retaking Poland etc on route? Who was it that crushed the main part of the German Army? The Russians. Stalin may have been evil but he knew how to win and without his country's contribution the other Allies wouldn't have got beyond the Normandy beaches. You aren't reading what i'm putting. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Jul 31, 2024 12:32:16 GMT
So Israel has killed the so called political head of Hamas www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck7g0g4mk4zoLegal imho as he was effectively a combatant in a country officially still at war with Israel but politically smart? No (again imho) this will do nothing to bring hostages home and pursue the route to sustainable peace |
|
borgr0
Observer
+++
Posts: 1,188 
|
Post by borgr0 on Aug 29, 2024 17:08:27 GMT
|
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 2,556
Member is Online
|
Post by Steve on Sept 1, 2024 18:47:41 GMT
Another awful day as Hamas appears to have deliberately killed 6 hostages in order to stop them being rescued www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce31ddege9vo This shouldn't change the position of assessing Israel vis a vis war crimes but it's going to be very very hard for any US politician to refuse to back Israel 'tight or wrong' now. So we can be sure Israel will continue its illegal killing of civilians. And the 'just do a deal' reaction of the various crowds in Israel isn't clever either. Do a deal that incentives further capture of hostages and guess what Hamas will do over and over, seize more hostages. Hard to see this becoming anything other than worse for the foreseeable future. |
|
