Posted on 09/21/2004 5:17:16 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
none of them will get on.
no to brazil and germany - maybe have japan and india get one half of a vote - france's vote, which will be removed from the security council. Because having france on the security council is a contradiction in terms.
Ya beat me to it! Agree totally with your assesment. Brazil is a basket case and Germany will need to be dealt with again.
Japan and India yes. Germany should be part of an EU seat with France and the UK dropping out. Brazil no.
It's nothing but a glorified debating society now, and this will strip it of any meaningful power.
The UN has no support in the US and we are just waiting for a Politician to run on the platform of de-funding them!
As long as the Security Council holds the real power in the UN and the USA remains a permanent member with a veto, the rest is OK. We (USA) will never get a better deal in another international organization than the one we have right now with the UN. Regardless of the anti-American rhetoric in that place, the USA has a permanent veto and when the chips are down, can stop the UN in its tracks.
Agreed. Let them all on, then pull the US out and kick the UN out of New York. Bortz this morning said we should send the UN to Haiti and let them run the island with their superior policies.
The UN is an impotent organization and can only hamper any future military actions that the United States might have to take to protect our own(and the worlds) security.
Great idea. As soon as we're out of the UN.
No room for the gutless.
In fact, we should replace France.
As long as we are a permanent, veto-wielding member of the UNSC, the UN can do nothing to hamper us. They have no authority over us unless we give it to them. As a standing organization, there are times when the UN can be useful to us, but the beauty of the current charter is that the USA can stop cold any action we don't like--we'll never get that type of power again in any new organization or if the UN is "reformed" by the internationalists.
If we were the only country with a veto I would agree with your assessment but we aren't.
I understand what you are saying, but other UNSC members with a veto can only stop the UN from taking action, they can't stop us from doing what needs doing outside the UN; e.g. Iraq and Kosovo (horrors! a Dem administration acting without UN consent! Doesn't seem to get brought up too often when Bush is castigated for doing the same!)
Let's say we have to go into Iran because there is firsthand intel that shows the mullahs to be just months from getting the bomb and we go to the UNSC for a vote and China and Russia veto. But our leaders, hopefully, decide that our national security is too important and attack/invade Iran anyhow to neutralize the threat. If we act contrary to the UNSC permanent veto holding members then who is to say they won't do the same sometime in the future when we try to use our veto?
Well, they can act on their own; our veto only applies to the UN taking collective action. Every country still can take whatever action it deems fit on its own as a sovereign entity.
Now Brazil is working on nukes. I worry we may be passing the point of no return on those things. Too late to stop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.