NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, listen up wolfish. Were not all little goodie goodie democracies. I will continue to torture my prisoners and citizens no matter what go it? Everyone vote against this horrible resolution.

calling it "Wolfish's POW thingy" doesn't make you sound very scholarly.

I voted yes....ppl who don't like it can always leave the UN.

Why should they leave?
Well the UN is a democratic system and the thought of doing what the majority agrees to must repel them.
If they like doing these things to their prisoners then the goody goody attitude of most nations in the UN must make them sick.

Vote yes!!! It's the first resolution in a while that actually looks and reads like a resolution in fact it is a real resolution in real life.. well part of the Geneva Conventions on warfare... You'll be hard pressed to find fault in this one!

Peace,
Stephanie.

I voted yes....ppl who don't like it can always leave the UN.

Why should they leave?
Well the UN is a democratic system and the thought of doing what the majority agrees to must repel them.
If they like doing these things to their prisoners then the goody goody attitude of most nations in the UN must make them sick.

Ha... I voted yes, but only because I would not want my troops, should they ever become prisoners in various wars, to be mistreated by the usual type of "goodly democracies" that I usually attack.

Anyway, as to your first point "the thought of doing what the majority agrees to" crap simply means that the UN is a system of tyranny by the majority. One cannot leave the UN without forfeiting Delegateship and endorsements, so its not fair to say that you can "just quit if you don't like it."

Major reform must be undertaken, however all of these so-called democracies usually avoid UN-Limitation proposals, such as my modest nullification proposal a few days back or the more extreme "Dissolve the UN" proposals that are on the list every time you check.

The civil treatment of all people is one that should be enforced all the time. Sometimes wars are necessary to relay a point, but that doesnt mean individuals who are captured should be subjected to any kind of torture. VOTE YES!!!

I voted no, because I think this resolution encourages battlefield executions. Think for a minute: why would I capture someone, who's probably going to give me trouble anyway, if I have to feed, clothe and house him, and I can't grill him for information? What's the point of taking prisoners then?
I'd just kill them on the spot.
"I never saw no white flag..." :twisted:

I voted yes. My nation does, at present, treat prisoners with the care suggested in the resolution. I think it is only right that other nations - if they wish to remain in the UN - treat their prisoners this way also. It's the right thing to do.

I will make one more point, in response to the ambassador for the AH Dynasties. Once an enemy soldier is in your custody, to the extent that you are able to carry out a battlefield execution, they are already a prisoner of war. Thus, any battlefield execution would not relieve you of your duty towards him; it would in fact be in direct contravention of the resolution and therefore an illegal act.

In that case, not so much battlefield executions as making sure everyone is dead before finishing an advance on a barticular battlefield.
Also, the line about the white flag; troops could always just lie about enemy surrenders. :twisted:

I will protect the rights of my prisoners however, they are mine... To surrender to the Reich is to forfeit most of those rights.. I will continue to use them as slave labor. We need them to run our armament factories and so i vote NO!!! for this resolution... And I will vote NO against anyother resolution that is put for the Soviet Nations and their allies in this body... This does not benefit the Reich and is a plot by the Communists to bring down the reich. :twisted:

Resolutions like these make me glad that the Rajik removed the Republic from the United Nations.

The UN should learn to respect our minority rights before forcing us to respect others'.

With all due respect I will also be voting against this proposal. I believe it holds democracies to a false standard that their opponents will ignore or flaunt at will, while we will be expected to observe them to our extra cost.

While its intentions are admirable, I will not submit Fort Maine to any more disadvantages in attempting to deal with the totalitarians and theocrats I am in the midst of.

You might aswell just vote yes cause it's ganna pass anyway, there are to many "goody goody democracies", as some people call them, out there who beleive that they should treat people and prisoners of war fairly.

Carpage, and apparently the NCA nations have voted YES. Enemy prisoners are treated very well here. Thankfully we avoid wars in our pursuit of profit.

Uncooperative Prisoners we have taken in the past received:

A religious book.
A personal cot and pillow.
A room (approx. 10 x 5)
Excercise time daily
Three square meals a day
Plenty of water
Prompt release after conflict

Cooperative Prisoners received:

A subscription to any Carpage magazine
A religious book
A bed
A 200 sq ft suite with bathroom and controlled Television
Excercise time daily
Three daily buffets
Catered snacks
Swimming pool time
X-Box and all video games
Daily hookers
Weekly keg party
Prompt release, despite them pleading to stay


All prisoners should be treated thusly, so we support Wolfish.

