The Great Game Changer: Belt and Road Intiative (BRI; OBOR)

[Star Wars]

What does this has to do with the UNSC??? These are influences you get by being a bigger economy and your influence is over hyped inside India too, just being frank. The poster you are arguing with, is right. A billion people's representation isn't the case here. The criteria is different.

The influence was less due to previous govt., current govt. has far more aggressive foreign policy regarding SAARC and regional issues. YOu will only see INdia's influence grow further.

What's better? A billion people with all their administrative, cultural, religious issues (Hindus, vs. Muslims, Sikhs, etc, etc, which become a human rights issue by themselves), or say France or Italy with ONLY 10th of the population compared to India. But same or more GDP and no real human rights issues?

Overhyped, the domestic issues are as irrelevant as the prevailing race problem that you see in US or the riligous tention that you are noticing in Europe b/e Muslims and native population. The current govt. has very good administration, the current problem with the parliament will go away within a couple of years...

When President Obama gave you the advise, he was right. He was looking at this event and he wanted you to fix the human rights and religious tolerance record so a better case can be presented. But you guys got mad as the soup-o-powa India got told. That was sincere advise. But even after he was gone, nothing changed in India and minorities suffered constantly. How do you award a permanent seat to a nation where there are active human rights issues for decades?????
Before you guys jump up and down and comment out of anger, re-read my post and try to understand the good will in it for India!

NO, Obama was pandering to the Christian Evangalicals, nothing more nothing less... the person advices India while there is prevailing problems in his own country and then goes to Saudi Arabia and keeps his mouth shut. Classic case of Hypocricy. You seem less like an American and more like a Pakistani with the whole "minorities suffering" nonsense.IF America, China and Russia of all countries can have permanent seat with their human rights history. SO can India. India has never gotten even close to what the member states have done in human rights violation...


Besides UN is an utterly useless organization which has failed in every front. It only acts as a symbol of power, nothing more..

 

[Gibbs]

While respecting personal views of individual posters about the relevance of the UN system and more specifically the UNSC P5 in today's world, I find it hilarious that they seem to imply the same for their government, Which is not really the case.. They have been making some obnoxious and often desperate statements like they're representing small nations in any given fora and virtually begging in all fours to every single P5 member for acceptance for decades, Only to be tapped on the head and later rebuffed like a soiled nappy

So to those questioning the relevance of the UNSC or the lack of it to the GoI.. It's simply a case of this..

 

[AndrewJin]

While respecting personal views of individual posters about the relevance of the UN system and more specifically the UNSC P5 in today's world, I find it hilarious that they seem to imply the same for their government, Which is not really the case.. They have been making some obnoxious and often desperate statements like they're representing small nations in any given fora and virtually begging in all fours to every single P5 member for acceptance for decades, Only to be tapped on the head and later rebuffed like a soiled nappy

So to those questioning the relevance of the UNSC or the lack of it to the GoI.. It's simply a case of this..

And being the watchdog to some certain P5 doesn't give it the right to enter the house.

 

[Hypersonicmissiles]

Great to see India firmly put in its place.

Absolutely loving it.

India has no business getting anywhere near the UNSC.

 

[mike2000 is back]

What a complete crap, I am stunned again by your distort of historical facts! About creation of UN:

• The earliest concrete plan for a new world organization began under the aegis of the US State Department in 1939.
• "Four Policemen" was coined to refer four major Allied countries, United States, United Kingdom, Soviet Union, and Republic of China, which was emerged in Declaration by United Nations.
• On New Year's Day 1942, President Roosevelt, Prime Minister Churchill, Maxim Litvinov, of the USSR, and T. V. Soong, of China, signed a short document which later came to be known as the United Nations Declaration and the next day the representatives of twenty-two other nations (Note: France wasn't there) added their signatures.
• During WWII, the United Nations became the official term for the Allies. To join countries had to sign the Declaration and declare war on the Axis
  
• The United Nations was formulated and negotiated among the delegations from the Soviet Union, the UK, the US and Republic of China in Dumbarton Oaks Conference.
• The heads of the delegations of the sponsoring countries took turns as chairman of the plenary meetings:Anthony Eden of Britain, Edward Stettinius of the United States, T. V. Soong of China, and Vyacheslav Molotov of the Soviet Union. At the later meetings, Lord Halifax deputized for Mr. Eden, V. K. Wellington Koo for T. V. Soong, and Mr Gromyko for Mr. Molotov.
• The UN officially came into existence 24 October 1945, upon ratification of the Charter by the five permanent members of the Security Council.

