NationStates Jolt Archive

I did not make this resolution, but I completely agree and think it is very important...

"A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security Strength: Mild Proposed by: Commies and all others
Description: The earliest recorded Resolution Voted on By the UN has only three votes, 2 for yes one for no, I think its time that the now massive UN should repeal this resolution and vote on it again. The resolution reads as follows.

Fight Axis of Evil

A resolution to improve world security by boosting

police and military budgets.


As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN

member nations must act swiftly in the interests of

peace. This means, of course, building lots of new

weapons. Only by massively increasing military

budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace

and global security. "

At the time of this post, it was in page 8 of the proposals.

What is wrong with it? Are you the axis of evil for saying it should be removed?

I wonder if some folks even know what "axis of evil" means.

I wonder if some folks even know what "axis of evil" means.

Oh, Oh, Oh , I do *raises hand*

http://www.stephaniesworld.com/automatic.jpg

hehe

Peace,
Stephanie.

HeHeHe

But seriously, I doubt Dubya knew what it meant. In 1938(?), Hitler declared, "Berlin will be the axis around which the world will revolve" or something like that. So according to aWol, the world revolves around Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Dumbass. :x

HeHeHe

But seriously, I doubt Dubya knew what it meant. In 1938(?), Hitler declared, "Berlin will be the axis around which the world will revolve" or something like that. So according to aWol, the world revolves around Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

Dumbass. :x

We the PROA would like to think that GB meant that the evil would revolve around the axis, hence axis of evil. Kinda in the same wat the the earth revolves around the earth's axis. Perhaps he should have said evil axis?

I wouldn't worry about this resolution. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too ambiguous to have any effect on anyone. When we joined the UN we followed this. Our military budget was raised by one FD dollar (our root currency). Was that massive or what?

Ok, I just think it is stupid to call ANYTHING the axis of evil. That is implying that everything in a certain area is evil, and that is NEVER true. Even Nazi Germany had good people in it. And ya, Bush should include himself in the axis of evil, after all, he went in a war with a country for "weapons of mass distruction" (which, by the way were never found). He claimed it wasn't for oil, and yet now the US controls all the oil in Iraq (hmm, not for oil, eh). The US has PLENTY of "weapons of mass destruction", and I think Bush is just as likely to use them as Saddam Hussein.

In other words, anything supporting the destruction of the "Axis of Evil" in it is, in my opinion, stupid, because IT DOESN'T EXIST, or IT IS EVERYWHERE!

<( .'. )>

Never mind whether anyone knows the meaning of the term "axis of evil", what about "repeal"?

And you can try all you like, but without cobbling together a realistic invasion (something I think likely beyond the capabilities of ..well never mind that) of the nation, you're not going to get Chivikistan to boost its meagre defence spending. And what's a police?

(Just as likely? Iraq was invaded by the US and the UK, and quickly over-powered, and yet still no "WMD" were used (either 1- because these weapons did not exist, or 2-Iraqis aren't inherantly evil as some would like us to believe). The US would fling nukes around if flippin' Mexico invaded.)

I wouldn't worry about this resolution. It's waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too ambiguous to have any effect on anyone. When we joined the UN we followed this. Our military budget was raised by one FD dollar (our root currency). Was that massive or what?

If I leave the UN right now and rejoin, those previous resolutions (passed before I become a member) no longer apply to me. They aren't retro active. I think only the new ones have effect.

Aoduth, stop wasting our time. 8)

Aoduth, stop wasting our time. 8)

Well, I must not be wasting everyone's time. ANOTHER Thread came up about it.

Don't talk with an ego if ya can't support it.

<( .'. )>

I bet you named your ego Tove Jansson.


