Zap_Brannigan Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 yea who cares if it is a illegal war or not. let's join it as long as we can get some $$$$$. :giggle: You are being too idealistic here. Do you think that other countries are not engaged in anything illegal? (It’s not like India cut off all its ties with Russia when it invaded Afghanistan) Or what about the people who migrate to these countries for their own personal gain? Majority of the people on this board live in US, UK or Aus, the 3 main countries indulged in said illegal war in Iraq. Although, we are not responsible directly for starting the war, we still live in these countries for our personal gain and fund these government thro’ tax. In effect, we get the gains of these countries but distance our self from their illegal activities that in return benefits us (for example, planting and encouragement of dictatorship in some middle east countries to get low price gas). India govt.’s job is to give the billion plus people of India a better life. It is easy for you or me to expect India to act morally from our comfortable temperature controlled cubicle, but what about the 300 million poor people. Do they really believe that not participating in an illegal Iraq war is more important than their next meal? The initial argument was based on a lot of vague details. I based my initial argument on the conjecture that India will get a seat in the UN table of 5 if we had sent in troops like the 2 dozen other countries that sent troops to help US but not for direct conflict. But the conjecture itself is based on very little information. Marris and Clarke have their own conjecture based on the same initial information and they have taken their own path on what it meant. I think it is futile to discuss that further without any more information (.ie. number of troops reqd. by US, role of the troops or even if the promise of getting the UN seat is true).
UmarAkmal Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 India doesnt qualify for UN veto power since none of the current 5 nations with veto power are third world countries.
gs Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 On the sheer weight of population numbers and economic size, India maybe able to make a case for security council veto power. But not sure if it's really deserving, since it has minimum influence outside of south Asia (if that) and that too where China is the clear leader. On the other hand, not really sure if UN and its security council have any relevance in today's world. The big powers seem to do whatever the hell they please with or without UN consent. Moreover permanent members just keep veto-ing each others' initiatives and nothing ever gets done.
Clarke Posted June 30, 2010 Posted June 30, 2010 India doesnt qualify for UN veto power since none of the current 5 nations with veto power are third world countries. What do u mean by third world, is it the cold war bloc or the human development index ? Whats that got to do with veto power ? Was China some economic hotshot when the security council was formed ? Or is it that when someone is lower middle class, he/she should be disqualified from participating in elections, since GOD said the world should b run by rich people and rich nations :nervous:
Sir john Posted July 2, 2010 Posted July 2, 2010 India doesnt qualify for UN veto power since none of the current 5 nations with veto power are third world countries. what abou you own nation?:finger:
EnterTheVoid Posted November 8, 2010 Author Posted November 8, 2010 *BUMP* India to lobby Obama for a permanent security council seat whilst he is in India. ----- Obama backs India for UN seat "I can say today -- in years ahead, I look forward to a reformed UN Security Council that includes India as a permanent member", Barack Obama said in his address to Parliament in an emphatic endorsement of India's bid for a UNSC seat. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Obama-backs-India-for-UN-seat/articleshow/6891755.cms#ixzz14jYS8gTw :woot:
flamy Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 How come India don't have Veto Power at the United Nations ? Aren't we influential enough in world politics to deserve it ? Countries that have veto power are permanent members of the security council. We were offered membership but without veto power, to which we rightfully refused. Only 5 countries have veto power - China, France, Russia, UK and US. France has it but we don't ? :(( I think u made a typo. It is spelled A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a. :finger:
yoda Posted November 8, 2010 Posted November 8, 2010 India doesnt qualify for UN veto power since none of the current 5 nations with veto power are third world countries. http://indianblogger.com/is-india-still-a-third-world-country/
ViruRulez Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 Dont care much about UN nowadays. UN is gradually become a b!tching organization. US and China are making UN their battle ground for their own benefits. Both of them are envious of India's growing power and both of them are making sure to keep us out of the UN security council. Even Tharoor was vetoed against by US and China abstained from the final vote to make it go in favor of Ban Ki Moon though Tharoor was clearly the frontrunner before the 5 permanent members vote. Too much politics in recent years and dont have much respect for it nowadays. India, Australia and Brazil should be 3 more permanent members for sure. UN is fast turning into a farce. The whole world is India's support except Pakis of course amongst the non-permanent members and India will easily win a permanent membership if only the vote of US and China is not given more importance than the others.
ViruRulez Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 India doesnt qualify for UN veto power since none of the current 5 nations with veto power are third world countries. Abe ****** since when did China become a first world country and that too 60 years ago. China is still a developing third world country. Just learn basic economics before making moronic statements. :winky:
flamy Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 Abe ****** since when did China become a first world country and that too 60 years ago. China is still a developing third world country. Just learn basic economics before making moronic statements. :winky:
ViruRulez Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 OK China is communist and hence by definition might fall into second world country but then first, second and third world terminology is very vague. Third world would ideally mean the countries which are independent in their decisions and do not take support of or join any world power. Mao Zedong, the Chairman of China Communist Party, on February 22, 1974 with the President of the Republic of Zambia Kenneth Kaunda had said: "I think the United States and the Soviet Union was the first world. Centrist, Japan, Europe, Australia, Canada, is the Second World. We are the Third World." What would you go by that definition from the Chinese definition. If China is centrist then so is India. And if you dont consider China centrist then both India and China are third world countries. Anyways first, second and third world countries simply remind the world about the colonial filth and developing and developed countries makes a lot more sense if economic power is to be kept in mind.
Recommended Posts