Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 3 of 7      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next   »
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #31 
It is probably not the best idea to use imperative expressions for what are your own personal preferences. India and Brazil are not rising great powers. They are rising, but economically and politically they are still behind Britain and France. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan are as, or more, economically important and, probably, politically influential, than India and, certainly, Brazil. Perhaps we can call all the top ten counties great powers, though they all are far below the US and China. There seems to be little need to upset the current arrangements of the security council as it is - not, of course, that it matters what some poster on a forum believes, one way or the other. In what sense would things be practically improved by these changes? It's hard to say they would.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #32 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
It is probably not the best idea to use imperative expressions for what are your own personal preferences. India and Brazil are not rising great powers. They are rising, but economically and politically they are still behind Britain and France. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan are as, or more, economically important and, probably, politically influential, than India and, certainly, Brazil. Perhaps we can call all the top ten counties great powers, though they all are far below the US and China. There seems to be little need to upset the current arrangements of the security council as it is - not, of course, that it matters what some poster on a forum believes, one way or the other. In what sense would things be practically improved by these changes? It's hard to say they would.

Do you support limiting permanent membership of the UN Security Council to the Big Three (USA, Russia and China)?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #33 
No, I see no reason to change things. Those three would work for most things, but I support Britain's membership to veto the constant shenanigans that Spain and Argentina would play if we didn't have it. Not, of course, that any change is likely any time soon.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #34 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
No, I see no reason to change things. Those three would work for most things, but I support Britain's membership to veto the constant shenanigans that Spain and Argentina would play if we didn't have it. Not, of course, that any change is likely any time soon.

British permanent membership of the UN Security Council doesn't benefit the rest of the world, but neither does it harm the rest of the world. It is merely a relic of the imperial past of Great Britain. I'm not opposed to British membership of the UN Security Council, as long as Scotland stays part of Great Britain. I support enlargement of the UN Security Council without expelling any current permanent member from the UN Security Council. British and French membership of the UN Security Council doesn't make sense to me, but that doesn't mean, that they ought to be expelled from the UN Security Council. But if Scotland secedes from Great Britain, England ought to be expelled from the UN Security Council.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #35 
Again you are making imperative claims with little in the way of support, as if your private preferences were somehow prescriptive. It would be something if you have proper support to your views, but you rarely do. There's no ought about it. Indeed, it's hard to see why Scotland leaving - which is not going to happen anytime soon - will make that much of a difference, given its small size in terms of population and economy compared to the rest of the UK (primarily England).
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #36 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Again you are making imperative claims with little in the way of support, as if your private preferences were somehow prescriptive. It would be something if you have proper support to your views, but you rarely do. There's no ought about it. Indeed, it's hard to see why Scotland leaving - which is not going to happen anytime soon - will make that much of a difference, given its small size in terms of population and economy compared to the rest of the UK (primarily England).

I admit to bear grudges against Great Britain, because you made Kurdistan part of Iraq, you opposed German reunification and you limited Jewish immigration to Israel during the Nazi era. Great Britain ought to support Kurdish independence from Iraq, support German permanent membership of the UN Security Council and recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel in order to repent of its wrongdoings.
I'm not an Anglophobe, because I will never attack Great Britain again, if Great Britain repents of its wrongdoings. None of my grudges against Great Britain are unreasonable. A true Anglophobe will support the Argentine claim to the "Malvinas", Scottish independence and Australian and Canadian republicanism.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #37 
What you said bears no direct relation to my post. You have just begun your litany again. You're moral claims are tendentious in the extreme. Thatcher opposed German unification, but what that has to do with the British nation, I have no idea. I'm not aware her government did much to oppose the unification. The idea this means we have a moral imperative to support German entry on the security council is preposterous.

I also think it's interesting you don't like people bringing up Germany's past, but you bring up Britain blocking Jewish refugees from entering the British mandate. Who made it necessary for these Jews to flee as refugees to begin with.

Personally, I think Kurdistan must recognise Gibraltar suzerainty, and therefore the rule of Her Majesty in order to expiate your Anglophibia.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #38 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
What you said bears no direct relation to my post. You have just begun your litany again. You're moral claims are tendentious in the extreme. Thatcher opposed German unification, but what that has to do with the British nation, I have no idea. I'm not aware her government did much to oppose the unification. The idea this means we have a moral imperative to support German entry on the security council is preposterous.

