Peres agrees with me

[Supercharts]

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/p...1&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

"Former foreign minister Shimon Peres on Thursday criticized France and Germany for their opposition to a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, and questioned France's status as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council.

Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, also criticized recent mass demonstrations around the world against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

"Why didn't they demonstrate when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, or invaded Kuwait?" Peres told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "That was a war. It cost a million lives."

Peres also suggested another country replace France as a permanent member of the Security Council. "Why not for example, India, that represents much more of the 20th century, in terms of people, in terms of position, in terms of visions?" Peres said.

 

[Jocko]

Peres also suggested another country replace France as a permanent member of the Security Council. "Why not for example, India, that represents much more of the 20th century, in terms of people, in terms of position, in terms of visions?" Peres said.

Well, it really needed to be said, didn't it? I couldn't agree more.

 

[Barkhorn1x]

Re: Re: Peres agrees with me

Well, it really needed to be said, didn't it? I couldn't agree more.

Here, here - the Emperor (Chirac) has NO clothes!

Barkhorn.

 

[Doubt]

Re: Re: Peres agrees with me

Well, it really needed to be said, didn't it? I couldn't agree more.

Has India demonstrated an ability to move forces around the planet when needed? Logistical ability is more important than population size when it comes to who can do what on the security council. Of course, if you follow that thinking, what are China and Russia doing on the council?

France does have the ability to send a useful number of troops all over the world.

The question we should be asking is:

Should any one country be allowed to veto a security council resolution?

 

[Thanz]

Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, also criticized recent mass demonstrations around the world against a possible U.S. attack on Iraq.

"Why didn't they demonstrate when Saddam Hussein invaded Iran, or invaded Kuwait?" Peres told the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. "That was a war. It cost a million lives."

Sorry if I am being dense, but what does Peres think they should have been demonstrating for/against when Iraq did these invasions? What was his point?

 

[DialecticMaterialist]

Doubt

Has India demonstrated an ability to move forces around the planet when needed?

Has it been called to? Are you saying it's incapable?

Logistical ability is more important than population size when it comes to who can do what on the security council.

Never read anything about that being a requirment for being on the UN security council. http://www.un.org/Docs/scinfo.htm

Sorry but that's a red herring.

Besides the security council uses the rescources of the UN, not the specific country.

 

[Doctor X]

France does have the ability to send a useful number of troops all over the world.

Is that not a contradition in terms?

--J.D.

 

[hammegk]

Is that not a contradition in terms?

--J.D.

They have a few useful troops/planes/bombs/etc, just no sense whatsoever on some meaningful thing to do with them.

 

[Supercharts]

Indian Navy

http://indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm

 

[Doubt]

Indian Navy

http://indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm

That was an interesting link. Especially the LSD’s and carrier. The pages on operations was even better:

http://indiannavy.nic.in/somalia.htm

That page shows me to be at least partially wrong. However, I don’t think the Indian navy could deploy to the opposite side of the planet without somebody else supporting them logistically. It is one thing to have a few tankers. It is another to be able to refuel and transfer ordnance while underway and support operations far from home. If they could do in the Atlantic what they did in Somalia for a sustained period, then I would say they should be up for a permanent seat.

The Indian airforce should also be looked at, but I don’t have time right now.

 

[Doubt]

Is that not a contradition in terms?

--J.D.

Almost.

But then you have the foreign legion to consider.

 

[Doubt]

Re: Doubt

Sorry but that's a red herring.

Besides the security council uses the rescources of the UN, not the specific country.

Not a red herring. If a country is going to have a permanent seat, then they should be able to put their own troops in the line of fire. This is a personal opinion and not one based on UN requirements.

It the ability of the countries on the Security Council does not make a difference to you, then why have any permanent members?

When has China done anything other than vote?

India turns out to have done more than I thought they did. But regional projection is not the same as worldwide operations.

Many large countries have large armies and navies. But that does not automatically come with the ability to send them around the world and keep them there. Many military organizations don’t have the support structures needed to pull it off. Your average admiral will go out of his way to get a new warship with missiles and guns. But they won’t make the same effort to get the supply ships and planes needed to back them up. A great many armies on the planet cannot supply their troops adequately even when they operate in their own countries.