While its intentions are admirable, I will not submit Fort Maine to any more disadvantages in attempting to deal with the totalitarians and theocrats I am in the midst of.you're in the midst of the USA :shock: ?we truly sympathize.Do you require assistance against the land of the (non)free?

Carpage, and apparently the NCA nations have voted YES. Enemy prisoners are treated very well here. Thankfully we avoid wars in our pursuit of profit.

Uncooperative Prisoners we have taken in the past received:

A religious book.
A personal cot and pillow.
A room (approx. 10 x 5)
Excercise time daily
Three square meals a day
Plenty of water
Prompt release after conflict

Cooperative Prisoners received:

A subscription to any Carpage magazine
A religious book
A bed
A 200 sq ft suite with bathroom and controlled Television
Excercise time daily
Three daily buffets
Catered snacks
Swimming pool time
X-Box and all video games
Daily hookers
Weekly keg party
Prompt release, despite them pleading to stay


All prisoners should be treated thusly, so we support Wolfish.

Wow. I'm going to start a war with you guys. Take me now!

If you are going to go out and kill a bunch of people, and some of your citizens get captured, having the possibility of them being treated badly is a price you'd have to pay.

Ok, listen up wolfish. Were not all little goodie goodie democracies. I will continue to torture my prisoners and citizens no matter what go it? Everyone vote against this horrible resolution.
OOC:

You could quit the UN then
I did.

It's sort of like "I'm going to go kill a bunch of people, but if I capture them, we all have to be nice."

IC:

Our prisoners are treated under... below standard condition in normal jails. As for POWs, they are treated well, if they tell us enough infomation.

If we were in the UN, we would vote AGAINST.

Foreign Affairs Ministry

Ok, listen up wolfish. Were not all little goodie goodie democracies. I will continue to torture my prisoners and citizens no matter what go it? Everyone vote against this horrible resolution.
OOC:

You could quit the UN then
I did.


Just curious but then what are you doing here, do you still care what goes on in the UN?

Just curious but then what are you doing here, do you still care what goes on in the UN?
OOC: Yes.

Draztonia voted yes, we don't go to war so it doesn't matter that much to us, but if someone wants to take some of our people prisoner I'd like them to be treated nicely.

OOC: Just so I understand what some of you are saying correctly. Are you saying that you disagree with the real world Geneva Conventions on warfare? That you believe it is intrinsically flawed? That war crimes such as the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal held at the Hague after WWII to hold the Nazi's accountable for what they did should never of happened?

I'm just curious.. because this resolution completely mirrors a part of that convention most notable the 1929 Geneva Convention on treatment of POW's. Look it up.. you'll see for yourself.

Peace,
Stephanie.

OOC: Just so I understand what some of you are saying correctly. Are you saying that you disagree with the real world Geneva Conventions on warfare? That you believe it is intrinsically flawed? That war crimes such as the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal held at the Hague after WWII to hold the Nazi's accountable for what they did should never of happened?

I'm just curious.. because this resolution completely mirrors a part of that convention most notable the 1929 Geneva Convention on treatment of POW's. Look it up.. you'll see for yourself.

Peace,
Stephanie.

I support this resolution, but I definitely think Nuremberg went a little too far. Field Marshal von Keitel was hanged even though he personally intervened in stopping the execution of thousands of Jews.

Can we eat them?

To quote the motto of my fellow nation Googlesnap (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=googlesnap), "If you can't beat them, eat them."

Of course, I don't believe them meant it in quite that way. ;)

Ok, listen up wolfish. Were not all little goodie goodie democracies. I will continue to torture my prisoners and citizens no matter what go it? Everyone vote against this horrible resolution.

I'm trying to understand which is more horrible: The way you claim to treat your POW's or this resolution...

I think the Geneva convention was just a lot of false hopes anyway....

when one counrty goes to war with another hoping to treat the people who killed your freinds with respect is a little overated, and maybe those politicians should try it...

as far as this goes, its war, which, may I add for those of you who forgot, a dirty rotten, dispicable thing. Thats war, its not a game during recess, like this is :)

It's sort of like "I'm going to go kill a bunch of people, but if I capture them, we all have to be nice."

That's exactly what it is. Instigating a war is the last resort of failed policy. But unless you believe either:

1. All war can be eliminated, or
2. We should embrace barbarism

then the attempt to formulate "rules" around which wars are fought and standards to which those who fight them must be held is the only civilized option available.

I happen to think that it would be possible to eliminate war by using the UN as an aggressive instument of peacekeeping. This would mean:

Phase 1. Formulating a world disarmament policy which all UN member nations could endorse.
Phase 2. Creating the UN armed forces to replace the armed forces of all member states.
Phase 3. Negotiating with all non-UN countries to endorse the disarmament policy adopted by the UN.
Phase 4. Inviting all of the world's non-UN countries to voluntarily disarm and open their borders to regular regional inspection. Incent compliance with favorable trade status and punish non-compliance with sanctions.
Phase 5. Requiring all armed nations to disarm upon threat of invasion.

That oughta do it.

8)

The government of Isla de Penguinata has voted FOR the said Resolution, in accordance with the fact that all prisoners should be treated humanely, and that the nation of Wolfish is a dear friend and ally of ours.

~Office of Foreign Affairs.
*******************************************
OOC:

I'm going to follow this resolution, but there is a loophole. Simply do not capture anyone. :wink: I did leave the UN for a short while, but I returned because I enjoy voting, and it gives me an amount of respect. Sort of.. :?

i think i have this all worked out. It's all about definitions. I never keep POW's so i can vote for this resolution and feel secure. How ever any one who wages war on my nation or any nation that refuses to yeld to my power will now being classed as illigal compatants (and under MalPractian law there is now way to prove otherwise) thus the rights described in this resolution will not apply to you.

I still insist that if it ever kicks off and the nation states do go to war, the liberal democracies will be the first to fall.

One question though b4 i go. If u are in the UN and you don't follow the rules, what happens??

I voted yes becuz

1. It's based on several real resolutions against the ever more popular Iraq

2. it just seems fair to treat POW's like your own troops

and 3. I'm gettin several endorsments for voting for FOR this resolution

The Free Land of Yshurak voted YES for this resolution because we believe in fair, humanitarian treatment of all human beings. We feel that this resolution will bring further peace among the world.

I voted against. Torturing prisoners is just to much fun on a slow Sunday night.

The entire purpose of war is to attempt to further one's country. With this resolution, we all lose the ability to use necessary means to win a war. Some of the points are good, but the points I speak of specifically are the ones denying a country the right to coerce information out of prisoners. Furthermore, the country is feeding the prisoners, so it might as well put the prisoners to work. Forced manual labor is a quality of prisons that needs to stay. With this resolution, even the real-world USA would be in blatant violation of it, along with numerous other countries. This resolution violates all nations' right to win wars. Vote no!

One question though b4 i go. If u are in the UN and you don't follow the rules, what happens??

See, that's the thing. Very few nations will attack you for violating a UN Resolution, and I have never witnessed such an attack myself. However, it's expected that you follow UN rules if you are in the UN, otherwise it would be pointless to be in it.

There are the rules, but there is noone to police the rules to make sure they are followed.

In accordance our polices with POWs and not being a member of the United Nations, we shall not agree to this or abide. Any nations being members of the United Nations that we do go to war with, their POWs shall recivie treatment as we see fit.

The Dictatorship of Marno

It's sort of like "I'm going to go kill a bunch of people, but if I capture them, we all have to be nice."

That's exactly what it is. Instigating a war is the last resort of failed policy. But unless you believe either:

1. All war can be eliminated, or
2. We should embrace barbarism

then the attempt to formulate "rules" around which wars are fought and standards to which those who fight them must be held is the only civilized option available.

I happen to think that it would be possible to eliminate war by using the UN as an aggressive instument of peacekeeping. This would mean:

Phase 1. Formulating a world disarmament policy which all UN member nations could endorse.
Phase 2. Creating the UN armed forces to replace the armed forces of all member states.
Phase 3. Negotiating with all non-UN countries to endorse the disarmament policy adopted by the UN.
Phase 4. Inviting all of the world's non-UN countries to voluntarily disarm and open their borders to regular regional inspection. Incent compliance with favorable trade status and punish non-compliance with sanctions.
Phase 5. Requiring all armed nations to disarm upon threat of invasion.

That oughta do it.

8)so your answer to the POW situation is gun control? Go hug a Kennedy already.

This resolution breaks the policies of my nation and for that Nevermoore refuses to support it.

Any man or woman taking up arms against Nevermoore is immediately found guilty of High Treason and all their rights are made void. Any P.O.W. seized by us during wartime will be interrogated and publicly executed for their efforts to destroy/weaken Nevermoore. This is also an incentive not to enter into combat with Nevermoore, if you value the well being of your military personnel.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

OOC: Such a pleasent first post for this nation, isn't it?

We, the people of Buffalo-Niagara, are committed to the humane treatment of all POW's engaged in armed, intra- and international conflict. However, the articles of the proposed convention do not take into account the rights of the holding nation to account for the security of their nation while in possession and care of the captives. In order for an affirmative vote, our state will require an amendment clearly outlining the requisite behaviour of all POW's, in order that the guidelines of the aforementioned convention apply. E.g. A POW in our custody is known by evidence and testimony of his own compatriots to be plotting sabotage on the supply of our troops. This "non-combatant" captive is a threat and must be dealt with as a threat. When the convention recognizes the rights of the captors as well as those of the captives, we will approve the measures set forth.

Sincerely,
Consul Gordon Downie
Hip to a Tragic Degree

I'm against it because of this line in Article 2:
The present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.

All some bunch of terrorists needs to do is claim that it was an act of war & you cannot penalise them to the extent of the law, up to & including death sentence, if & when you catch them.

licknkitty does not recognize prisoners of war, any member of any country that is in our borders without permission is executed by law for criminal trespass. we hold our property rights sacred. with the enforcement of public floggings and executions crime became non existent in our huge safe nation :D do not make the mistake of coming onto our soil with the intent to break any law whether this resolution passes or not.

licknkitty does not even believe in war any fight is ended with swift retribution within 1 hour of any country declaring war on licknkitty every school, hospital,food processing plant we know of, and supermarket will have a missile pointed at it or be on a bombing run schedule. then the aggressors can try attacking us while mourning the loss of their next generation and starving. in licknkitty we believe that any act of aggression is to be dealt with in the quickest most aggressive form we can think of.

New Port adamantly opposes the Wolfish Convention on POWs.

Most points are agreeable, however New Port does not mindlessly torture every POW who comes into our grasp. We have prided ourselves for decades on our ability to scare the crap out of criminals into confessing crimes, and likewise to POWs for confessing information vital to the survival of our citizens.

This convention if passed will foolishly weaken or further weaken nations whose very survival depends on information divulged from POWs. I leave it up to you to decide what is more important.

The comfort of one POW or the lives of hundreds or thousands of your nation's soldiers.

I opposed this resolution as a war isnt really a normal situation and there would be many cases of troops killing prisoners, imagine having to be nice to someone that wiped out your friends!

Everyone should vote against it. I reserve the right to torture my POWs.

Its passing whesther anybody likes it or not, srry but thats the truth! Unless you can come up with about 4000 votes to not support it.

Everyone should vote against it. I reserve the right to torture my POWs.

Then do you also support your enemies torturing your troops? That must be a great way to get people signed up for service with your military. Good luck with that.

It's a sound proposal. If you can't abide by it when it is passed, resign. Simple, really.

Sincerely,
The President of the Republic of Sparkinia

The problem is that the resolution is too bloody difficult to practice...and who is gonna keep a watch on whats goin' on anyway?? i am surely not gonna let the red cross or the amnesty bastards to enter my country during war....if i catch intruders on my side of the line...i will do bloody whatever i want with them. anyways my nation has a no-first attack policy...it is better to have a resolution regarding this rule rather than human rights for pows. let's vote against this one ...and discourage our enemies from waging war against us.

War is a project defined by death. All soldiers are trained to kill or be killed. This is a voluntary notion on their part.

Please dont forget that mankinds history has been written by the pain and suffering that warfare causes.

If I declare war on you I cant expect you will treat me or my soldiers with the rights and respect this convention outlines...nor can I dedicate this myself.

War is an action of elimination not preservation.

War is a project defined by death. All soldiers are trained to kill or be killed. This is a voluntary notion on their part.

Please dont forget that mankinds history has been written by the pain and suffering that warfare causes.

If I declare war on you I cant expect you will treat me or my soldiers with the rights and respect this convention outlines...nor can I dedicate this myself.

War is an action of elimination not preservation.

Regardless of how bloody a war is - there are bound to be prisoners.

It 's the reason why I don't join up... too many measures based rubbish like 'human rights' (beyond what justifies the creation of the state in the first place i.e. protection of self and property from violation by others) and 'social justice' (an outmoded socialist concept that dicourages self reliance and prevents wealth generation).

To the end of protecting it's citizens and their property. It is sometimes necessary for states to take extreme measures and make tough decisions.

Since it is obvious the witless sheep of the United Nations intend to pass this terrible rabble may I ask the punishment for breaking this resolution? There is no mention of any repercussions for breaking it at all in the resolution. Are we using the honor system here?

If you do figure out a way to 'punish' Nevermoore if it does indeed break these 'laws' in warfare then I am afraid our policies will be altered to "Take no prisoners and recognize no surrender."

Nevermoore is confident however that we will not have to use these policies since we have not yet entered into combat with another NationState.

Nevermoore's Ambassador to the United Nations:
Emelia Hearting

Im in the UN for region crashing. Not to follow the damn resolutions..only one has been really good and thats the stupid lawsuits one. VOTE NO!

(Has anyone pointed out to the bright sparks who're claiming one can 'get around' the convention by executing would-be prisoners that to do so would be a war crime anyway? Do please pay attention to the blatantly obvious!)

(Has anyone pointed out to the bright sparks who're claiming one can 'get around' the convention by executing would-be prisoners that to do so would be a war crime anyway? Do please pay attention to the blatantly obvious!)

How is it a war crime to kill an enemy soldier during a war? The only surrenders we will recognize are official ones from the government of the opposing nation. All individual surrenders coming from soldiers may be an underhanded attempt to sneak attack my army and they will all be treated as traps.

Besides I see no previous legislature defining a "war crime" anyway nor is it stated in the current resolution up for vote that shooting an enemy on sight is a "crime".

Why is it that wherever I go to any forum I always find something bad about communists? Really this is getting very freaking annoying and we are quickly tiring of all the crap. :evil: I have voted yes on this resolution it is not because I love the enemy but because I think of my people first. Now... my Empire has never been in any war but in the supposition that it did occur, I would not like to know that my brave amazon warriors and their men are out there living through hell and being tortured by the evil enemy soldiers. If some of you don't agree with one or two of the points in the resolution my suggestion is that we ensure an amendment to fix the problem. As to the fact that many nations do not seem to plan abiding by the U.N. rules perhaps the huge, economically, militarily Empire of Flamazon, the entire "Slavyanskiy Cayuz" (Slavic Union) and all of their allies will wage war on the dishonorable nation who does not comply. 8) until then...Da Svidaniya!!!
@--;---- Empress Marina Vladiovna Romanova of Flamazon

I doubt you would wage war on a January nation. :roll:

I doubt you would wage war on a January nation. :roll:

IdP - where you been? Nice to see you turn up for this.

lol, Wolfish. I've been around, I just had a brief downtime w/ NS because school just started. But I have posted several things in this thread. I'm supporting your resolution because it's the right thing to do. :)

A war against a January nation?!!! :lol: I am talking about among other enemy Nazis, the fifth reign/realm/empire also known as Das Funft Reich...which has a population of 8 million compared to my 245 million. A small German nation with a very strong economy compared to my powerful, overwhelming frightening economy. I do believe I would win the war...besides I have many other communist allies of mine at 000 Stalingrad and my comrades at the "Slavyanskiy Cayuz"

Marina Vladiovna Romanova, Ruler and Empress of Flamazon

Flamazon, bullying is pathetic.. :roll:

It is not called bullying, don't mistake it for that comrade...I am merely stating facts. I would leave all of those Nazis alone if they but left us in peace and didn't try to pick a fight against our beliefs. Be respectful. The Flamazonian Empire has never been in a war but we will fight if we must. I do not fight without being provoked...I have been provoked. I am willing to let this all go if they cease their outbursts of disrespect, otherwise be prepared for our communist wrath.

>.<

I as well, cannot vote in favour of this resolution.
War is wrong. Simply being involved bears consequences.
I do not condone it. Nor have I any plans to involve in one.
However; I believe that in the U.N. we make resolutions in the best interests of the citizens of each of our countries. As leaders, we represent OUR people; not those of other countries. If obtaining information (if perhaps in not the kindest of ways) from P.O.W's benefits MY people, who are my FIRST priority, I cannot stand by and accept a proposal by the U.N. that would deprive me of the ability to do what is best for my own.
This is not to say I intend to torture them. I would always, without question, attempt to diplomatically settle the matter first. Should that fail, however, less than diplomatic means may be applied to obtain the necessary information to end the war, thereby (and hopefully) causing less deaths in the brutality and carnage of military conflict.
I see the kindness in the proposal, however, not the practicality, nor the benefit for MY citizens.
I respectfully vote No.
-Sincerely,
Uber, Leader of the Most Serene Republic of Fenisia

either way if you want to vote against it vote against it, in real life you probably live in a free country and if not hopefully you won't get caught talking good things about their POW's. anyways even if you doooo vote aginst wolfishes POW resolution it will still be enacted 6000 to 1500.

Bloody good job too.

It's terribly difficult to argue this IC, because in reality, the only national leaders who might oppose it would be tin pot dictators destined to fall victim to a bloody coup, or else the US government, given half a chance. Can't argue against that bloody-mindedness.
It's most irksome that people won't RP the negative consiquences of ignoring the resolution. As, I think Wolfish? suggested, it's not likely to help moral much.

And why the heck are people wailing about it being difficult to enforce? What resolution isn't? And have you never heard of Switzerland?

:roll:

Everyone should vote against it. I reserve the right to torture my POWs.

