NationStates Jolt Archive

I would just briefly like to say that this is perhaps one of the most
embarassing proposals I have seen. Not only is the proposal vague, but may also be counter-productive. Conceptually it makes little to no sense.

"Not having access to modern medicine and modern medical supplies can
cause unnecessary suffering and death. "

Indeed it does. Being in a war can cause suffering and death. How would
each of you describe war? I suggest you think about that and then consider the proposal. What motives are behind waging war and what motives are
behind this proposal? Are they not diametrically opposed?

Because of this juxtaposition countless paths may be taken. A number of
vastly different conclusions may be drawn. This proposal is vague, flawed,
and is a disgrace to support.

I have received responses that suggest that the redeeming value of the proposal is that it is vague. I would like to reply with the following:

The fluidity of the argument . . . because it is vague it can easily be
twisted. If it is simply molded to produce vastly different results, where is the purpose of passing it as a resolution? Primarily I ask you to consider what the meaning of war is and what the meaning of aid is.

And how are the irreconcilable reconciled? They aren't.

Nor should they be.

To allude to such an occurrence is bad enough, but to propose it outright is an insult. There is an inherent perversion when one arguest that in order to make war more humane . . . need I continue?

I am in no way declaring that this was at all the intent of the resolution, because I feel it is quite the opposite. What I desperately need is a revised, more comprehensive plan at accomplishing the desired outcome.

-Luminary Hall

I agree. Vote no. I would have no problem with this proposal if it weren't so vague. If the author could revise it ever so slightly, so it wouldn't be so easy to get soldiers, assasins, spies, etc. in if they're disguised as doctors. Maybe make it apply to international organizations like the Red Cross...anyway, I think the author needs to think about it a bit more, otherwise its a fine idea, just too vague.

Another opinion:

"We disagree that the proposal is counter-productive. We feel that efforts to maintain our humanity during times of inhumane behavior should be supported, and that proposals that attempt to institutionalize this ideal should be applauded and built upon. We feel the spirit of this proposal is worthwhile, and that criticisms in regard to its level of specificity can be overlooked. We will furthermore argue that proposals should not attempt to meet a standard of specificity; a proposal that is overly specific has the effect of tying hands as it moves out of the UN and into implementation."


The notion is entertaining but doesn't escape absurdity in nature. Efforts to maintain "humanity" during times of "inhumane behavior?" Any assumptions being made here are nothing more than assumptions, and seem to follow in the same tradition of the proposal. Vague, meaningless, empty words. The spirit may be worthwhile, but any "overlooking" because of specificity will do nothing more than pave the way for further complications. When an institution overlooks such things for the 'spirit' of things, there is no end to the trouble that will follow. Such an all-embracing refusal to focus one's point and tie up loose ends is a weak, ineffective practice that will make everyone's job harder. It should have no place here, and the fact that it is being defended is sad enough.

Being forced to give aid to people whom you are attacking or being attacked by is without a doubt one of the least thought out ideas I have ever heard. This is parallel to giving the opposing country arms or soldiers, which I personally would not recommend to any country actually trying to win a war. It would seem that this proposal will only be supported by people who are against wars and who feel that wars should be "nicer," so let me propose this to all of you: if we make wars "nicer," do you think there will be more or less wars? Do you think that nations will try to stay out of wars if they feel that there will be terrible destruction or if they feel that there losses will be minimal? To end, let me just say that for all people that really want wars to continue and last longer, please, vote for this resolution. For those of us that are against wars (and empty idealism,) please, vote NO.

Being forced to give aid to people whom you are attacking or being attacked by is without a doubt one of the least thought out ideas I have ever heard. This is parallel to giving the opposing country arms or soldiers, which I personally would not recommend to any country actually trying to win a war. It would seem that this proposal will only be supported by people who are against wars and who feel that wars should be "nicer," so let me propose this to all of you: if we make wars "nicer," do you think there will be more or less wars? Do you think that nations will try to stay out of wars if they feel that there will be terrible destruction or if they feel that there losses will be minimal? To end, let me just say that for all people that really want wars to continue and last longer, please, vote for this resolution. For those of us that are against wars (and empty idealism,) please, vote NO.