UN Security Council

Should UN remove Britain and France from UNSC and add Germany and India?


Few facts:

- India is second largest population, 1/7 of the planet
- Germany have stronger economy than UK/FR, 4th economy of the planet + leading nation of the EU

Not gonna happen, uk and france can veto any proposition to remove them as a security council member.

Escrito por ROYAL, 14.04.2016 at 14:36

Not gonna happen, uk and france can veto any proposition to remove them as a security council member.

Did Republic of China/Taiwan vetoed proposition to remove Taiwan and add People's Republic of China to UNSC?

PR China became UNSC member in 1971 when Taiwan was removed by majority of votes of the UN.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945.E2.80.931971.29

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.04.2016 at 14:39

Escrito por ROYAL, 14.04.2016 at 14:36

Not gonna happen, uk and france can veto any proposition to remove them as a security council member.

Did Republic of China/Taiwan vetoed proposition to remove Taiwan and add People's Republic of China to UNSC?

PR China became UNSC member in 1971 when Taiwan was removed by majority of votes of the UN.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945.E2.80.931971.29

That isnt proof that fra and uk can be forcefully removed

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.04.2016 at 14:39

Escrito por ROYAL, 14.04.2016 at 14:36

Not gonna happen, uk and france can veto any proposition to remove them as a security council member.

Did Republic of China/Taiwan vetoed proposition to remove Taiwan and add People's Republic of China to UNSC?

PR China became UNSC member in 1971 when Taiwan was removed by majority of votes of the UN.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945.E2.80.931971.29

Actually India was offered UNSC Permanent Seat in 1950 or 1952 (I forget exactly) after the Chinese Civil War. US didn't want the Chinese to get it, so they offered it to India.
It was declined because the Prime Minister of the time was an idiot and a Chinese-hugger who told the UN to give it to China

Edit: The Chinese paid India back for that by invading and annexing parts of it in 1962
Idiots

Escrito por ROYAL, 14.04.2016 at 14:47

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.04.2016 at 14:39

Escrito por ROYAL, 14.04.2016 at 14:36

Not gonna happen, uk and france can veto any proposition to remove them as a security council member.

Did Republic of China/Taiwan vetoed proposition to remove Taiwan and add People's Republic of China to UNSC?

PR China became UNSC member in 1971 when Taiwan was removed by majority of votes of the UN.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_and_the_United_Nations#Republic_of_China_in_the_UN_.281945.E2.80.931971.29

That isnt proof that fra and uk can be forcefully removed

No. There were extenuating circumstances.
But as things stand, Europe has 3 seats in the form of Britain, France and Russia (Russia often being counted as a European country since it's population centers are there), Asia has one, N. America has one, but S. America and Africa have no representation. Granted there's no country in either continent with a good enough military but fairness I guess, doesn't matter in politics.
Britain and France should give up their seats in favour of a single European Union seat which Germany is willing to do.
India being the world's 2nd largest population (will be largest by 2025-2030), largest English speaking population in Asia, 2nd to 3rd largest military (debatable), and largest contributor of troops to UN Peacekeeping Missions should get the extra remaining seat.
That gives Europe two: EU and Russia, and Asia two: India, China
And N. America gets one since there are pretty much 3 countries in it anyways.
Brazil and South Africa get left in the dust, SA for obvious reasons, and Brazil because it's military is outdated and in shambles.
Japan will likely not get a seat since it's as close as it can be to a US Protectorate, without actually being one. Plus, it has no military, the only power it can exert is economic. It just has a Self-Defence Force, that isn't very long ranged

No, Germany and India should not replace France and Britain.

This absurd principle of letting five powerful countries veto anything they like in the Security Council because they used to be superpowers back in the '40s (or because they're superpowers now) should simply be abolished.

That's one broken system that can't be fixed by putting another country in charge of it. It simply needs to go.

Escrito por International, 14.04.2016 at 22:21

No, Germany and India should not replace France and Britain.

This absurd principle of letting five powerful countries veto anything they like in the Security Council because they used to be superpowers back in the '40s (or because they're superpowers now) should simply be abolished.

That's one broken system that can't be fixed by putting another country in charge of it. It simply needs to go.