Then do you also support your enemies torturing your troops? That must be a great way to get people signed up for service with your military. Good luck with that.

No, no. You see, I torture them to get info and if they torture us, then we kill them.

Rules protect the weak.

Ok, listen up wolfish. Were not all little goodie goodie democracies. I will continue to torture my prisoners and citizens no matter what go it? Everyone vote against this horrible resolution.
OOC:what about you grow up?the UN isn't about syaing "OMFG i'm evil!!!!!!!1111" but serious debating.

If you don't want to treat them nicely, don't capture them in the first place. There are other ways of finding enemy secrets.

I still think it needs things that discuss the taking of prisoners and killing the prisoners or what happens when they die?

We have decided that, should this resolution pass, the taking of prisoners is to expensive. They are useless, they are dregs upon my economy, without an ounce of worth to Us. Therefore, should Our nation, God forbid, ever come into a state of war, all enemy combatants will be killed. We are not going to pay for free medical care, soft beds, etc for POWs, who are on a mission to see Our nation destroyed, when Our own people have to pay for their own things.

The alternative would be to ship them all to Wolfish.

I will vote no. The reason is that extending protections to combatants that don't follow the convention is counter-productive.

You let them attempt to gain an advantage by not engaging in prohibited actions while still gaining the benefits the conventions rules. You are rewarding them for not following the code.

A system that rewards bad behavior is, IMO, poorly thought out.

This is the wost resolution I've voted on. butthen theres alwas isolation as a tortuer.

My belief is that POW's should be treated with dignity and honor. That belief is shared by the people of Blamgolia. When enemies are captured, we still treat them as human beings and worthy adversaries in times of war. We allow them the amenities allowed to prisoners, and some other things, like a dormitory-like location w/walk-in showers, 3 meals, snacks on occasion, limited television and internet access, and prompt release after the war is over.

We will follow the full spirit of these conventions.

well i voted no because i believe my nation has the right to choose whether or not they want to toture their spies or not without the consent of NationStates' UN policy.

lol if this policy gets passed it wont effect the gameplay of NationStates.

Would this bind UN members to abide by these restrictions even in war against non-signatory nations? If so, I will vote against it. If not, I will vote for it. I am willing to agree to these restrictions only in war against nations that have agreed to the same.

there won't be any war because the NationStates hasn't offically made one lol so why do we need such policy when its for personal gains?

oh well good thing this policy won't really affect any of our UN nations...

I simply resigned. Why? Well to hell with the UN. If i decide to torture my POW's, then ill do so. If i decide to execute them, then i will. The UN and nobody else should be able to FORCE a nation into this or anything. It should be up to individual nations to devide wether to adopt it or not.

I simply resigned. Why? Well to hell with the UN. If i decide to torture my POW's, then ill do so. If i decide to execute them, then i will. The UN and nobody else should be able to FORCE a nation into this or anything. It should be up to individual nations to devide wether to adopt it or not.

Well - simply put - you're wrong.

When your nation decided to join an organization, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by that organization - and voted upon by the member nations.

Part of the problem with the NS UN is that the mechanics for booting someone like you from the organization are not in place.

I´ll just declare them "Enemy Combattants" and execute them anyways after I grilled them for information.... If that ever gives me trouble I´ll execute the general responsible. I can always promote some expendable idiot and sacrifice him in time of need.

Or I´ll just act like Israel does and ignore the UN altogether when they say something I don´t like... There´s many ways :-)

I´ll just declare them "Enemy Combattants" and execute them anyways after I grilled them for information.... If that ever gives me trouble I´ll execute the general responsible. I can always promote some expendable idiot and sacrifice him in time of need.

Or I´ll just act like Israel does and ignore the UN altogether when they say something I don´t like... There´s many ways :-)

I hate to say it but NS UN is not like the Real world UN this is pointed out clearly on the UN pages here, again in the help, I've written it god only knows how many times on the board here.
You cannot ignore resolutions that have been passed by the UN if you are a member of the UN, if this breaks your roleplay then this breaks your roleplay, this I hate to be the one to break it to you is not the real world.

Lots of Love
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I´ll just declare them "Enemy Combattants" and execute them anyways after I grilled them for information.... If that ever gives me trouble I´ll execute the general responsible. I can always promote some expendable idiot and sacrifice him in time of need.

Or I´ll just act like Israel does and ignore the UN altogether when they say something I don´t like... There´s many ways :-)

I hate to say it but NS UN is not like the Real world UN this is pointed out clearly on the UN pages here, again in the help, I've written it god only knows how many times on the board here.
You cannot ignore resolutions that have been passed by the UN if you are a member of the UN, if this breaks your roleplay then this breaks your roleplay, this I hate to be the one to break it to you is not the real world.

Lots of Love
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

I´ll make the legislation of course. Then, like every decent tyrant, I´ll ignore it. I can ignore whatever I want around here as long as I want. The UN requires me to word my laws so they match UN resolutions. And I´ll be terribly sorry if you´ll ever catch some poor idiot breaking the law and I will immediately execute him to silence him. And there is nothing anyone ever can do. Face it. This IS real life :-)

DEATH AND INSANITY !!!!

I simply resigned. Why? Well to hell with the UN. If i decide to torture my POW's, then ill do so. If i decide to execute them, then i will. The UN and nobody else should be able to FORCE a nation into this or anything. It should be up to individual nations to devide wether to adopt it or not.

Well - simply put - you're wrong.

When your nation decided to join an organization, you agree to abide by the terms and conditions imposed by that organization - and voted upon by the member nations.

Part of the problem with the NS UN is that the mechanics for booting someone like you from the organization are not in place.

People like me?Sorry that i didnt agree to your BS. :evil: Sorry that i want to run my nation MY WAY NOT YOURS!..So, Israel, America(to mention a couple)are part of the UN. Do they follow and do everything the UN orders? Nup. So stick your POW rights.

Just curious, what grounds would YOU have to boot me from the UN?
I dont agree to a resolution so i voice my opinion. Isnt the UN supposed to be democratic, not some sort of dictatorship?.. :x

Btw Wolfish, part of the problem is people like your self are allowed to make BS resolutions. If the resolutions were for the benefit of all nations, not just the selecet few who come up with BS resolutions, then nations wouldnt pull out of the UN.

Ok lets do this point by point

The UN and nobody else should be able to FORCE a nation into this or anything. It should be up to individual nations to devide wether to adopt it or not.


They can, it's quite clear that that's the way it works in NS on the UN page, look at it, it's there for all to see.




Part of the problem with the NS UN is that the mechanics for booting someone like you from the organization are not in place.
Well the reason that there is no method for doing so is that you cannot break UN resolutions once they have been passed (and of course you are in the UN).
By that I mean once a resolution is passed it has an effect on your nation your civil rights, finicial status, and those other boring bits up the top of your nation will; probably be changed. This is to represent the law becoming part of your laws and being enforced. This is the price you pay for being in the UN.


People like me?Sorry that i didnt agree to your BS. :evil: Sorry that i want to run my nation MY WAY NOT YOURS!..So, Israel, America(to mention a couple)are part of the UN. Do they follow and do everything the UN orders? Nup. So stick your POW rights.

As demonstrated above this is not the real world. Sorry, you don't really run a country of 5 million people, there aren't hundreds of countries countries out there with populations greater than 1 billion and the real moral issues that you face are far harder than deciding if people should be able to go naked if they choose to.


Just curious, what grounds would YOU have to boot me from the UN?
I dont agree to a resolution so i voice my opinion. Isnt the UN supposed to be democratic, not some sort of dictatorship?.. :x

Wolfish cannot chuck you out of the UN, if you want to continue roleplaying away that your country tourtures prisoners, or allows people to sue for spilling coffee, or doesn't plant trees or what ever that's really fine by me and to be honest it is by most people. However you will, as I believe the term on some other boards, be Godmodding. You cannot ignore UN resolutions if you are a member of the UN

Loadsa love
Kelly
Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

of course if this resolution passes which it will and war ever comes into play in the un i will enlist the millions of destitute in my country and send them to surrender as pows. this will effectively devestate the economy of the country that has made the mistake of crossing licknkitty. imagine 100 million prisoners of war sent over by the shipful. of course my terms of surrender would be utter surrender. no rights for the citizens of the country that is surrendering. so i guess i would vote for this if war were actually possible as then i not only could keep shooting anyone who tries to enter the country but i could send all of the poor out of my country as well.

We support the resolution. However, we do not accept any sort of sovereignty it might try to claim over our citizens. We do have the death penalty in our country, and some particularly painful punitive sentences. Should any of our criminals seek protection by claiming themselves allies of foreign powers or representing them through a declaration of war, we will still treat them as our system sees fit.

Our immigration laws recognize a level of citizenship based on time spent in our country. A person living on our shores for six months can be granted citizenship, even without requesting it. This allows us to decrease freeloading and enforce our taxation laws.

Thus POWs in our country beyond six months could be granted citizenship. They would then also be subject to our penal codes.

