NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings UN Delegates. Please vote for the proposed Sport for War Act. It deserves to be voted on by all UN members. You know it makes sense.


The Sport for War Act

Author: CallMeBernard

Description: Throughout history many nations have fought one another for glory, for land, but mainly due to stupidity.
War is, on one hand, inhumane and cruel. It creates suffering and death, leaving nothing but desolation and sorrow in its place.
On the other hand war is uneconomic. It destroys the very infrastructure the victor sought to control; farming land is left infertile and the defeated population can often be so devastated as to no longer be economically viable, even as slaves.
(OOC: A last- and personal- point is that it is a bit tedious reading threads where all anybody has to go on about is how many ships and armoured hamsters they've got. Plus their childish threats)

A solution to this would be the illegality of war; a framework whereby champions from each nation do battle in sport, with the the victor taking the spoils, is better.
Victorious nations would find that they have taken over whole and functioning infrastructures.
Pyrrhic victories would be a thing of the past.
War orphans will no longer be an ugly scar on the conscience of humanity.
Funds taken up by the arms industry could be ploughed instead into Health, Education and other socially useful projects.
Nations which start to build their armies could face such swingeing economic sanctions that it would be economically impossible for them to bring their forces up to strength.

I ask all the delegates to support this notion. The next time you see an amputee caused by war, or a child's decapitated corpse, think of this resolution, and support it.

I like amputations, thank you very much.

Moreso, I like kicking the crap out of other nations.

Another point, do you seriously think that anyone would vote for this? To be successful, every nation would have to participate, including those not in the UN, who don't have to, wouldn't, and would then invade everyone they could.

So, in short, I hope this proposal gets a resounding NO vote.

Thank you for your opinion. One still thinks the world would be a better place if conflicts were settled by sports such as Ping Pong.

PING

we have seen in the past when international organizations have tried to outlaw war. and it usually ends up causeing a conflict. so i am against this.

How can war be solved by athletic competition that is simply absurd and I cant speak for other nations but I know I would certainly not vote for it :roll:

We live by the sword,and we rule by the sword.

This is just retarded...

Wars fought well do not hurt economies. Usually, many great inventions are made because of war, and the winning country usually has good luck at home especially with their economy. For example, WWII, WWI, etc.

Now I would find it fitting to quote Orson Welles.
"In Italy for thirty years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, bloodshed - they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love, five hundred years of democracy and peace, and what did they produce? The cuckoo clock!"

PING

qp
PONG innit
qp

BAH....atheltics instead of war? Nonsense. If I want your oil fields Warnock, I ain't gonna stop from trying to get them just because my soccer team or whatnot lost to yours.

You are assuming that both sides in a conflict are civilized enough to actually abide by a SPORTING event. If that were the case, we would surely be civilized anough to not have to go to war in the first place.

To tired to go deeply into this subject. But you are on a good part, however far far far ahead of your time. The world is not ready for this yet :).

Otherwise I would have suggested your proposol to setting up a commision first with a small effect.

And I hope good is the strongest effect possible, because a resolution (if ever accepted would be drastic).
Remember nations can not ignore UN resolutions in NS.

Anyways, I will say probably more if I am less tired :P

however if you think it is a solution worth the support? Don't really believe that. The cause might be right, but a someone who has these noble morals and the graze of a sudden lightnigh flash, would I think not get that far. Definitly not running a country. I expect you will notice that if it would go to a vote.

But if you really want it, I am willing to support to make the world more to you liking :). Endorsements from others would have been nice, but it already takes blood ages just to enter the UN.

Thank you all for your replies. We believe it was von Clausewitz who likened warfare to little more than a duel on a large scale. What is sport but a sanctioned duel on the field of play. