India’s bid for permanent UNSC seat falters

[EagleEyes]

Webby bhai..I never claimed that. I am just saying that my source is better than yours...since you don't have one. Want to dispute that?

India has had many successes in CT operations and is very well experienced in that regard.

Nobody is denying the credibility of Indian Army. It has my respect as an army.

My intentions were based on the argument of "credibility".

 

[Bushroda]

Here is the link which put Pak per capita higher then India.

Report for Selected Countries and Subjects

If you would bother to check your link then those are estimates(shaded with grey) and havn't been substantiated in any way. None of the credible international agencies have put Pak's per capita income higher than India. In absolute terms, Pak's per capita income is lower than India.

GDP/head(India) - $842(Economist.com | Country Briefings: India)

GDP/Head(Pakistan) - $787(Economist.com | Country Briefings: Pakistan)

And these arn't estimates but actually calculated data.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

If you would bother to check your link then those are estimates(shaded with grey) and havn't been substantiated in any way. None of the credible international agencies have put Pak's per capita income higher than India. In absolute terms, Pak's per capita income is lower than India.

GDP/head(India) - $842(Economist.com | Country Briefings: India)

GDP/Head(Pakistan) - $787(Economist.com | Country Briefings: Pakistan)

And these arn't estimates but actually calculated data.

Actually these are estimates just like IMF. Pak official per capita income for 2006-07 is $925.

 

[bhangra12345]

Probably you didnt check that it gives the pci for 2008 as well

Actually these are estimates just like IMF. Pak official per capita income for 2006-07 is $925.

not for 2006-07 but for the calendar year 2007, which is not yet complete.

 

[Shabaz Sharif]

Probably you didnt check that it gives the pci for 2008 as well


not for 2006-07 but for the calendar year 2007, which is not yet complete.

You will find many different figures in every website because they are just estimates, as i said before Pak per capita is $925 and will pass $1000 next year.

 

[Bushroda]

Actually these are estimates just like IMF. Pak official per capita income for 2006-07 is $925.

Check again if they are estimates they would be marked accordingly but they are not.

edit: Also not to mention India's GDP has been calculated at 1$ equivalent to 45.3 IR whereas current value of dollar is 40.5 IR. This would further raise the GDP/Head.

 

[blitz]

Ahh the professionalism of the Indian Army is being questioned here !! And the greatest irony is that its being done on a Pakistani board by Pakistanis. Come on !! Suicide and Surrender both start with an 'S', but they are worlds apart. Need i say more ?

So please, before someone actually starts asking embarrassing questions, get back to the topic everyone.

 

[Always Neutral]

India needs to improve its legal justice system, healthcare, human rights records and then it will truly be worthy of UNSC seat. I give it another 10-15 years for that to happen.

 

[Awesome]

I still maintain the only fair thing is to eliminate the UNSC and decide resolutions based upon popular vote.

 

[Contrarian]

Then NOTHING will be done by the UN altogether. The very little that they actually manage to accomplish will also be gone.

A few powerful member states must be given the authority to deal with international situations and crisis's as they evolve. India, Brazil are the IDEAL candidates for any kind of expansion of the UNSC. UN represents the power structure of the world in 1945, not 2007, it must be changed accordingly otherwise it will be ineffective.

 

[Awesome]

Then NOTHING will be done by the UN altogether. The very little that they actually manage to accomplish will also be gone.

A few powerful member states must be given the authority to deal with international situations and crisis's as they evolve. India, Brazil are the IDEAL candidates for any kind of expansion of the UNSC. UN represents the power structure of the world in 1945, not 2007, it must be changed accordingly otherwise it will be ineffective.

Why do you say nothing will be done? Why give veto rights?

A resolution HAS to be passed or failed through votes. Popular vote wins! Isn't the concept of the UN to be a world power, or to give a few powerful nations a means to exert power onto the world?

 

[Contrarian]

A few powerful nations are not the slaves of UN who will do the ground work while the rest of the world does its duty by voting. If Angola votes for immediate action in Darfur in response to a crisis, who do you think will actually be required to send their men and material there? A very few select states will be called to do so. Does that mean that all the work should be done by some while they dont get any additional benefits?? Or those who singlehandedly pay for the UN's expenditure should not get any additional benefits?

Like i said, it has to reflect REALITIES to be effective, not ideals.