I never said otherwise, but you miss an important point. So much for your so called facts yet again. Lool

I quote: "The idea for the United Nations was elaborated in declarations signed at wartime Allied conferences in Moscow, Cairo and Tehran in 1943. From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, D.C. ".

What you failed to point out(and this was the most important part where crucial decisions were taken) is that :

"Those talks(the Dumbarton Oaks Conference talks) were productive but INCONCLUSIVE, and were followed by the Yalta Conference (A MEETING OF THE U.S., U.K., AND USSR IN THE CRIMEA) in February 1945, which produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation."

United Nations - New World Encyclopedia


So as you can see ROC (and even France as well) wasnt part of the crimean talks/meetings which decided the fate of the U.N and where the crucial decisions were taken and rules made, which went on to be implemneted by the U.N and followed by the world.

Now ask yourself why the ROC was absent during the crimean conference of 1945(i.e just as the war ended, hence where the important discussions and rules were written made)??
Answer as i said before was that at the end of the war, as Japanese troops were surrendering the KMT was busy/had its hands full on fighting the rebels(CCP) who had benefited enourmously from Japans invasion of China and from the looting of japanese weapons/equipments many of which were better than what even the KMT government troops had. So the CCP was embolden and had greatly increased its ranks with soldiers/volunteers from the countryside during Japanese invasion and weakening of KMT governement forces.

So China(ROC) had little to no interest/focus on participating in such a conference. The KMT/CHIANG kai shek had its hanfs full fighting its greatest ennemies at home already for its own survival. External influence/world power meant little to nothing to them when ghey were fighting for their very own survival. Reason ROC after the WWII despite being a victor didnt really participated in writing world rules, of which things like for example the senkakus islands could have been(with proper negotiation/bargaining with th U.S of course)ceeded back to her after Japans defeat. So the bloody civil war indeed weakened its position/bargaining chip .

 

[XiaoYaoZi]

I never said otherwise, but you miss an important point. So much for your so called facts yet again. Lool

I quote: "The idea for the United Nations was elaborated in declarations signed at wartime Allied conferences in Moscow, Cairo and Tehran in 1943. From August to October 1944, representatives of France, the Republic of China, the United Kingdom, the United States, and the Soviet Union met to elaborate the plans at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference in Washington, D.C. ".

What you failed to point out(and this was the most important part where crucial decisions were taken) is that :

"Those talks(the Dumbarton Oaks Conference talks) were productive but INCONCLUSIVE, and were followed by the Yalta Conference (A MEETING OF THE U.S., U.K., AND USSR IN THE CRIMEA) in February 1945, which produced proposals outlining the purposes of the organization, its membership and organs, as well as arrangements to maintain international peace and security and international economic and social cooperation."

United Nations - New World Encyclopedia


So as you can see ROC (and even France as well) wasnt part of the crimean talks/meetings which decided the fate of the U.N and where the crucial decisions were taken and rules made, which went on to be implemneted by the U.N and followed by the world.

Now ask yourself why the ROC was absent during the crimean conference of 1945(i.e just as the war ended, hence where the important discussions and rules were written made)??
Answer as i said before was that at the end of the war, as Japanese troops were surrendering the KMT was busy/had its hands full on fighting the rebels(CCP) who had benefited enourmously from Japans invasion of China and from the looting of japanese weapons/equipments many of which were better than what even the KMT government troops had. So the CCP was embolden and had greatly increased its ranks with soldiers/volunteers from the countryside during Japanese invasion and weakening of KMT governement forces.

So China(ROC) had little to no interest/focus on participating in such a conference. The KMT/CHIANG kai shek had its hanfs full fighting its greatest ennemies at home already for its own survival. External influence/world power meant little to nothing to them when ghey were fighting for their very own survival. Reason ROC after the WWII despite being a victor didnt really participated in writing world rules, of which things like for example the senkakus islands could have been(with proper negotiation/bargaining with th U.S of course)ceeded back to her after Japans defeat. So the bloody civil war indeed weakened its position/bargaining chip .

 

[Viper0011.]

NO, Obama was pandering to the Christian Evangalicals, nothing more nothing less... the person advices India while there is prevailing problems in his own country and then goes to Saudi Arabia and keeps his mouth shut. Classic case of Hypocricy. You seem less like an American and more like a Pakistani with the whole "minorities suffering" nonsense.

IF America, China and Russia of all countries can have permanent seat with their human rights history. SO can India. India has never gotten even close to what the member states have done in human rights violation...


