New members to the Security Council.

**KarlXII** · 10-18-2008, 18:01

If you expected new permanent seats, you're out of luck.

I'm shocked Mexico made it. I was expecting, say, another Brazilian term or Argentinan.

Thoughts?

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 10-18-2008, 18:05

It's completely useless anyways, so I can't say I mind too much either way.

**Crazed Rabbit** · 10-18-2008, 18:08

Uganda?!

CR

**Seamus Fermanagh** · 10-18-2008, 18:11

I say we shift the permanent seats/vetos to:

Monaco, Lichtenstein, San Marino, Fiji, & the Vatican.

Then reduce all of the others to observer status.

Things would get sorted out in no time.

**KarlXII** · 10-18-2008, 18:13

Does anyone here actually support expanding the Permanent Seats?

I think countries like Germany, and Japan, both economic and military powers should have a permnent seat.

Meh, I haven't enjoyed the League of Nations, aka the U.N., in a long time.

**Louis VI the Fat** · 10-18-2008, 18:14

Completely useless this. They ought to limit membership to just the five permanent members. The other states can then plead and grovel with the permanent member in whose sphere of influence they reside to see to their interests.

**Lord Winter** · 10-18-2008, 18:24

I think the security council needs to be expanded and the permentent members powers curtailed. Right now its a joke when less then 10% of earth's countries have a voice in the U.N. Not to mention that Veto means no slightly conterversial issue gets resolved.

**CountArach** · 10-18-2008, 21:58

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Does anyone here actually support expanding the Permanent Seats?

Unfortunately, what the people want is irrelevant.

**Ice** · 10-19-2008, 01:53

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Does anyone here actually support expanding the Permanent Seats?

I think countries like Germany, and Japan, both economic and military powers should have a permnent seat.

Meh, I haven't enjoyed the League of Nations, aka the U.N., in a long time.

I sure do. Make the veto power rotating, and a 2/3 majority to get stuff passed along with a couple new members. Germany and Japan are both fine choices. South Korea would be good also.

**JR-** · 10-19-2008, 12:50

Can we find a better format for the UNSC?

Debate: UN Security Council Reform in 2020 (2008 edition):
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=105415

**FactionHeir** · 10-19-2008, 17:01

I think the overriding veto suggestion is a good one. With the current permanent members all having veto powers, nothing is likely to ever pass the SC unless it really is non controversial at all, i.e. trivial. I suppose only measures targeting Africa and possibly the MidEast will pass the current one.

**CountArach** · 10-19-2008, 21:37

Originally Posted by FactionHeir

I think the overriding veto suggestion is a good one. With the current permanent members all having veto powers, nothing is likely to ever pass the SC unless it really is non controversial at all, i.e. trivial. I suppose only measures targeting Africa and possibly the MidEast will pass the current one.

No, stuff relating to the Middle East will not past, at least not the important stuff (Especially in relation to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The US still has a veto on anything not staunchly pro-Israel and Russia will veto anything that helps US interests in the region.

**Odin** · 10-20-2008, 15:31

Originally Posted by SwedishFish

Thoughts?

Yes, yet another excellent opportunity for the U.S. to pull out of a dated non relevant institution who's primary function has been outlived by at least 20 years.