U.S. backs expanding U.N. Security Council (by "two or so")

Monterey Herald ^ | 6/16/05 | Barry Schweid - AP

[NormsRevenge]

A wider expansion could be "possibly injurious" to the Council's effectiveness, Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said.

---

This guy has got to go... and so does the UN. It's time has passed.

What effectiveness? At fleecing its mian memer states of their money so they can piss it away on corruption, hookers and drugs?

[NormsRevenge]

main member

[Ingtar]

Israel and Japan, perhaps?

[West Coast Conservative]

Isn't Israel the only country banned from sitting on the Security Council?

[A. Pole]

Israel and Japan, perhaps?

INDIA and perhaps Japan or Brasil.

[inquest]

This guy [Nicholas Burns] has got to go

As if changing a mouthpiece would make any difference? You know who's really doing the talking, don't you?

[inquest]

I assume you're making a prediction, rather than saying what you would advocate, right?

[OKIEDOC]

If we can't get rid of the UN then what.

Get rid of France since their no longer viable as a world power.

Get rid of the corruption by replacing Koffee Anus and most of the UN brass.

[traviskicks]

They're talking about Japan and India.

France should get booted. Perhaps Russia too.

The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution.

[A. Pole]

I assume you're making a prediction, rather than saying what you would advocate, right?

Both, I advocate what is most practical and I expect that the decision will be made on practical grounds.

[inquest]

The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution.

Uh, how about NO? Say goodbye to U.S. sovereignty if that happens.

[inquest]

No, let the corruption stay. Nobody should get comfortable with the UN. The longer the corruption stays, the more reluctant countries will be to give more power to the UN.

[NJ_gent]

"The UN needs to write a Constitution like our Constitution."

The Soviets had a constitution much like our's. It's not what you write on paper, but what you do that means the difference.

[inquest]

Giving broad international status to a communist government like Brasil's is "practical"? How?

Don't misunderstand me - I'm all in favor of giving veto power to as many countries as possible, but I can't see why Brasil would be more deserving of it than Israel.

[A. Pole]

Giving broad international status to a communist government like Brasil's is "practical"? How?

Brasil is a democracy and the fact that at this term they have elected left wing government does not mean much. Would you propose to remove USA from the UN Security Council when liberal Democracts get into power?

The main reason why Brasil would be a proper choice is that it is the largest Latin American country and it would be fair if their continent were represented.

Nigeria could qualify for similiar reason. So I would add India - the second most populous country in the world and the largest, most free democracy (although not rich), Brasil and Nigeria as permanent memebers without veto power.

[McGavin999]

If you contribute to world security in a major way you should be on the security council, if not, you have no business being there. France should not be on the security council at all. Europe has too many seats to even consider Germany.

[Rodney King]

I vote for Australia and Poland.

[bert]

Some of the smaller countries like France should be relieved of permanent status.

[inquest]

Brasil is a democracy and the fact that at this term they have elected left wing government does not mean much.

It means plenty.

Would you propose to remove USA from the UN Security Council when liberal Democracts get into power?

As bad as the Democrats are, they can't hold a candle to someone as radically leftist as Lula.

The main reason why Brasil would be a proper choice is that it is the largest Latin American country and it would be fair if their continent were represented.

That doesn't explain how it's practical, which is what you earlier said it was. And I don't have much qualms about "fairness" when it comes to giving status to Castro-aligned communists.

[traviskicks]

Uh, how about NO? Say goodbye to U.S. sovereignty if that happens.
---

Since they obviously aren't going to do it I'm in favor of pulling out of the UN.

However, I do think there is a need for a world organization with a Conservative/libertarian ideology. I'd be in favor of the UN if it prevented our government from infringing on our liberty.

For more on this, see a comparison between the formation of Federal states in the EU and the US.

http://www.neoperspectives.com/constitutionalissues.htm

A UN with negative power would be appropriate (in my view).

In the meantime, let's get out.