The UN was formed during late WW2 to coordinate the nations after the conflict was over. With the exception of the People's Republic of China all members(France is arguably also an exception) are the major powers to fight Nazi Germany during World War II. Of course it's going to be based on superpower politics.

Escrito por Darth., 14.04.2016 at 21:18

Actually India was offered UNSC Permanent Seat in 1950 or 1952 (I forget exactly) after the Chinese Civil War. US didn't want the Chinese to get it, so they offered it to India.
It was declined because the Prime Minister of the time was an idiot and a Chinese-hugger who told the UN to give it to China

Didn't know that, thanks for information.

I think there should be an order to follow which country deserve UNSC seat. And i believe China should have get it before India because it was more industrialised, with more population and more influence in the region and in the world.

Now i believe it is time for India to become permanent member of the UNSC. With economic growth of 10%, second largest military and worldwide influence (through BRIC) it deserve a spot.

I think Britain and France fell to become regional powers after WWII, and although they are developed, they cannot match with America, Russia, China and India in economic, political or military potential.

-----------

What you think about Japan in UNSC? I forgot about it, although they have larger economy than Germany, and population, they are not major political power like Germany, neither do they have economic or political alliance with other countries.

Escrito por Darth., 14.04.2016 at 21:18

Edit: The Chinese paid India back for that by invading and annexing parts of it in 1962
Idiots

You must admit India meddled with China around Tibet and Tibetan leaders. Plus Asia is old continent with old ancient nations, therefore after milleniums of wars, battles and changing borders, it is natural to have border disputes today. But today it is easier to solve them, so i don't worry about that.

Even Russia have border disputes today after Communists draw borders for new republics out of the Russian Empire.

But don't worry, your economy and population will be so large and strong soon that you will automaticly defeat Pakistan and Bangladesh - just by being a power, without using force. They will plea for unification with India citing British Raj and before how you were united, just so they can sponge off Indian wealth.

Escrito por International, 14.04.2016 at 22:21

No, Germany and India should not replace France and Britain.

This absurd principle of letting five powerful countries veto anything they like in the Security Council because they used to be superpowers back in the '40s (or because they're superpowers now) should simply be abolished.

That's one broken system that can't be fixed by putting another country in charge of it. It simply needs to go.

How it is absurd principle to give veto right to 1/6th of the planet? I don't understand you.

America has veto because it is 3rd largest population and 3-4th largest by territory, China is 1# population, Russia is 1# size, they cover most territory and/or people so they deserve veto right. Now i propose India because it IS ABSURD that country the size of India have no permanent seat and veto right like others.

I change my mind about Germany, although it is 4th economy, it lacks territory and population size, so i guess Brazil should get veto and seat (8.5 million sq/km & 200 million people in comparison to 350,000 sq/km and 80 million Germans). So let's change criteria from 'power' and economic size to territorial size and population as natural criteria as those countries have bigger responsibility than smaller countries.

France and England combined have smaller population and territory than India and thus less responsibility to humanity and our planet. This is why India before anyone else should get seat and veto.

Russia
China
India
Brazil
Unites States

As for 'letting them veto anything they like' i'll just reply that if Russia and China didn't had veto right, America would destroy 150 countries by now instead 50. Just imagine how many US-sponsored resolutions would pass UN and give right to NATO in every corner of the world.

If India and Brazil get veto and seat, that mean all BRIC members will be in UNSCPS and outnumber US 4 to 1, hopefully enough to counter Western-backed resolutions for bombing, sanctions, military interventions, no-fly zones except NATO. And more chances for humanitarian aid, support and help resolutions.

Germany isnt leading nation in EU, France and Germany together are leading EU.
Germany cannot be believed after two world wars.
Indian people are poor, they cannot even care bout their population, how can they secure the whole planet then?
France is the strongest military in EU.

Germany isnt leading nation in EU, France and Germany together are leading EU.
Germany cannot be believed after two world wars.
Indian people are poor, they cannot even care bout their population, how can they secure the whole planet then?
France is the strongest military in EU.

Escrito por Oleg, 16.01.2017 at 17:40

1.Germany isnt leading nation in EU, France and Germany together are leading EU.
Germany cannot be believed after two world wars.
2.Indian people are poor, they cannot even care bout their population, how can they secure the whole planet then?
3.France is the strongest military in EU.