Things are dynamic. Alliances change and enemies appear all of the time. That is the nature of things. Not all people can get along and there are varying degrees of evil in this world. To fight the Communists, the US used Osama and his compatriots because the Communists were a threat to the liberty and freedoms of the World more than his then rag-tag army who were fighting for their own lives and their own country. Bill Clinton had the chance to end the threat in 1993 but failed to do so because he did not declare war on terrorism. The US sent AID to Iraq to fight Iran because Iran was and is still an enemy of the US. What better way to fight 2 enemies than making them go at it themselves?

To deny that the former Iraq, Iran and North Korea are our, the US's, enemies is naive and very stupid. They will do anything in their power, besides declaring open war, to hurt and damage America. I say this now because Iran too is threatening US with the development of nuclear weapons. Would a good country do that? No.

More than freezing their bank accounts will stop them so that is why the US sent troops into Iraq and destroyed the bathist party's control over Iraq. Now the people of Iraq are learning it is their own choices that will determine what happens to them and not their corrupt and evil government.

The war has won the peace for the Iraqi peoples. It is only a small minority who are using terrorist methods to kill soldiers keeping the peace in Iraq since they are a hold-over from the last regime.


I would support a proposal to re-affirm the UN's commitment against the Axis of Evil. Not one against it. That's being foolish since deciding not to fight against evil will only lead to more evil. And evil does exist.

8)

I would vote to reinduce the Axis of Evil resolution as well, but I would like to see a little Humanitarian Aid tacked onto it as well. Or, perhaps it should be a seperate bill entirely.

While the American gunslingers are wallowing through the masses of corruption and dispair in Iraq, it seems to me that the PEOPLE of that poor country have been forgotten about. There's got to be something that we, the UN, can do about it.

And of course, exactly what that entails will be argued, debated, and fought upon for hours, until we realize that nothing has been accomplished, and we've all made utter fools of ourselves.

And then we'll pass something just to say that we did.

Or...

We could honestly care about it, and actually DO something.

...Did that make any sense what-so-ever?

...

I'm going back to my mountains now...

It's in the wrong category, surely - if it's a repeal, it must be the opposite category ie. disarmament.

Axis of Evil is a clever phrase but misleading.
AXIS reminds people of WWII.
It implies that Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are in an alliance, despite the fact that Iran and Iraq hare each other and North Korea has nothing to do with them.

However, the "Coalition of the Willing" is sometimes referred to as the Allies, another well-chosen word. Reminds people once again of WWII.
In short, a very clever phrase but deliberately misleading and basically wrong.

It's in the wrong category, surely - if it's a repeal, it must be the opposite category ie. disarmament.

Axis of Evil is a clever phrase but misleading.
AXIS reminds people of WWII.
It implies that Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are in an alliance, despite the fact that Iran and Iraq hare each other and North Korea has nothing to do with them.

However, the "Coalition of the Willing" is sometimes referred to as the Allies, another well-chosen word. Reminds people once again of WWII.
In short, a very clever phrase but deliberately misleading and basically wrong.

I think we should also keep in mind that the US is not at war with Iraq in NS, nor is there a war on terrorism going on at the moment that I know of in NS. ;)

Peace,
Stephanie.

I agree. We should also keep in mind that no-one likes Bush.

But this is more General forum.

Bushes should be pruned.

We kicked saddam's ass. I don't see how anyone could be against that. GO BUSH GO! :D

People are just against Bush. He is a scapegoat for their problems.


8)

hooray for politics etcetera etcetera, but can we return to the topic at hand??
this resolution works AGAINST peace. There is no way to peace, peace IS the way. This resolution must be repealed to ensure peace in our present and our future

Back IC:

I have approved this proposal, but it really needs to be given a rest. It hasn't achieved quorum yet, despite being repeatedly resubmitted, and therefore should probably be given a rest for about a month.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

I think the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution should be repealed irrespective of the meaning of the phrase "Axis of Evil." The point is that this was an outdated resolution that was voted on by a whopping three (3) nations, and that most of us had no say in. I think that all of the delegates should approve the repealment (is that a word?) of the AoE resolution, even if those same delegates would vote against it in the actual vote. The resolution needs to be voted on in the general assembly, or else it will never go away.

