India must try aggression sometime. Aggression is not easy.India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
India must try aggression sometime. Aggression is not easy.India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.
Keep relegion out of this.
fair argument, which is why to avoid such quarrels, the uno-sc must be abolished.
A typical redneck attitude, a proper reply should be why have a despotic system at the UN? There's no need for permanent status of any countries, it goes against democratic principles and those who will go at any length to keep it the way it is are all so-called champions of democracy!
Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly soIndia's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.
i think Pakistan have also big share force in un peace keeping.India is among the countries that has contributed the most to peacekeeping forces and its contribution has been praised world-over.
India's history is testimony to the fact that it has never indulged in aggression and attacked any country.
"Those days are gone when India had to beg. Now we want our right. No other country has such moral authority,"
"If that country does not get the Security Council membership, has to wait for 70 years, peace is in whose DNA...there should be justice to that country. A lot of time has passed,"
"Our membership will also be beneficial to the world. We both would like to see tangible progress in the United Nations Security Council reforms during the 70th Anniversary year of the United Nations,"
Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly so
from that of a neutral bystander and the first Sino-Indian war came by way of the Forward Policy and outposts at-
tacks by India. I don't mean to blame Bharat here but simply to outline that there are different ways to start wars.
i will reply to your quoting me a bit later but i must say you are well informed... and you can be a international diplomat really
The proper answer was given, jamahir :
The UNSC is not based on religion but by nations.
Those posts are not entirely wrong but incomplete. As all know, the P5 were determined by WWII outcome.
As such, it is quite possible that the mechanism that led to their selection has outlived its usefulness if any.
However, there are still reasons for having veto rights in general. Without them, a given SC could decide to
back iniquitous resolutions : an all Muslim nations council could back war on Christian and vice-versa; an all
socialist nations one could back war on capitalism and vice-versa and so on.
The problem lays more in determining who should have those vetoes which correlates to this :
Actually, by itself, that statement is very dubious. Operation Polo is internal from an Indian PoV but not clearly so
from that of a neutral bystander and the first Sino-Indian war came by way of the Forward Policy and outposts at-
tacks by India. I don't mean to blame Bharat here but simply to outline that there are different ways to start wars.
Consider the Sudenten & Anschluss for instance. Spies can set the conditions for a nation to be forced to declare
war to another without having wished for it. Who then is peaceful and who is the aggressor?
This brings to light a forgotten set of conditions for veto power.
A country should be stable ( no foreseeable internal menace to its existence )
with a stable position on world affairs ( not likely to change in tone as a wind vane )
secure in its power ( which is often equated to global reach nuclear weapons )
and willing to take part in actions favored by the SC ( as in war ops, not Blue Helmets ).
Seen thus, this explains why no African nation can claim UNSC veto holding status for example.
I myself defended the idea of a communal veto seat for that continent but even that is perilous.
In crisis situations, there is little time for a veto empowered member to hold a meeting on its use
as would be the case if it was shared by many lands.
To be very honest, there is a more pervasive problem with the United Nations than that of vetoes.
Most nations in the UN do not even abide by the Human Rights Declaration! For instance, article 1
states that Humans are born equal in rights and dignity and yet there is one we know of where wo-
men cannot vote. Shouldn't it be excluded until that's fixed? And the same goes for other examples.
The UN is a wobbly stool, not a perfect tool. It exists for the sole purpose of making things, huh, how
shall I say, slightly less dire than they would be if left to themselves.
It's not a solution but a postponement shop, not a cure but a plaster.
As such it works fine on scratches and not at all on cancers or gunshots!
Asking about changes on veto powers of the UNSC P5 is useless.
Just rewrite the whole thing better or get used to it! Sorry to say!
Good day all nonetheless, Tay.
Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait give multi-billion dollars business to US military and NATO.
Why no Muslim voice in the United Nations Security council (UNSC) ?
Because UNSC is NOT a religious forum!
The UNSC is not based on religion but by nations.
Let me clear that one first : I have absolutely no idea why or how you could be under the impressionSo,please save your breath, you don't have to indulge in this futile attempt to whitewash the events.
Strictly reading, you just said that religion is neither moral nor humane!geopolitics was not about morality or humanity and it's true and that's why religion is a factor in the formation of the UNSC
It's not a matter of today my poor fellow! It always was like that. Geopolitics are not a biased anythingSince there's no place for morality or shame in today's geopolitics, proponents of this this hideous world order conveniently deny this ugly fact
It is, if it wasn't the 'Muslim' factor wouldn't have been a factor in the formation of it. Turkey with all its secularism and western trends couldn't join the EU for the same reason.
Show me one industrialised "muslim nation?" Muslim nations are worthless and contribute nothing except terrorism, death, oppression, rape, misery.