1.Those worldwars happened decades ago, and Germany is hardly the 'Kill the Russkies, Cook the Jews, Rimuv Kebabs' country it was back then. That's just mean and racist, especially since Germany is in NATO and thus in the side of freedom and cuddling furry animals.
2.The UK and France are regional hegemons nowadays, yet they still have a permanent seat. The UNSC is nothing but a way for the winners of WW2 to reward themselves for gangbanging the Nazis and Imperialist Japs. If you've looked at the Global Firepower Index, the worldwide method of measuring military power, 1st is US with 0.89, 2nd Russia with 0.96, 3rd China 0.98, 4th India 1.66, 5th France 1.99, where a lower score = greater power. Germany is below both Turkey and Japan even though by the admission of the makers of the list, NATO members receive a bonus in ranking due to resource sharing, meaning its not based purely upon country. Which means that even France's ranking of 1.99 is with a bonus. It's actually in the 2's which is bad for a member of the security Council. And BTW Pavle, this with India's military budget being about 1.2 to 1.3% of GDP. What makes you think we can't care about our population especially since Indian economy surpassed that of the UK's in size in 2016 when it was expected to do so in 2020-21 (considering that we got independence only 70 years ago, I'd say we've done a great job).

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

1.Those worldwars happened decades ago, and Germany is hardly the 'Kill the Russkies, Cook the Jews, Rimuv Kebabs' country it was back then. That's just mean and racist, especially since Germany is in NATO and thus in the side of freedom and cuddling furry animals.

"Never believe Germans", lesson from second world war.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

2.The UK and France are regional hegemons nowadays, yet they still have a permanent seat.

Give one example.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

The UNSC is nothing but a way for the winners of WW2 to reward themselves for gangbanging the Nazis and Imperialist Japs

They should be rewarded, after so much pain that nazis gave to this world.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

. If you've looked at the Global Firepower Index, the worldwide method of measuring military power, 1st is US with 0.89, 2nd Russia with 0.96, 3rd China 0.98, 4th India 1.66, 5th France 1.99, where a lower score = greater power. Germany is below both Turkey and Japan even though by the admission of the makers of the list, NATO members receive a bonus in ranking due to resource sharing, meaning its not based purely upon country. Which means that even France's ranking of 1.99 is with a bonus. It's actually in the 2's which is bad for a member of the security Council.

OH, GFP is site where Canada is 22th military power in the World.... Shows enough i think.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

And BTW Pavle, this with India's military budget being about 1.2 to 1.3% of GDP. What makes you think we can't care about our population

1/3rd of the world's hungry live in India. 836 million Indians survive on less than Rs. 20 (less than half-a-dollar) a day. Over 20 crore Indians will sleep hungry tonight. 10 million people die every year of chronic hunger and hunger-related diseases. Only eight percent are the victims of hunger caused by high-profile earthquakes, floods, droughts and wars. India has 212 million undernourished people - only marginally below the 215 million estimated for 1990-92. 99% of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to the survey). Almost as many (24.1 per cent) had lived in conditions of semi-starvation during the previous month. Over 7000 Indians die of hunger every day. Over 2 500 000 Indians die of hunger every year. Despite substantial improvement in health since independence and a growth rate of 8 percent in recent years, under-nutrition remains a silent emergency in India, with almost 50 percent of Indian children underweight and more than 70 percent of the women and children with serious nutritional deficiencies as anemia.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

especially since Indian economy surpassed that of the UK's in size in 2016 when it was expected to do so in 2020-21 (considering that we got independence only 70 years ago, I'd say we've done a great job).

good terminology you used, in size. 1.250m people live in India, most of them are poor people living with 0.5 dollars a day (that is why you have bigger economy in size, 1.000m people working for nothing), and 65m people live in UK, living with 73pounds(88 dollars) a day.

Escrito por Oleg, 16.01.2017 at 21:52

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

1.Those worldwars happened decades ago, and Germany is hardly the 'Kill the Russkies, Cook the Jews, Rimuv Kebabs' country it was back then. That's just mean and racist, especially since Germany is in NATO and thus in the side of freedom and cuddling furry animals.

"Never believe Germans", lesson from second world war.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

2.The UK and France are regional hegemons nowadays, yet they still have a permanent seat.