It's in the wrong category, surely - if it's a repeal, it must be the opposite category ie. disarmament.

Axis of Evil is a clever phrase but misleading.
AXIS reminds people of WWII.
It implies that Iraq, Iran and N. Korea are in an alliance, despite the fact that Iran and Iraq hare each other and North Korea has nothing to do with them.

However, the "Coalition of the Willing" is sometimes referred to as the Allies, another well-chosen word. Reminds people once again of WWII.
In short, a very clever phrase but deliberately misleading and basically wrong.

We the People's Republic Of Amyth were under the impression that the other side was the "Coalition of Good"

I think the "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution should be repealed irrespective of the meaning of the phrase "Axis of Evil." The point is that this was an outdated resolution that was voted on by a whopping three (3) nations, and that most of us had no say in. I think that all of the delegates should approve the repealment (is that a word?) of the AoE resolution, even if those same delegates would vote against it in the actual vote. The resolution needs to be voted on in the general assembly, or else it will never go away.

Why does it have to go away? Why not just amend it to define an axis of evil instead?

Who cares that only 3 nations voted for it. The important part is they did. It has no bearing on anything. There are laws that have existed far before you, I, or even our grandparents were born.

I agree. We should also keep in mind that no-one likes Bush.

I, for one, am a HUGE fan of bush... oh, wait, you said Bush... never mind.

Ok, Iraq, Iran, and N Koria aren't related to eachother, so it's more of an arc of evil, not an axis. But personally, I think the USA needs to take down Luxemburg next. We've had it up to HERE with all their WMD and stabbing us in the back. Brittian, you want in on this?

People are just against Bush. He is a scapegoat for their problems.


8)

Yeah, especially the people whose problem is the americans invading their country.

Things are dynamic. Alliances change and enemies appear all of the time. That is the nature of things. Not all people can get along and there are varying degrees of evil in this world. To fight the Communists, the US used Osama and his compatriots because the Communists were a threat to the liberty and freedoms of the World more than his then rag-tag army who were fighting for their own lives and their own country. Bill Clinton had the chance to end the threat in 1993 but failed to do so because he did not declare war on terrorism. The US sent AID to Iraq to fight Iran because Iran was and is still an enemy of the US. What better way to fight 2 enemies than making them go at it themselves?.
Oh, so you are one of those people that is afraid of communism. Communism is a perfectly good idea. The only thing that doesn't work aobut it is it requires people to be nice, which we know is obviously not true. You support "freeing the world" by attacking communist countries. IT IS THEIR CHOUCE, NOT OURS! They can become communist if they want. Communists are NOT a threat. They are NOT trying to take over the world. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM COMMUNISM! The countries of Iraq and Iran are not enemies. A few people IN the countries our the enemies.

To deny that the former Iraq, Iran and North Korea are our, the US's, enemies is naive and very stupid. They will do anything in their power, besides declaring open war, to hurt and damage America. I say this now because Iran too is threatening US with the development of nuclear weapons. Would a good country do that? No..
The countries will not. The people will. Why start a war on a country instead of just get rid of a person! I'll tell you why. The US wants to CONTROL the countries for their resources. And the US has plenty of nuclear weapons. So we must not be a good country either.

More than freezing their bank accounts will stop them so that is why the US sent troops into Iraq and destroyed the bathist party's control over Iraq. Now the people of Iraq are learning it is their own choices that will determine what happens to them and not their corrupt and evil government..
Now the people of Iraq choose to have a Theistic government, and the US REFUSES! Now the Iraqi people can use their oil for their economy, except that the US CONTROLS THAT OIL NOW!

The war has won the peace for the Iraqi peoples. It is only a small minority who are using terrorist methods to kill soldiers keeping the peace in Iraq since they are a hold-over from the last regime..
Read my above rebuttle.


