NationStates Jolt Archive

Please vote for the resolution at vote pertaining to the impeachment of any hea of state who is found guilty of leading his nation to war on false pretences for commercial gain.

What are you going to do? remove him by force?

Someone needs to switch to decaf

Don't even think of it! If another nation tries to force a superpower's leader out of office, we could have a World War at hand. Please reconsider.

President Jan Horembolg

The poll at the top of this thread made reference to a real-world political figure, and has consequently been deleted. Please remember to keep specific references to real-world politics out of NS UN business.

Tactical Grace
Forum Moderator

I have a better idea--let's NOT punish a national leader for defending his nation.

I have a better idea--let's NOT punish a national leader for defending his nation.

"leading his nation to war on false pretences for commercial gain."

Please, start making sense anytime now... I would love to see what you sound like when you do. :lol:

While this has some initial appeal, the proposal would interfere with a time honored tradition. Why, history would be unrecognizable without such escapades.
Maybe we could all chip in to a "destabilization fund" to finance uprisings by disgruntled inhabitants of such nations.

I have a better idea--let's NOT punish a national leader for defending his nation.

"leading his nation to war on false pretences for commercial gain."

Please, start making sense anytime now... I would love to see what you sound like when you do. :lol:

How can you prove "false pretence" and "commercial gain"?

We're all human and cannot know everything. I don't want anyone threatening to remove me from my high chair.

well...using an example with which we are all familiar, "false pretence" might mean lying about the presence of WMD and using this lie as a justification to go to war, when the real reason is "commercial gain" i.e. OIL.

Using this example, you might prove that a lie was told by the fact that said WMD were never actually there.

well...using an example with which we are all familiar, "false pretence" might mean lying about the presence of WMD and using this lie as a justification to go to war, when the real reason is "commercial gain" i.e. OIL.

Using this example, you might prove that a lie was told by the fact that said WMD were never actually there.

I have no idea to what you are referring. If you squeeze people hard enough, you get oil. . . Are you saying that you are going to extract oil from those fallen in battle?

well...using an example with which we are all familiar, "false pretence" might mean lying about the presence of WMD and using this lie as a justification to go to war, when the real reason is "commercial gain" i.e. OIL.

Using this example, you might prove that a lie was told by the fact that said WMD were never actually there.

OK now here comes the fun part. How do you know that there are no WMD in Iraq as that is where this is obviously going? Why they can’t find any but considering Saddam could hide them in the area of an Olympic size swimming pool and bury that in the desert this could take some time. The burden of proof was on Saddam he could have shown some videos some destroyed weapons brought the UN to look and never did when he supposedly disarmed and now has not shown that he had.

well...using an example with which we are all familiar, "false pretence" might mean lying about the presence of WMD and using this lie as a justification to go to war, when the real reason is "commercial gain" i.e. OIL.

Using this example, you might prove that a lie was told by the fact that said WMD were never actually there.

Yet another mindless idiot brainwashed by the media hype.

Hmmm . . .what I wonder is who is judging these "false pretence" or the "commercial gain" seems to me that the judge has already made up his mind before her/she hears the facts.

Facts are in the eye of the beholder.

I've already clicked the little "approve" link.

The wording of this resolution is so harsh and ambiguous I am not surprised it hasn’t met quorum, and with what I am reading on my screen it is very unlikely to meet quorum. The context in which this resolution has been drafted is very transparent. “OIL”. The problem being with it is, well, the event has been taken way out of context. Actually to be blunt it seems more like an irrational conspiracy theory. It also seems your solution to heads of government, which topple regimes allegedly for their own gain is to topple them this seems very hypocritical.

Someone named Albert Einstein once said, "If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts."

As long as it's approved by the people, national leaders should do whatever they want. So if the people are militaristic, let them go to war. But let them be aware that if they are perceived as being too imperialistic, there will be blood to pay.

Let it be known that i have powerful allies and i will not deal with your anti-imperialism :twisted:

ok if you impeach the war mongers then you are left with like five people in the un and no one to replace them cause face it we are all war mongers in our hart. :!:

Nonsense. How are we gonna impeach a head of state? Isn't that the responsibility of the people of the nation who were duped?

Besides, if a leader lies to get his people to do something....won't his own people settle the issue (vote him out of office, impeach him, shoot him, revolt, chop off his head, etc...)?

Anyways, I don't see the necessity of such a proposal. But that's just me.

-New Clarkhall.

look your not getting it inside all of us is a desire to conquer and rule though we may not yet express it because this is just a web page but if you had real power then it would go to your head and eventually you will realise that you and every one is a war monger on the inside and it is waiting to come out.

oww shut up your doing my head in LETS ALL BE FAIR TO EACH OTHER AND DON'T MOAN WHAT OTHERS HAVE BUT YOU but if there was someone trying to start a war thats a nother problem.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

This is just stupid, sit down fool!

This is just stupid, sit down fool!
he is not a fool he has a good piont of view on this so dont get tithcy about his views after all we are here to express them.

This is just stupid, sit down fool!
he is not a fool he has a good piont of view on this so dont get tithcy about his views after all we are here to express them.

Oh yes the only flaw of freedom of speech. Anyone can use it. Well here's another on for you: Right of Reply. The arch nemises of free speech, you can make any stupid arguement, but I have the right to make an equally stupid counter arguement. Isn't democracy grand. And who says titsy?

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

lol i laugh because you are so up your self that I am cacking myself and you find a flaw in that then i can find a flaw in you.

I won't dignify that with an answer....oh hang on. I just did. Dang!

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

mmm this ones intresting i think those that war monger should not be impeached but they should be punished by the un so the people will have to be brain washed or stupid to vote for them these punishment would then be removed when a new leader is in power and dont think the people would suffer because the un could send aid therefore alienating the warmongering leadership.

This is a delecate subject. I think the UN should try to remain out of conflicts.

By "impeaching" anyone by force, we would be taking sides and perhaps further escalating a war or creating a new one or several.

Actually it is already in the main chapter of the UN, but some resolutions are very welcome to smoothen and make the process faster.

One of the main objectives of the United Nations is so the world will form a united front against agressors. Orginally as an answer to which would have stopped made world war I from not happing. The lague of nations however severly in this in trying to stop world war II. The answer was the United Nations with the added security counsil. This has proved to work on a small nation before. This however fail to work when a member of the security counsil was in transgression. Though I like to remain out of any discussion of right or wrong. Just that the resolutions that where written in the United Nation chapter where breeched by a nation moving troops in another nation without un approval with no effectivel respondse of the united nations.

Like to propose this as fact, no discussion. Don't agree, look it up. I happen to had to read large parts of the UN chaptert for a UN course on my university. If I made a mistake, contact me personally. No good evil discussions please.

What I am trying to say is. If you like, try to think of some usefull resolutions to make the United Nations work more effectivly towards it initial goals. Make them solid, propose them and see how far you get :).

Good luck.

And please keep it technical without using real world. You must be able to think of some resolutions that might help the UN to operate smoother and have impact on NS economies.
This way you can release your feelings productively without creating endless heavily emotionally loaded discussions. At least I assume that is what the moderates had in mind :).