XPost: alt.united.nations, alt.politics, soc.culture.usa   
   From: matthijs.vandenbos@student.uva.nl_NOSPAM   
      
   On Thu, 1 Apr 2004 01:18:42 -0600, "BTK Strangler"    
   wrote:   
      
      
      
   Although I agree with you that Germany should not be a member, I do   
   not understand all of your arguments. The way you present it, only   
   countries with nuclear weapons should be on the council and on top of   
   that, they should not be afraid to use them: not be a 'wuss'. I do not   
   think it wise to fill the council with war-prone countries, there   
   should be some counter-weight. In ideal circumstances the council   
   would consist of representatives from all important economic and   
   geo-political areas. This insures that decisions will not only be made   
   under the influence of pure muscle.   
      
   Also, you say that a country with a past like Germany has no right of   
   being on the council. I disagree with you on two points. First,   
   although there are differences of scale, this criterium would exlude   
   almost all countries in the world. Second, how long ago do these   
   horrible deeds of a country have to have been committed not to count   
   anymore? For instance, I don't see France, Spain or Britain try to   
   conquer my country in the near future, but they all tried it in the   
   past. Does this mean they are not to be trusted for ever? You have to   
   put things in historical perspective. This also goes very much for a   
   country like Germany, as long as it has changed its ways durably.   
   Forgive, but never forget.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)