I would support a proposal to re-affirm the UN's commitment against the Axis of Evil. Not one against it. That's being foolish since deciding not to fight against evil will only lead to more evil. And evil does exist.
Good for you. But the "Axis of Evil" does not exist. It is just a collection of words to scare the US people in to believing there is a genuine threat. There are PEOPLE that are evil, not countries. There are PLENTY of evil people in the US. I would consider GW Bush one of them, because of what he does for religious and economic reasons (oil). That is war.

<( .'. )>

Instead of getting rid of the resolution, why not propose creating the Axis of Evil?

We the People's Republic Of Amyth would consider setting up a region called "Axis of Evil" if this would help in the solving of this debate.

AXIS OF EVIL

We welcome you all to our region. The Axis of evil is a region of diverse and beautiful scenery. From the oil-sands in the east, to the mountains and forests in the west. In this vast land there is much to be inspired by, from the century old ruins in the birthplace of civilisation and the oriental inspired artifacts that rarely leave their country of origion. There is one common thread throughout the AoE region and that is an anti corporate policy and a strongly held religous belief system. If you would like to be part of the Axis of Evil, you are invited to send a telegram to our regional delegate, and founder the People's Republic Of Amyth...

Who cares that only 3 nations voted for it? The important part is they did.

The "War on Terror" is supposed to bring democracy. Don't you think it's ironic that only 3 nations voted on it, then?

Oh, and my alliance is The Axis of Quite Bad Really When You Think About It. So I was there first.

Oh, so you are one of those people that is afraid of communism. Communism is a perfectly good idea. The only thing that doesn't work aobut it is it requires people to be nice, which we know is obviously not true. You support "freeing the world" by attacking communist countries. IT IS THEIR CHOUCE, NOT OURS! They can become communist if they want. Communists are NOT a threat. They are NOT trying to take over the world. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM COMMUNISM! The countries of Iraq and Iran are not enemies. A few people IN the countries our the enemies.

Can you tell me one communist country that you would want to live in and not just vacation in? Any? :D
Communism is a perfectly good idea if you want the government to tell you what you should do, what you should own, and where you should live.
It may be their choice to be communist but they were not the US's friends. They were trying to take over the world but because communism is such a horrible government in practice, only those governments that were isolated from globalism could survive.

Although there are many people in Iraq and Iran that are not the US's enemies, you can find many of the people who hate the US in their countries' governments. And if the people didn't want enemies of the U.S. as their leaders in their government, wouldn't they change their government?
Iraq was the US's enemy and Iran and North Korea are still are. If they felt there would be no reprisals, Iran would declare jihad against the great satan trying to convert everyone to fundamentalist islam, and North Korea would try to take over South Korea by killing millions of people .

The countries will not. The people will. Why start a war on a country instead of just get rid of a person! I'll tell you why. The US wants to CONTROL the countries for their resources. And the US has plenty of nuclear weapons. So we must not be a good country either.


Do you think that Sadam did everything himself? No, he had help. And to get rid of his total regime, the US and UK sent troops into Iraq.

Why would North Korea and Iran want weapons of mass destruction? :?: Because they feel that the US is their enemy. When the US was in the cold war, the US built up its nuclear and chemical weapons which caused the USSR to follow suit which caused them to go bankrupt ending the communist experiment in utter failure. The US still has these weapons, but at a significantly smaller number since the fall of the USSR.

The US could have ended UN sanctions and let Sadam run Iraq any way he wanted and the US would have gotten much more oil at a much lower cost. Instead the US invaded Iraq because Sadam's regime was hurting the people it was susposed to be protecting.

Now the people of Iraq choose to have a Theistic government, and the US REFUSES! Now the Iraqi people can use their oil for their economy, except that the US CONTROLS THAT OIL NOW!

Some people of Iraq choose to have an Islamic fundamentalistic government and of course the US refuses. The iraq people for too long have been the pawns of the bathist regime and their religion's most fundamentalistic leaders. They have little experience with a free and democratic system of government. So they will need time befor they can truely decide the government that suits them.

The Iraq government is corrupt even now. That is why the US still controls the money recieved from the oil and gives it fairly to the iraqi people. If you have read unbiased news, you would know that.


Good for you. But the "Axis of Evil" does not exist. It is just a collection of words to scare the US people in to believing there is a genuine threat. There are PEOPLE that are evil, not countries. There are PLENTY of evil people in the US. I would consider GW Bush one of them, because of what he does for religious and economic reasons (oil). That is war.

The Axis of Evil does exist. They may not be allies, they may not even like each other but each of the countries governments in the Axis of Evil does not like the US. To say that the ""Axis of Evil"" doesn't exist and therefore isn't a threat is foolish. These countries are made from people who have governments that threaten the US.

I know there are people in the US that think George W. Bush is a threat, a threat to their anti-americanism, their blissfull peace, and their willingness to work against america.

He didn't do it for economic reasons, he did it for the security of the US and the world. Haven't you been outside your room and seen the prices for things and heard about the moderate unemployment?

He didn't do it for religous reasons. Stop making thinks up.


<(IPWNU)>

If it had not been for the weak willed ambassadors in the UN, Iraq and Saddam would have been taken out of the picture in 91. People have tried to alter the truth, but some still know it.

Ookami

Oh, so you are one of those people that is afraid of communism. Communism is a perfectly good idea. The only thing that doesn't work aobut it is it requires people to be nice, which we know is obviously not true. You support "freeing the world" by attacking communist countries. IT IS THEIR CHOUCE, NOT OURS! They can become communist if they want. Communists are NOT a threat. They are NOT trying to take over the world. THERE IS NO THREAT FROM COMMUNISM! The countries of Iraq and Iran are not enemies. A few people IN the countries our the enemies.

Can you tell me one communist country that you would want to live in and not just vacation in? Any? :D
Communism is a perfectly good idea if you want the government to tell you what you should do, what you should own, and where you should live.
It may be their choice to be communist but they were not the US's friends. They were trying to take over the world but because communism is such a horrible government in practice, only those governments that were isolated from globalism could survive.

Although there are many people in Iraq and Iran that are not the US's enemies, you can find many of the people who hate the US in their countries' governments. And if the people didn't want enemies of the U.S. as their leaders in their government, wouldn't they change their government?
Iraq was the US's enemy and Iran and North Korea are still are. If they felt there would be no reprisals, Iran would declare jihad against the great satan trying to convert everyone to fundamentalist islam, and North Korea would try to take over South Korea by killing millions of people .

First, if there were a communist country that was correctly communist, I would want to live there. But like I said, and obviously you didn't read, communism doesn't work because people are not inherently nice. At one point in time (not currently) they were trying to SPREAD communism. The US tries to SPREAD democracy. If there is something wrong with spreading your beliefs, then the US is doing something utterly awful.

So is there something wrong with disliking a country? If you dislike North Korea's government, shouldn't they have the right to dislike ours? If they are our enemies, shouldn't we be theirs? It doesn't mean ANYBODY will attack ANYBODY. And it should be the one who attacks first that is in the wrong. Wait... the US attacked Iraq first. They disliked our government, we disliked theirs, and we attacked first.

The countries will not. The people will. Why start a war on a country instead of just get rid of a person! I'll tell you why. The US wants to CONTROL the countries for their resources. And the US has plenty of nuclear weapons. So we must not be a good country either.


Do you think that Sadam did everything himself? No, he had help. And to get rid of his total regime, the US and UK sent troops into Iraq.

Why would North Korea and Iran want weapons of mass destruction? :?: Because they feel that the US is their enemy. When the US was in the cold war, the US built up its nuclear and chemical weapons which caused the USSR to follow suit which caused them to go bankrupt ending the communist experiment in utter failure. The US still has these weapons, but at a significantly smaller number since the fall of the USSR.

