Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 79

Thread: reforms @ UNSC

  1. #31
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    So something doesn't work or has not produced any results, but we should continue to fund it or expand it. I would like to do your home improvement project.
    Don't you think such initiatives itself an achievement, and don't say they are performing nothing (not mentioning achievement). So what do you say about the resistance in Georgia?


    Their government sent them to work at the UN.
    .... and their commitment to perform their duty.

  2. #32
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    Don't you think such initiatives itself an achievement, and don't say they are performing nothing (not mentioning achievement). So what do you say about the resistance in Georgia?
    So it's the thought that counts. That's like any and all welfare programs. They do nothing, but let's expand them because their existance is an achievement.

    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    .... and their commitment to perform their duty.
    Which is to serve their country, their people, and not to mention the government that pays their pension, the medical bill, and the housing of their families.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  3. #33
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    So it's the thought that counts. That's like any and all welfare programs. They do nothing, but let's expand them because their existance is an achievement.
    Yes, it's existence is an achievement , unlike the NATO Vs Warsaw... an ally vs ally scenario, the UN and UNSC are for the well being of all nations as a true world body, and such an organisation if not functioning to its fullest should be revived such that a better way of it performance could be achieved not just shut down like a business in loss.


    Which is to serve their country, their people, and not to mention the government that pays their pension, the medical bill, and the housing of their families.
    The govt. pays not because one is serving the nation or its people, but because he is performing his entitled task. The Govt. serves the people and the people serves the govt. in return.
    Last edited by payeng; 07 Oct 08, at 20:34.

  4. #34
    Banned Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 07
    Posts
    65
    My take:

    India should disengage from the UN with the same reasons and fervor that it never signed the NPT.

    1. Underrepresentation of 1/6th of humankind.

    2. Inclusion of dictatorships with veto.

    I have always wondered why India is in the UN. It's a useless and third rate organization. IMO for example has murdered progress in the Shipping industry.

  5. #35
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    Yes, it's existence is an achievement , unlike the NATO Vs Warsaw... an ally vs ally scenario, the UN and UNSC are for the well being of all nations as a true world body, and such an organisation if not functioning to its fullest should be revived such that a better way of it performance could be achieved not just shut down like a business in loss.
    Who determines what's good for the world? What if the UN calls for sacrificing one region of the world for the good of the planet? Will you support that if it calls for India to sacrifice for the world?

    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    The govt. pays not because one is serving the nation or its people, but because he is performing his entitled task. The Govt. serves the people and the people serves the govt. in return.
    So why would I pay one of my bureaucrats to serve in the UN if he's not there on behalf of MY interest?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  6. #36
    Senior Contributor xrough's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 07
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    1,295
    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    May I know your opinion about India?
    I have a little knowledge about India and basically general information..I think you're more knowledgeable than me about India..))

  7. #37
    Senior Contributor xrough's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 07
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    1,295
    May I know whose paying the salary of those working in the UN agencies?)

  8. #38
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by xrough View Post
    May I know whose paying the salary of those working in the UN agencies?)
    Workers, probably UN.

    Ambassadors, probably the countries they represent.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  9. #39
    Senior Contributor xrough's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Jan 07
    Location
    Manila
    Posts
    1,295
    I think those personnel of the UN should be loyal to the UN as an organization with respect to any country they came from. All countries as we all know has its own representative to the body to express and lobby for the interest of their respective countries.

  10. #40
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,669
    UNSC is no SC because it doesn't provides any security to anyone, specially if the threat is from one of the P5s. Dilawar is correct in this respect. Not only India, even countries like Japan, Germany, Brazil, South Africa et al shoud stop lobbying for getting a permanent seat and rather concentrate on consolidating their own politico-military clout.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  11. #41
    Regular
    Join Date
    04 Oct 08
    Location
    Land of Seven Sisters
    Posts
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Deltacamelately View Post
    UNSC is no SC because it doesn't provides any security to anyone, specially if the threat is from one of the P5s. Dilawar is correct in this respect. Not only India, even countries like Japan, Germany, Brazil, South Africa et al shoud stop lobbying for getting a permanent seat and rather concentrate on consolidating their own politico-military clout.
    Then what is your opinion regarding a representative world body? Should there be any body for international cooperation like UN/UNSC ?

  12. #42
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,818
    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    Then what is your opinion regarding a representative world body? Should there be any body for international cooperation like UN/UNSC ?
    Like what I have suggested already, get rid of UNSC.

    Why should there be a body for international cooperation in the first place? Do they really cooperate at the UN? Name some of UN's achievements.
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  13. #43
    Military Professional Deltacamelately's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Sep 07
    Posts
    1,669
    Quote Originally Posted by payeng View Post
    Then what is your opinion regarding a representative world body? Should there be any body for international cooperation like UN/UNSC ?
    There needn't be any international body for any security stuff. If you want you may very well carry along with UNESCO kind of stuff, but as far as international security is concerned you simply needn't have a SC thingy.
    Nation states are guided by their political/military strategic interests and the beautiful thing is that thses interests keep changing. Alliances like NATO/Warsaw etc have been more practical and relevant than organizations like the SC. The former acts whereas the later does nothing.
    And on the sixth day, God created the Field Artillery...

  14. #44
    nebula82's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Mar 08
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    689
    The reform process of the UNSC is going to take forever because admitting new permanent members would lessen the power and influence of the current permanent members.

    But a good start would be to give the G-4 permanent seats.

    India is the world’s second most populous country, and it will for sure become the most populated country on earth in less than 2 decades. It is also one of the largest contributors of UN peacekeeping troops.

    Brazil makes sense because there is no South American representation on the permanent council.

    Thanks,
    Nebula82.

  15. #45
    Senior Contributor Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    01 Aug 07
    Posts
    818
    Quote Originally Posted by dilawar View Post
    My take:

    India should disengage from the UN with the same reasons and fervor that it never signed the NPT.

    1. Underrepresentation of 1/6th of humankind.

    2. Inclusion of dictatorships with veto.

    I have always wondered why India is in the UN. It's a useless and third rate organization. IMO for example has murdered progress in the Shipping industry.
    Sir, IIRC India's participation with the UN and other multi-lateral organizations ensured critical aid in 1950s and 60s... which in turn has prevented the kind of mass famine and drought deaths that used to plague India in the 19th Century (and as recently as 1940s), where millions used to die regularly. Otherwise India could very well have either splintered, or succumbed to a fascist/communist dictatorship under such massive pressures. Mass famines and droughts were very much a reality in the 1950s and 60s Asia, as was massive deaths (Great Leap Forward). Your shipping industry - and a whole bunch of other things - was the price India paid to keep itself alive and somewhat decent. No such thing as a "free lunch", if the price is not paid up front... it is extracted from other means. :( But that was the reality then. Now of course you can completely renegotiate the contracts, or just walk away from the market altogether.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •