Quote Originally Posted by Furunculus View Post
you have just argued for doing without the UNSC altogether, or, having a UNSC of just the US.

your argument doesn't fly.
The security council has 5 permanent members and ten non-permanent ones. If UK & France lose their permanent positions it does not just leave the US on the UNSC. One permanent member has already changed, there is nothing to stop more being added or removed.

What I've argued for is that to remain on the UNSC as permanent members will require something more then economic and hence military might. The ability to stay will rely on more on goodwill and the two nations seen as stable leaders who others can negotiate with and have vetos placed on their behalf. Relying on something as infrequent as a R2P mission with enough positive spin to create the goodwill is not the way forwards.

Yes increasing stability in the world will help so outside of this current mission what can UK and France do to increase stability? Not all of these are found at the barrel of a gun. Cure Malaria, fresh water... increase the quality of life... literacy.... remove the root causes of tribal warfare..food, literacy, transparency & accountability... only the last of which requires the use of force.

There are a lot of things that can be done to get the positive image set... so like most votes the permanent seat will require winning the populace once you've slipped down the totem pole.