Besides UN is an utterly useless organization which has failed in every front. It only acts as a symbol of power, nothing more..

The more I debate with Indian members, the more comical it gets. Here's what you are saying to India's human rights abuse:

1) Obama wasn't talking about human rights issue, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. So essentially you told me that there was NO human resource issue and the POTUS was just spreading the Christian agenda of some sort

2) Next, why would Obama say anything to India, we have our issues with minorities too......meaning that who are we to tell you about human rights when we have issues inside out own country. So you are telling me that Obama should've instead take care of our own issues instead of telling India so now there ARE issues inside India. You are going in OPPOSITE direction just in two statements. As you are clearly saying there are no issues in India and then there ARE issues but who the hell are we to tell you. Great, . So I am GLAD you admit that after going in circles that human rights are a big issue in India.
By the way, take the number of Christians and Muslims killed in India by Hindu extremists over the last two year and match that with the US minorities number killed. You WILL NOT even get .5% of what happens in India. Yes, NOT EVEN POINT 5 (.5) percent!!!! See how big of an issue you have inside India and you are ignoring it!!!!

3) Because I brought up the abusive and violent treatment of minorities, I MUST be a Pakistani. So.....does that mean OBAMA was a Pakistani too as he brought the same thing up during his visit to India . None of you have any logic coming out of your posts on this topic.

4) Then you are saying all countries (China, Russia, the US, etc) have the permanent seat in the US. So India should too. And obviously, the amount of lobbying you are doing for years, and even the sentiment here by reading online posts, is pretty clear that India needed a seat in the UN. So its VERY important to you. B

5) The next line after number 4 says the UN is a useless organization!!! Then why put SO MUCH effort into it to get a full, permanent membership? Right above calling the UN, you said that India should be given the seat too as the US, Russians, the Chinese, everyone has that.

Since India didn't get it, now it becomes useless? Do you even HAVE a stance on these things? Your post has one statement, and the next one is opposite of it. Then another statement, and the next one has an entirely opposite opinion. Its JUST like that Indian head-shake. Is it a yes or a no or both?

In one stance, you are saying India has no human rights issues. But then when Obama told you, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. And that there are issues but so are issues in the US too. So Obama shouldn't lecture India. Then you called me a Pakistani because I brought this up, since it not an issue and I am doing propaganda apparently (but you just told me right above calling me a Pakistani that why would POTUS tell India when the US has similar issues). So whether I am a Pakistan, Japanese, Thai or an American, the real answer is, there is an issue. But we should ALL never say anything as its the big soup-o-powa India!!! Nice.

And then, you are saying India must be given a seat and since it wasn't given, the UN becomes a "uselss organization" !!! Phew, talk about lack of common sense and the ability to take a stance!!!

 

[Jlaw]

The Indian members here keep saying, America got them an NSG waiver, so America can get India anything that India wants.

According to this line of logic, America got them an NSG waiver, so America can get them the UNSC and NSG membership as well. And no one can stop them.

That leads to this question: So why is India always begging China for UNSC and NSG membership?

Modi came to China recently just to ask for the same thing:

PM Narendra Modi asks China to back India's bid for UNSC seat, NSG membership - Economic Times

Modi isn't dumb, he is trying really hard. Anyone who has read the UN charter knows that you need the support of EVERY single one of the P5 members to do this. You can't have even one P5 member voting against it, or even abstaining from voting at all. They all have to support it.

That's how the system works.



This should win the forum video awards.



If the UNSC is so useless, why is India so desperate to join it?

Can anyone answer why Modi was wearing a dress?

 

[Star Wars]

The more I debate with Indian members, the more comical it gets. Here's what you are saying to India's human rights abuse:

1) Obama wasn't talking about human rights issue, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. So essentially you told me that there was NO human resource issue and the POTUS was just spreading the Christian agenda of some sort

Considering the amount of smiley's you have its obvious that you are irritated and upset. Next time don't be so obvious about your emotional state.

Yes, he is pandering to the Evangalical NGO lobby

2) Next, why would Obama say anything to India, we have our issues with minorities too......meaning that who are we to tell you about human rights when we have issues inside out own country. So you are telling me that Obama should've instead take care of our own issues instead of telling India so now there ARE issues inside India. You are going in OPPOSITE direction just in two statements. As you are clearly saying there are no issues in India and then there ARE issues but who the hell are we to tell you. Great, . So I am GLAD you admit that after going in circles that human rights are a big issue in India.

Idle banter without making any sense, every country has its domestic issue they should stick to fixing their domestic issues rather than commenting on others..

