Schroeder seeks Bush's support for the Security Council

[Q Classic]

I was responding to your initial statement that Germany's more active internationally, which is a matter of debate. Militarily, there's no question, but that isn't what you initially stated.

[Colon™]

Yes, I said there Germany is more active internationally than Japan. And then I questioned whether the reason behind that matters. Wanna run through it again?

[kronic]

Germany today provides the most troops (behind the US) for UN peace keeping missions. That's the reason, why Germany should be in.

However, I'm personally against a permanent seat. These troops out there are a waste of money. Reducing the military budget.

Schröder will probably lose in September, but you can be sure that the new government will try to get a permanent seat as well.

[Drake Tungsten]

Militarily, there's no question, but that isn't what you initially stated.

I don't even know about that. Germany helped in Afghanistan, Japan is helping in Iraq. Germany sents troops to the Balkans, Japan sent troops to Cambodia. Seem to be running about equal recently...

[Ted Striker]

Schroeder bashing is so 2003

[Kuciwalker]

Bush bashing is so 2001.

[Ted Striker]

Bush Bashing is en vogue.

Some of us were onto the trend before it was pop culture cool.

[Drake Tungsten]

Dude, bashing Bush was popular years before you flipped out...

[Ted Striker]

You been out of the country for too long.


Bush bashing was confined to political opponents.

Now the common man realizes what a dork he is.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Some of us were onto the trend before it was pop culture cool.

Yeah, but you aren't one of 'em.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten

Militarily, there's no question, but that isn't what you initially stated.

I don't even know about that. Germany helped in Afghanistan, Japan is helping in Iraq. Germany sents troops to the Balkans, Japan sent troops to Cambodia. Seem to be running about equal recently...

Iraq doesn´t count,
as it was the result of a war started illegally by the USA
(without the O.K. of the UNSC )

Well, although I think that Germany deserves to be a permanent member of the UNSC, I´m against it,
because it is just the institution of permanent seats with veto rights, which makes the Security Council a farce, as you just have to be a permanent member (or on really good standings with a permanent member) to block any decisions against your own country (even if these decisions would be justified, because, for example, you act as an aggressor against your peaceful neighbors)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Schroeder bashing is so 2003

The new trend for 2006 - Merkel bashing.

[Drake Tungsten]

Iraq doesn't count,
as it was the result of a war started illegally by the USA
(without the O.K. of the UNSC )

So was Kosovo...

[GePap]

Iraq doesn't count,
as it was the result of a war started illegally by the USA
(without the O.K. of the UNSC or of ANY international organization, unlike Kosovo, which was blessed by NATO )

Edited for greater clarity.

The US probably does not support a German seat because that would mean too many Europeans.

As for DanS's assertions: The idea that Japan is more "militarilly" capable is a rather fanciful one. Neither country has much force projection capability, but then neither does China and it never really has since 1945, so the notion that UN security council seats are given oput based on military heft is, well, wrong.

Countries give to the UN ona formula based on how big your economy is, since Japan has a bigger economy, it of course gives more money. That is not hard to figure out either.

India or Brazil or South Africa would all make better addition to the SC than Japan, thought addition of more countries than one would be OK.

[Drake Tungsten]

NATO has no more right to wage agressive war without UNSC approval than the United States does.