Give one example.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

The UNSC is nothing but a way for the winners of WW2 to reward themselves for gangbanging the Nazis and Imperialist Japs

They should be rewarded, after so much pain that nazis gave to this world.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

. If you've looked at the Global Firepower Index, the worldwide method of measuring military power, 1st is US with 0.89, 2nd Russia with 0.96, 3rd China 0.98, 4th India 1.66, 5th France 1.99, where a lower score = greater power. Germany is below both Turkey and Japan even though by the admission of the makers of the list, NATO members receive a bonus in ranking due to resource sharing, meaning its not based purely upon country. Which means that even France's ranking of 1.99 is with a bonus. It's actually in the 2's which is bad for a member of the security Council.

OH, GFP is site where Canada is 22th military power in the World.... Shows enough i think.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

And BTW Pavle, this with India's military budget being about 1.2 to 1.3% of GDP. What makes you think we can't care about our population

1/3rd of the world's hungry live in India. 836 million Indians survive on less than Rs. 20 (less than half-a-dollar) a day. Over 20 crore Indians will sleep hungry tonight. 10 million people die every year of chronic hunger and hunger-related diseases. Only eight percent are the victims of hunger caused by high-profile earthquakes, floods, droughts and wars. India has 212 million undernourished people - only marginally below the 215 million estimated for 1990-92. 99% of the 1000 Adivasi households from 40 villages in the two states, who comprised the total sample, experienced chronic hunger (unable to get two square meals, or at least one square meal and one poor/partial meal, on even one day in the week prior to the survey). Almost as many (24.1 per cent) had lived in conditions of semi-starvation during the previous month. Over 7000 Indians die of hunger every day. Over 2 500 000 Indians die of hunger every year. Despite substantial improvement in health since independence and a growth rate of 8 percent in recent years, under-nutrition remains a silent emergency in India, with almost 50 percent of Indian children underweight and more than 70 percent of the women and children with serious nutritional deficiencies as anemia.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

especially since Indian economy surpassed that of the UK's in size in 2016 when it was expected to do so in 2020-21 (considering that we got independence only 70 years ago, I'd say we've done a great job).

good terminology you used, in size. 1.250m people live in India, most of them are poor people living with 0.5 dollars a day (that is why you have bigger economy in size, 1.000m people working for nothing), and 65m people live in UK, living with 73pounds(88 dollars) a day.

nice quoting obsolete figures. Even I can manipulate data like that if I want.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 14.04.2016 at 14:33

Should UN remove Britain and France from UNSC and add Germany and India?


Few facts:

- India is second largest population, 1/7 of the planet
- Germany have stronger economy than UK/FR, 4th economy of the planet + leading nation of the EU

Not sure about France but the UK has 2 decently powered militaries right behind them. Canada and Australia.

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 23:14

nice quoting obsolete figures. Even I can manipulate data like that if I want.

Have just read one article about rape statistics in India, the most shocking information...:
20 people on 1 year old baby....
It is crazy.....
Needless to say that 1 year old died.....
Such country should represent UNSC, and help world solve its problems, when we can read this...

Escrito por Oleg, 17.01.2017 at 15:09

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 23:14

nice quoting obsolete figures. Even I can manipulate data like that if I want.

Have just read one article about rape statistics in India, the most shocking information...:
20 people on 1 year old baby....
It is crazy.....
Needless to say that 1 year old died.....
Such country should represent UNSC, and help world solve its problems, when we can read this...

I'm not hearing a denial about the obsolete data....
And also, dude where are you getting your information?? And even if true, you're going to be so naïve and dumb as to act as though 20 idiots represent 1.3 billion people? There are morons in every country. Including UK/France. As I recall when there was a famine in India Churchill diverted even more food supplies out of India to feed European soldiers that didn't even need supplies because Canada and the US had offered to provide them for free. He also said that "Indians had brought the famines upon themselves"...Millions died. Applying your logic of 'a small minority represents the entire population' the entirety of UK is filled with a bunch of genocidal, racist nutbags and is therefore not suitable for UNSC membership. Then, or now. Thirdly look at China. You telling me, they have a golden human rights record to be on the UNSC? Does the US? Don't be a moron.

Meanwhile as I was saying before kebab interrupted, India has been largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping ops, and has taken part in the most number of ops of any country. It represents 1/7th of the world population. It is the fastest growing economy, 6th largest by Nominal GDP, third largest by PPP, 4th strongest military, 2nd or 3rd largest military, largest democracy, its in an extremely strategic location to influence global shipping lanes, and fight piracy in Africa/Middle East which it is doing etc.