By the way, take the number of Christians and Muslims killed in India by Hindu extremists over the last two year and match that with the US minorities number killed. You WILL NOT even get .5% of what happens in India. Yes, NOT EVEN POINT 5 (.5) percent!!!! See how big of an issue you have inside India and you are ignoring it!!!!

How many were killed ? less BS more substance, prove your alligations. Mind telling me what happened to the Hindus in Pakistan when it was the second largest Nation with a Hindu population ?

3) Because I brought up the abusive and violent treatment of minorities, I MUST be a Pakistani. So.....does that mean OBAMA was a Pakistani too as he brought the same thing up during his visit to India . None of you have any logic coming out of your posts on this topic.

no, you are a Pakistani your interest on Pakistani politics and current events proves that quiet easily, don't fool the others.. And Americans arn't so obsessed with Indian minorities as Pakistanis are. As i said, Prove your point instead of Farting from the keyboard

4) Then you are saying all countries (China, Russia, the US, etc) have the permanent seat in the US. So India should too. And obviously, the amount of lobbying you are doing for years, and even the sentiment here by reading online posts, is pretty clear that India needed a seat in the UN. So its VERY important to you. B

Where did i say that ? want to quote where i said i want India in the UNSC, i simply pointed the the member Nations have a history of Hypocrisy..

5) The next line after number 4 says the UN is a useless organization!!! Then why put SO MUCH effort into it to get a full, permanent membership? Right above calling the UN, you said that India should be given the seat too as the US, Russians, the Chinese, everyone has that.

Again where did i suggest India should be given a seat Learn to read English MR.American

Since India didn't get it, now it becomes useless? Do you even HAVE a stance on these things? Your post has one statement, and the next one is opposite of it. Then another statement, and the next one has an entirely opposite opinion. Its JUST like that Indian head-shake. Is it a yes or a no or both?

It useless from the very beginning, its a fact, when member countries themselves are involved in countless wars. You know it is useless...

In one stance, you are saying India has no human rights issues. But then when Obama told you, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. And that there are issues but so are issues in the US too. So Obama shouldn't lecture India. Then you called me a Pakistani because I brought this up, since it not an issue and I am doing propaganda apparently (but you just told me right above calling me a Pakistani that why would POTUS tell India when the US has similar issues). So whether I am a Pakistan, Japanese, Thai or an American, the real answer is, there is an issue. But we should ALL never say anything as its the big soup-o-powa India!!! Nice.

lol ....fail grammar form the so called American..why are you needlessly repeating your points. Besides its a Failed argument as i stated above..

And then, you are saying India must be given a seat and since it wasn't given, the UN becomes a "uselss organization" !!! Phew, talk about lack of common sense and the ability to take a stance!!!

Again, where did i say India must be given a seat

 

[21stCentury]

Can anyone answer why Modi was wearing a dress?

Maybe Modiji thinks that by wearing his wife's dress he would have a greater chance at negotiations

 

[Hypersonicmissiles]

The more I debate with Indian members, the more comical it gets. Here's what you are saying to India's human rights abuse:

1) Obama wasn't talking about human rights issue, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. So essentially you told me that there was NO human resource issue and the POTUS was just spreading the Christian agenda of some sort

2) Next, why would Obama say anything to India, we have our issues with minorities too......meaning that who are we to tell you about human rights when we have issues inside out own country. So you are telling me that Obama should've instead take care of our own issues instead of telling India so now there ARE issues inside India. You are going in OPPOSITE direction just in two statements. As you are clearly saying there are no issues in India and then there ARE issues but who the hell are we to tell you. Great, . So I am GLAD you admit that after going in circles that human rights are a big issue in India.
By the way, take the number of Christians and Muslims killed in India by Hindu extremists over the last two year and match that with the US minorities number killed. You WILL NOT even get .5% of what happens in India. Yes, NOT EVEN POINT 5 (.5) percent!!!! See how big of an issue you have inside India and you are ignoring it!!!!

3) Because I brought up the abusive and violent treatment of minorities, I MUST be a Pakistani. So.....does that mean OBAMA was a Pakistani too as he brought the same thing up during his visit to India . None of you have any logic coming out of your posts on this topic.

4) Then you are saying all countries (China, Russia, the US, etc) have the permanent seat in the US. So India should too. And obviously, the amount of lobbying you are doing for years, and even the sentiment here by reading online posts, is pretty clear that India needed a seat in the UN. So its VERY important to you. B

5) The next line after number 4 says the UN is a useless organization!!! Then why put SO MUCH effort into it to get a full, permanent membership? Right above calling the UN, you said that India should be given the seat too as the US, Russians, the Chinese, everyone has that.