LISTEN UP AND LISTEN GOOD. I AINT DOIN ANYTHING YOU TELL ME!! PUT YOUR BLOOMIN BODY IN THEIR SITUATION AND YOU LL BE DARN SORRY THAT YOU VOTED NO. ANYWAY THE YES PARTY IS THRASHING THE NO BY THOUSANDS. EAT MY DUST

There is no war situation on this site. Why waste your time writing 10 pages of something that doesn't even affect the game?

As the duly appointed spokesman of the Government of the Republic of Ritimba, I must admit myself proud to announce the endorsement of our glorious and mango eating nation to this most proper of resolutions. We are confident that the just outcome of approval will be achieved and hope the application of the proposed articles can be regulated with great zeal and rhadamanthine purpose in penalizing violators.

It's sort of like "I'm going to go kill a bunch of people, but if I capture them, we all have to be nice."

OOC: It's not like that at all. Except for engagements between certain south-american cannibal tribes, where the objective of the incursions was to collect the bodies of the opponent tribesmen so they could be fed to the prevailing tribe, most other cases of armed conflict do not aim primarily at killing people. That is a by-product of war. Mostly, war can be defined as the application of force to achieve a political objective. Said objective being contrary to other purposes, people defending those purposes are liable to be injured or destroyed as a consequence of the contrary application of force. As a rule, if the opposition to force is null, the consequent death toll should be nonexistent. Any other rationale for war is criminal and demented; there are places with cushioned walls where people that view this matter in another way can be stored...

Now, when one or more individuals that oppose the objective of a military force cease to be an obstacle, there is no point in destroying them. From a purely economical point of view, to do so is a rather senseless waste of valuable ammunition. On the other hand, after having captured those individuals, it is not wise to simlpy liberate them, given that they would most likely run back to strengthen the opposition. Therefore, in your own interest, you will most likely choose to secure them. And when you do so, you are bound to observe strict rules of behavior in accordance with international treaties like the Geneva Convention.

Instigating a war is the last resort of failed policy. But unless you believe either:

1. All war can be eliminated, or
2. We should embrace barbarism

then the attempt to formulate "rules" around which wars are fought and standards to which those who fight them must be held is the only civilized option available.

I happen to think that it would be possible to eliminate war by using the UN as an aggressive instument of peacekeeping. This would mean:

Phase 1. Formulating a world disarmament policy which all UN member nations could endorse.
Phase 2. Creating the UN armed forces to replace the armed forces of all member states.
Phase 3. Negotiating with all non-UN countries to endorse the disarmament policy adopted by the UN.
Phase 4. Inviting all of the world's non-UN countries to voluntarily disarm and open their borders to regular regional inspection. Incent compliance with favorable trade status and punish non-compliance with sanctions.
Phase 5. Requiring all armed nations to disarm upon threat of invasion.

That oughta do it.

8)so your answer to the POW situation is gun control? Go hug a Kennedy already.

The answer to the POW situation is to remove the W. The answer to sarcasm around the issue of gun control is education - go read a book or something. We voted for the Wolfish resolution, BTW.

8)

passing this resolution was a grave mistake.

Nebbyland is correct.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

Well - like it or hate it, The Resolution is now in force.

Well - like it or hate it, The Resolution is now in force.

And a good thing too!

Heh heh... ...Let's not forget, there ARE loopholes to this little law.

Nebbyland is correct.

The UN is your chance to mold the rest of the world to your vision, by voting for resolutions you like and scuttling the rest. However, it's a double-edged sword, because your nation will also be affected by any resolutions that pass. (You can't just obey the resolutions you like and ignore the rest, like real nations do.)

It's not often it happens, but thanks for noticing.

Dave
|Today's spokesman for Nebbyland

Btw Wolfish, part of the problem is people like your self are allowed to make BS resolutions. If the resolutions were for the benefit of all nations, not just the selecet few who come up with BS resolutions, then nations wouldnt pull out of the UN.

OOC: A BS resolution? Let me point out to you that this resolution is mirrored in a real-life resolution. In fact, this resolution is a whole hell of a lot better than "Common Sense Act II," which is a real BS resolution.

Btw Wolfish, part of the problem is people like your self are allowed to make BS resolutions. If the resolutions were for the benefit of all nations, not just the selecet few who come up with BS resolutions, then nations wouldnt pull out of the UN.

OOC: A BS resolution? Let me point out to you that this resolution is mirrored in a real-life resolution. In fact, this resolution is a whole hell of a lot better than "Common Sense Act II," which is a real BS resolution.

Hear, Hear!

Peace,
Stephanie.

Ariddia voted in favour. Firstly, for humaneness. Secondly, because we would treat POWs the way we would except our soldiers to be treated by an enemy if captured.

I voted for it to pass

[Just for the record I voted Yea.

Champagne for everyone!]