Escrito por Darth., 17.01.2017 at 20:39

.
Meanwhile as I was saying before kebab interrupted, India has been largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping ops, and has taken part in the most number of ops of any country. It represents 1/7th of the world population. It is the fastest growing economy, 6th largest by Nominal GDP, third largest by PPP, 4th strongest military, 2nd or 3rd largest military, largest democracy, its in an extremely strategic location to influence global shipping lanes, and fight piracy in Africa/Middle East which it is doing etc.

Also, 4th nation by % of rapes each year(first 3 positions are african countries), have its wikipedia article about rapes in India, shit military equipment and weapons.
It is sad, when you write india new, first 3 articles:

WHY ARE YOU DEBATING SOMETHING YOU WON'T EVEN BE ASKED FOR ?
It will be as leading politicians of these countries decide. Also USA would be stupid (China also) to lose their 2 strong allies for someone who may or may not be their ally (India) and someone who will likely block everything Pakistan (their ally) does.

Escrito por Oleg, 17.01.2017 at 22:34

Escrito por Darth., 17.01.2017 at 20:39

.
Meanwhile as I was saying before kebab interrupted, India has been largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping ops, and has taken part in the most number of ops of any country. It represents 1/7th of the world population. It is the fastest growing economy, 6th largest by Nominal GDP, third largest by PPP, 4th strongest military, 2nd or 3rd largest military, largest democracy, its in an extremely strategic location to influence global shipping lanes, and fight piracy in Africa/Middle East which it is doing etc.

Also, 4th nation by % of rapes each year(first 3 positions are african countries), have its wikipedia article about rapes in India, shit military equipment and weapons.
It is sad, when you write india new, first 3 articles:

I typed India new. Nothing came up. Why don't you show what you actually searched for noob. Either way, every country has problems. According to you India doesn't deserve to be on the UNSC cuz it's #4 in rape crimes. False. It's #5. The UK is #4. US is #3. Sweden #2. Canada #7, New Zealand #6; "all your 'civilized' countries are actually the ones that fill the list." In 2011, more than 11 rapes took place everyday in Belgium, the capital of the EU.
Data is for 2015:
1. South Africa
2. Sweden
3. US (UNSC member)
4. UK (UNSC ally)
5. India
6. New Zealand (who the hell knows )
7. Canada (key US ally)
8. Australia (key UK ally)
9. Zimbabwe
10. Denmark & Finland
Source: http://www.wonderslist.com/top-10-countries-with-maximum-rape-crimes/
Obviously crime rate isn't a factor so don't bullshit me. The main thing about UNSC is security, which India contributes with UN peacekeeping ops and stuff which I've mentioned before. Don't be a narb, don't manipulate facts, quote obsolete figures and attempt to win an argument by debating inconsequential crap.

Edit: According to another list by Insider Monkey, India isn't even on the list for highest crime rates, although neither is the US, UK. Australia, New Zealand and Sweden remain though. Considering how it's including mostly South American and African countries, I suspect bias but eh. Either India isn't as bad as other UNSC members which makes your argument hypocritical and invalidates it, or India isn't even on the list and your argument is just racism. Either way, you haven't done your research properly.

Original post continues:

US and Russia, UK and France are colored darker than in India in this pic which shows rape rate per 100,000. All are UNSC members. They are between 8 and 31 per 100,000 while India is between 1 and 8 per 100,000. Data on China has been suppressed by Glorious Leader.

Now that I've trashed your argument, with solid, hard facts, welcome to ignore list, reserved especially for narbs like you.

Escrito por Darth., 18.01.2017 at 12:03

Escrito por Oleg, 17.01.2017 at 22:34

Escrito por Darth., 17.01.2017 at 20:39

.
Meanwhile as I was saying before kebab interrupted, India has been largest contributor of troops to UN peacekeeping ops, and has taken part in the most number of ops of any country. It represents 1/7th of the world population. It is the fastest growing economy, 6th largest by Nominal GDP, third largest by PPP, 4th strongest military, 2nd or 3rd largest military, largest democracy, its in an extremely strategic location to influence global shipping lanes, and fight piracy in Africa/Middle East which it is doing etc.