Since India didn't get it, now it becomes useless? Do you even HAVE a stance on these things? Your post has one statement, and the next one is opposite of it. Then another statement, and the next one has an entirely opposite opinion. Its JUST like that Indian head-shake. Is it a yes or a no or both?

In one stance, you are saying India has no human rights issues. But then when Obama told you, he was working on Evangelicals agenda. And that there are issues but so are issues in the US too. So Obama shouldn't lecture India. Then you called me a Pakistani because I brought this up, since it not an issue and I am doing propaganda apparently (but you just told me right above calling me a Pakistani that why would POTUS tell India when the US has similar issues). So whether I am a Pakistan, Japanese, Thai or an American, the real answer is, there is an issue. But we should ALL never say anything as its the big soup-o-powa India!!! Nice.

And then, you are saying India must be given a seat and since it wasn't given, the UN becomes a "uselss organization" !!! Phew, talk about lack of common sense and the ability to take a stance!!!

If India miraculously got a seat in the UNSC, they will come here and brag about how they are now a superpower.

But now that India got b*tch slapped, all of a sudden the UNSC is useless

If it's useless why bother spending so much effort to get in the UNSC?

Make no mistake, India got its pants pulled down. They got embarrassed.

 

[fallstuff]

Giving India a permanent seat with veto power does not serve the cause of other 5 veto powered members. India needs to make itself economically stronger which will open the door by default instead of going around begging for it.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Whats with your perverted affinity to visualize Modi in women's clothing? Seems like misogynism has gotten the best of you

LOL some Pakistani member posted this picture in another thread, I just re-posted it.

It's not my fault if Modi has such a strange fashion sense.

 

[Viper0011.]

Considering the amount of smiley's you have its obvious that you are irritated and upset. Next time don't be so obvious about your emotional state.
Yes, he is pandering to the Evangalical NGO lobby
Idle banter without making any sense, every country has its domestic issue they should stick to fixing their domestic issues rather than commenting on others..

How many were killed ? less BS more substance, prove your alligations. Mind telling me what happened to the Hindus in Pakistan when it was the second largest Nation with a Hindu population ?

no, you are a Pakistani your interest on Pakistani politics and current events proves that quiet easily, don't fool the others.. And Americans arn't so obsessed with Indian minorities as Pakistanis are. As i said, Prove your point instead of Farting from the keyboard

Where did i say that ? want to quote where i said i want India in the UNSC, i simply pointed the the member Nations have a history of Hypocrisy..


Again where did i suggest India should be given a seat Learn to read English MR.American

It useless from the very beginning, its a fact, when member countries themselves are involved in countless wars. You know it is useless...

Again, where did i say India must be given a seat

Here is your post and I am quoting from it:

IF America, China and Russia of all countries can have permanent seat with their human rights history. SO can India. India has never gotten even close to what the member states have done in human rights violation...

Read your post again. You people are like 12 year old and act like you are on periods. On one hand, you call the UN useless, in the next you ask for the seat. You complain about Obama that he was trying to focus on an Evangelical agenda, when he was outlining the terrorism conducted on religious bases similar to Al-Qaeda, by the Hindu extremists in BJP, RSS and Shiv Sena, where they kill and damage thousands of people from minority religions in India. Whoever calls this issue out, is EITHER working on an Agenda or is a Pakistani. Meaning India has no problem.

Do you believe in human rights? Do you denounce terrorism conducted by Hindus who kill Christians and Muslims???? Or is it a two faced India, who only bit*ches about it when someone else does it? How about you clear your stance on denouncing terrorism and then we can talk.

I posted a couple of articles for you. There are a TON of videos out there too, showing what the barbaric Hindus do to minorities in India. You can google them and see them yourself. I can't post those due to forum policies!!

Focus on the topic, not my flags, not Obama working on Evangelical agenda, not where I am from (pretty visible in my signatures), not personals. Stay focused on the topic and answer the above parts. No Indian style diversion from the topic. Let's debate and see what you got!


Hindus rewarded for killing Christians

Convert or we will kill you, Hindu lynch mobs tell fleeing Christians | World news | The Guardian

 

[Star Wars]

LOL some Pakistani member posted this picture in another thread, I just re-posted it.

It's not my fault if Modi has such a strange fashion sense.

Adobe Photoshop... Its a pretty good software, Have you used it ?