Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

highthief · 06-10-2005, 08:55 AM

Military spending and militarism is not the only measure of a nation's importance. That, perhaps, is a lesson still to be learned by the US.

The Security Council is essentially, the military decision maker of the UN. Military experience, knowledge and ability are therefore pretty important aspects to consider when selecting a new member. Are they the only criteria? No. But to ignore it would be rather foolhardy.

Brazil is the most populous country in South America. It has the largest economy. It is the power-broker of the region. These alone are reasons enough. The fact that it hasn't invaded any countries recently should not be held against it. Quite the contrary in my opinion.

So military experience, within a strongly military body, counts for nothing, but population does? But it doesn't get Nigeria (the most populous African nation) a vote from you?

Japan and the US represent the APAC region. Australia is nothing more than en extension of US foreign, military and economic policy anyway.

Poor Australia. No respect. They are a more stable democracy and a more egalitarian society than either Brazil or India. Should that not count for something?

With regards to Africa, if anyone should be included, then it should be South Africa.

But Nigeria has a greater population, and that was important for Brazil. South Africa (I actually think they are a better choice than Nigeria. I think anyone is a better choice than Nigeria, really. Well, maybe not Sudan) however, are they really representative of African society? Still a lot of white power there, and it is, in many ways, disimilar to the rest of Africa.

You think India would be destabilizing. I do not. Just because one of its neighbours, with which it has gone to war three times in the past 30 years, would object means nothing. China is objecting to Japan being granted access, yet I support it. Besides, I have seen nothing to suggest Pakistan has objected and India's strategic goal of permanent Security Council membership has been known for years.

So, other nations going to war = bad. India going to war x 3 with another nuclear power (albeit they warred pre-nukes) = credentials? That's a head scratcher.

Why not consider what is right, what is equitable, what is representative, rather than "who spends the most on guns" and what "some US allied tinpot dictator cares"?

Not sure what "allied tinpot dictator" you speak of. Not sure what the US has to do with this conversation (though I understand they are generally opposed to an expansion of the Council). I think Japan and Germany are far, far more influential and egalitarian countries than India and Brazil, don't you? I'd rather have their even handedness and general alliance with democratic principles on the council than the other two.

06-10-2005, 08:55 AM	#7 (permalink)
highthief Junkie Location: Ontario, Canada	Military spending and militarism is not the only measure of a nation's importance. That, perhaps, is a lesson still to be learned by the US. The Security Council is essentially, the military decision maker of the UN. Military experience, knowledge and ability are therefore pretty important aspects to consider when selecting a new member. Are they the only criteria? No. But to ignore it would be rather foolhardy. Brazil is the most populous country in South America. It has the largest economy. It is the power-broker of the region. These alone are reasons enough. The fact that it hasn't invaded any countries recently should not be held against it. Quite the contrary in my opinion. So military experience, within a strongly military body, counts for nothing, but population does? But it doesn't get Nigeria (the most populous African nation) a vote from you? Japan and the US represent the APAC region. Australia is nothing more than en extension of US foreign, military and economic policy anyway. Poor Australia. No respect. They are a more stable democracy and a more egalitarian society than either Brazil or India. Should that not count for something? With regards to Africa, if anyone should be included, then it should be South Africa. But Nigeria has a greater population, and that was important for Brazil. South Africa (I actually think they are a better choice than Nigeria. I think anyone is a better choice than Nigeria, really. Well, maybe not Sudan) however, are they really representative of African society? Still a lot of white power there, and it is, in many ways, disimilar to the rest of Africa. You think India would be destabilizing. I do not. Just because one of its neighbours, with which it has gone to war three times in the past 30 years, would object means nothing. China is objecting to Japan being granted access, yet I support it. Besides, I have seen nothing to suggest Pakistan has objected and India's strategic goal of permanent Security Council membership has been known for years. So, other nations going to war = bad. India going to war x 3 with another nuclear power (albeit they warred pre-nukes) = credentials? That's a head scratcher. Why not consider what is right, what is equitable, what is representative, rather than "who spends the most on guns" and what "some US allied tinpot dictator cares"? Not sure what "allied tinpot dictator" you speak of. Not sure what the US has to do with this conversation (though I understand they are generally opposed to an expansion of the Council). I think Japan and Germany are far, far more influential and egalitarian countries than India and Brazil, don't you? I'd rather have their even handedness and general alliance with democratic principles on the council than the other two. __________________ Si vis pacem parabellum.