Also, 4th nation by % of rapes each year(first 3 positions are african countries), have its wikipedia article about rapes in India, shit military equipment and weapons.
It is sad, when you write india new, first 3 articles:

I typed India new. Nothing came up. Why don't you show what you actually searched for noob. Either way, every country has problems. According to you India doesn't deserve to be on the UNSC cuz it's #4 in rape crimes. False. It's #5. The UK is #4. US is #3. Sweden #2. Canada #7, New Zealand #6; "all your 'civilized' countries are actually the ones that fill the list." In 2011, more than 11 rapes took place everyday in Belgium, the capital of the EU.
Data is for 2015:
1. South Africa
2. Sweden
3. US (UNSC member)
4. UK (UNSC ally)
5. India
6. New Zealand (who the hell knows )
7. Canada (key US ally)
8. Australia (key UK ally)
9. Zimbabwe
10. Denmark & Finland
Source: http://www.wonderslist.com/top-10-countries-with-maximum-rape-crimes/
Obviously crime rate isn't a factor so don't bullshit me. The main thing about UNSC is security, which India contributes with UN peacekeeping ops and stuff which I've mentioned before. Don't be a narb, don't manipulate facts, quote obsolete figures and attempt to win an argument by debating inconsequential crap.

Edit: According to another list by Insider Monkey, India isn't even on the list for highest crime rates, although neither is the US, UK. Australia, New Zealand and Sweden remain though. Considering how it's including mostly South American and African countries, I suspect bias but eh. Either India isn't as bad as other UNSC members which makes your argument hypocritical and invalidates it, or India isn't even on the list and your argument is just racism. Either way, you haven't done your research properly.

Original post continues:

US and Russia, UK and France are colored darker than in India in this pic which shows rape rate per 100,000. All are UNSC members. They are between 8 and 31 per 100,000 while India is between 1 and 8 per 100,000. Data on China has been suppressed by Glorious Leader.

Now that I've trashed your argument, with solid, hard facts, welcome to ignore list, reserved especially for narbs like you.

Well just for clarification, European countries on the western and northern front, are ravaged by rapugees, thats why their rapes and crimes have risen. Not only that but their legal and social system allows for the higher percentage of reportings and data collection of them. Honestly in terms of their native population countries like Sweden, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Uk are among the safest on earth. These guys let illegal immigrants rape them and kill them and they sit and do nothing. We southerners (Greeks, Italians etc) are looking at them in awe. Cause its to be expected that when you unleash the muslim factor into that equation, you will have the results you posted, high crimes, high rapes and no way to deal with them. Swedn is a prime example, its become the rape capital of the world and its male population is literally all gay. But you know this, since India has its own problems with its muslim population and as a people you ve been tortured historically not only by the Brits, but even more from the muslims.

India has a lot of problems we know that, but is a nation that is developing and advancing year by year, it has the economy, growth and the military, even going to space now and in terms of human rights, yeah it has some work to reach the standards of Europe, but compared to the rest of the world and its neighbours, Middle eastern countries, Russia and China, i would say its doing fine.

And that can be seen by its immigrants. India has millions of immigrants in Western countries and they are all respectfull, hardworking citizens. They are smart, they bring a rich culture, they integrate and they are peacefull, unlike others (cough muslims)

I think India should have a place at the Un council, it is relevant and advanced enough. Indias biggest problem is overpopulation and the caste system , but i dont think thats Un's business.

Escrito por Darth., 18.01.2017 at 12:03

You cannot calculate Western countries to India. People that are being raped in india are scared to report it to police, and people in Western countries report automaticly. Also, 20 people raped 1 year old child, so much good in that India, they should be colony of england for their good....
Also, just to add to your head, terrorists/refugees are immigrating to European countries....

Give a seat to Israel just to watch all the degenerates start crying

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

Germany is in NATO and thus in the side of freedom

Escrito por Viruslegion, 18.01.2017 at 15:18

Give a seat to Israel just to watch all the degenerates start crying

Support.

Escrito por Skanderbeg, 18.01.2017 at 15:30

Escrito por Darth., 16.01.2017 at 20:55

Germany is in NATO and thus in the side of freedom

If you read further you'd know I was being sarcastic