I also think it's interesting you don't like people bringing up Germany's past, but you bring up Britain blocking Jewish refugees from entering the British mandate. Who made it necessary for these Jews to flee as refugees to begin with.

Personally, I think Kurdistan must recognise Gibraltar suzerainty, and therefore the rule of Her Majesty in order to expiate your Anglophibia.

I bring up Great Britain preventing Jewish refugees from entering the British mandate, because Great Britain has never apologized for it. Germany has apologized for the crimes of Nazi Germany multiple times and has payed reparations to Israel. I don't bear grudges against Great Britain solely because of its past wrongdoings. Germany also ought to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel, because Germany has a moral obligation to support Israel because of the Holocaust.
Mikhail Gorbachev allowed German reunification to happen, and George H.W. Bush supported German reunification. I hate Thatcher, because I'm a German nationalist and a social democrat.
Sergey Skripal deserves to be killed, because he is a traitor to Russia. The British government protecting Sergey Skripal is a disgrace. Russia is a friend of Kurdistan and Germany, unlike Great Britain. I prefer the Russian Federation to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #39 
Adding another ad hoc condition on Britain's supposed moral responsibility and it's expiation - whether it has officially apologised - hardly makes the reasoning less preposterous.

Kurdistan is an eternal, indivisible part of Gibraltar, whatever Putin might say. Germany should be an crown dependency of her majesty in order to atone for cabbage juice and it's other gastrointestinal atrocities.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #40 
As a matter of fact, Britain does support permanent membership for Germany. I recall Lady Thatcher's opposition to reunification; I am a great admirer of hers, but that doesn't mean I believe she was always right about everything. I thought she was wrong about that at the time, and still do now. She actually lobbied quite hard against it, but was in the end reluctantly forced to give way. And her formal agreement was a necessity, as head of government of one of the four occupying powers.

Azadi provides us with evidence of his Anglophobia with every day that passes. He has not, however, provided us with much evidence of Britain's alleged Germanophobia. The garbage the tabloid press spews out, largely to do with deckchairs and territorial claims thereto, is more feeble humour than hatred. It's hardly an everyday thing anyway, just something that comes up now and then. I would say actually that most British people give Germany very little thought and have no particular view either way. Finally, the SC. One more time, neither Britain nor France can possibly be 'expelled'. That would require two-thirds of the General Assembly voting for it, pretty unlikely, the US, Russia and China all voting for it, very unlikely, and finally Britain and France voting for it. In what scenario do you envisage them doing that?

And as for Scotland, if China can replace Taiwan, the Fourth Republic can replace the Provisional Government and then the Fifth Republic replace the Fourth, and Russia can replace the Soviet Union, why would the reduction in United Kingdom territory make the slightest difference to our membership? One final point, already made back at the beginning of the thread; there is no agitation at all for Britain and France to be removed. The entire focus of the actual discussion in the real world is on enlargement, pro and con, not reduction. Go find some other windmill to tilt at.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #41 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Adding another ad hoc condition on Britain's supposed moral responsibility and it's expiation - whether it has officially apologised - hardly makes the reasoning less preposterous.

Kurdistan is an eternal, indivisible part of Gibraltar, whatever Putin might say. Germany should be an crown dependency of her majesty in order to atone for cabbage juice and it's other gastrointestinal atrocities.

[rofl][rofl]

Why do you continue to attack me because of Gibraltar? While I personally prefer Gibraltar being part of Spain, I accept continued British rule in Gibraltar, as long as the Gibraltarians support it.
I don't support depriving Great Britain of any territory without a referendum, except Akrotiri, Dhekelia and the Chagos Islands. 
Demanding Great Britain apologizing for its past wrongdoings is hardly preposterous. If I was President of Kurdistan, I would apologize for Kurdish participation in the Armenian genocide. Turkey also ought to apologize for the Armenian genocide. Germany has apologized for the crimes of Nazi Germany multiple times and Russia apologized for its crimes against East Germany by voluntarily allowing Germany to be reunified.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #42 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
As a matter of fact, Britain does support permanent membership for Germany. I recall Lady Thatcher's opposition to reunification; I am a great admirer of hers, but that doesn't mean I believe she was always right about everything. I thought she was wrong about that at the time, and still do now. She actually lobbied quite hard against it, but was in the end reluctantly forced to give way. And her formal agreement was a necessity, as head of government of one of the four occupying powers.

