And another point -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 07:00:55 03/14/03 Fri
Author: Arkady (reposted by Richard)
Author Host/IP: cpe-gan-68-101-88-174-cmcpe.ncf.coxexpress.com / 68.101.88.174
Subject:

And another point
In reply to: Richard 's message, "Is the UN a bad idea? You decide" on 06:37:29 03/14/03 Fri

Will conveniently mentions the silliness of France being a permanent member of the Council, when India is not. Yet, he doesn't mention that it's even sillier for the UK to be on the list. France is slightly more populous than the UK, and has a slightly bigger economy. It's also represents more of an independent voice on the Council (with the UK essentially being nothing but a second vote for the US). If one or the other country were to be cleared to make way for India, the UK would be the better choice.

I prefer my own solution, though, which is to increase the "automatic" (rather than "permanent") membership to ten nations, comprised of the 5 most populous countries and the 5 with the biggest economies (skipping down to the next country where there would be repetition in those two lists). That could be reset every year, to the extent anyone fell off the lists or showed up on them. That would prevent historical anachronisms from forming over time. While I was at it, I'd increase the number of blocking votes required to effect a veto, from one to maybe three or four, so that countries couldn't unilaterally block UN action.

Unfortunately, I suspect Will is more interested in posturing and whining than in seeking any constructive solution. He seems content to falling back to "might makes right", which is only appealing for the moment in the sun when we are the mightiest nation.... and, even then, it's like an engraved invitation to terrorism, which is the great leveler when it comes to might.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

And yet another point -- Arkady (reposted by Richard), 07:05:09 03/14/03 Fri