The US could have ended UN sanctions and let Sadam run Iraq any way he wanted and the US would have gotten much more oil at a much lower cost. Instead the US invaded Iraq because Sadam's regime was hurting the people it was susposed to be protecting.

Maybe they want weapons of mass destruction for defense. So they have a backup. So if someone attacks them, they can strike back. AND IRAQ DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THESE WEAPONS! So whose to say North Korea and Iran do? North Korea just needs NUCLEAR POWER. Have you ever heard of it? We made them stop having power, THEY CAN'T USE ELECTRICITY. Why do you think they hate us? I don't oppose changing the government, but THOSE WEREN'T the main reasons for the war. If we were just going to change the government, we'd let the Iraqis do it themselves via rebellion, and maybe send them aid. We have done that before. But WE went in a full scale war.

Now the people of Iraq choose to have a Theistic government, and the US REFUSES! Now the Iraqi people can use their oil for their economy, except that the US CONTROLS THAT OIL NOW!

Some people of Iraq choose to have an Islamic fundamentalistic government and of course the US refuses. The iraq people for too long have been the pawns of the bathist regime and their religion's most fundamentalistic leaders. They have little experience with a free and democratic system of government. So they will need time befor they can truely decide the government that suits them.

The Iraq government is corrupt even now. That is why the US still controls the money recieved from the oil and gives it fairly to the iraqi people. If you have read unbiased news, you would know that.

How do you know you aren't reading biased news. There is a lot of bias in America. There is NO unbiased news. I read a lot of news, and come up with my own conclusions. And you speak like Iraqis are little kids. They need us to support them while they transition. Give me a break. Iraqis know their situation, and would CHOOSE a theistic government.


Good for you. But the "Axis of Evil" does not exist. It is just a collection of words to scare the US people in to believing there is a genuine threat. There are PEOPLE that are evil, not countries. There are PLENTY of evil people in the US. I would consider GW Bush one of them, because of what he does for religious and economic reasons (oil). That is war.

The Axis of Evil does exist. They may not be allies, they may not even like each other but each of the countries governments in the Axis of Evil does not like the US. To say that the ""Axis of Evil"" doesn't exist and therefore isn't a threat is foolish. These countries are made from people who have governments that threaten the US.

I know there are people in the US that think George W. Bush is a threat, a threat to their anti-americanism, their blissfull peace, and their willingness to work against america.

He didn't do it for economic reasons, he did it for the security of the US and the world. Haven't you been outside your room and seen the prices for things and heard about the moderate unemployment?

He didn't do it for religous reasons. Stop making thinks up.


So because some country doesn't like the US makes it evil? That's the worst remark of all. NO civilization will last forever, not even the US. The US is not the all good, all knowing country of infinite power. There are plenty of things wrong with the US, and anyone can see that. Even if it IS better than all other countries, which is definately arguable, to say the least, there are things which some countries should have the right to not like us for. I am not anti-American, I am anti-Bush. In my opinion, which I am entitled to have because I live here, Bush is doing more harm to the US than good.

He warred not for economic reasons, per se... but for oil company reasons. The oil companies are tied closely with government. Cars could have completely run without gasoline if this were not so. But there has been little research on this because of the government-oil company tie, proving once again that it is not communist governments only that are corrupt, it is all government, because people aren't nice. Bush has only HURT the economy, however. A tax break for the rich!? What do you think they are going to do? How did they become rich in the first place. By hoarding all their money, or inheriting, in which case they will not be rich much longer. The ones who hoard, what do you think they will do with the tax break? That's right, hoard, not spend. He is spending WAY too much, and giving WAY too much. The economy is going down the drain.

That is why I dislike Bush. Oh, and about the religious note, I have a feeling you are Christian. That is because it seems that that is the only group who denies Bush has a religious tie with the war. To almost everybody else, it is OBVIOUS. After all, "our prayers go out with the soldiers," "God bless America," and "may God be with you" are three VERY commmon phrases of the president.

<( .'. )>