Azadi provides us with evidence of his Anglophobia with every day that passes. He has not, however, provided us with much evidence of Britain's alleged Germanophobia. The garbage the tabloid press spews out, largely to do with deckchairs and territorial claims thereto, is more feeble humour than hatred. It's hardly an everyday thing anyway, just something that comes up now and then. I would say actually that most British people give Germany very little thought and have no particular view either way. Finally, the SC. One more time, neither Britain nor France can possibly be 'expelled'. That would require two-thirds of the General Assembly voting for it, pretty unlikely, the US, Russia and China all voting for it, very unlikely, and finally Britain and France voting for it. In what scenario do you envisage them doing that?

And as for Scotland, if China can replace Taiwan, the Fourth Republic can replace the Provisional Government and then the Fifth Republic replace the Fourth, and Russia can replace the Soviet Union, why would the reduction in United Kingdom territory make the slightest difference to our membership? One final point, already made back at the beginning of the thread; there is no agitation at all for Britain and France to be removed. The entire focus of the actual discussion in the real world is on enlargement, pro and con, not reduction. Go find some other windmill to tilt at.

I apologize for accusing Great Britain of Germanophobia. I did it, because Matthew J Taylor's Germanophobia annoyed me, and because the right-wing British tabloid press spews out Germanophobia. That's why the Guardian is my preferred source of British news. I'm pleased to know, that the British government supports German permanent membership of the UN Security Council. I'm not opposed to continued British membership of the UN Security Council, if Germany is allowed to become a permanent member of the UN Security Council. I remember, that removing England from the UN Security Council was discussed during the Scottish independence referendum.
I want those countries to be permanent members of the UN Security Council:
USA
Russia
China
Great Britain
France
Germany
Brazil
India
Do you agree?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,332
Reply with quote  #43 
Personally, I think there's little point in apologising for wrongs long past. Turkey goes beyond not apologising; it refuses to acknowledge the Armenian genocide even took place. Anyway, my actual point wasn't about apologies themselves, but that you added this as a new condition to why Britain has a moral imperative to support certain things.

Also, I wouldn't say the British tabloid press spews out anti-German content. That rather suggests they spend a lot of time on the Germans. They have at times resorted to a crude anti-German hostility, but they have resorted to crudities on most topics. That's what the tabloid press is. They usually have some idea of the so called man in the street, and appeal to him.
Peter

Moderator
Registered:
Posts: 7,079
Reply with quote  #44 
I'm opposed to reduction. I have never felt called upon to have an opinion on enlargement. But I have no rooted objection to it, and would not be upset by any of Germany, India and Japan becoming permanent members. Brazil's present leader however is beyond the pale for me. So are Trump, Putin and the Chinese gerontocrats, but they're already there and cannot feasibly be removed. Bolsonaro can however be kept out. When Brazil elects a decent human being as President, I'll reconsider the case.
azadi

Registered:
Posts: 632
Reply with quote  #45 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter
I'm opposed to reduction. I have never felt called upon to have an opinion on enlargement. But I have no rooted objection to it, and would not be upset by any of Germany, India and Japan becoming permanent members. Brazil's present leader however is beyond the pale for me. So are Trump, Putin and the Chinese gerontocrats, but they're already there and cannot feasibly be removed. Bolsonaro can however be kept out. When Brazil elects a decent human being as President, I'll reconsider the case.

I dislike Bolsonaro too. I admire Lula, who was a social democrat, who lifted a lot of Brazilians out of poverty. Lula is being unjustly imprisoned, and Bolsonaro promotes neoliberalism, destruction of the Amazon, racism and homophobia. But Brazil ought to be a permanent member of the UN Security Council, because it's a rising great power.
I'm personally not opposed to Japanese permanent membership of the UN Security Council, but it will likely never happen, because China and Russia are strongly opposed to Japanese permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Russia will likely cease to oppose Japanese permanent membership of the UN Security Council, if the South Kuril dispute is solved, but China will never accept Japanese permanent membership of the UN Security Council. China may also veto Brazilian permanent membership of the UN Security Council, because Bolsonaro is strongly opposed to the People's Republic of China. China isn't opposed to German permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and Russia supports German permanent membership of the UN Security Council. Russia supports Indian permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and China is willing to accept Indian permanent membership of the UN Security Council, if India ceases to support Japanese permanent membership of the UN Security Council.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.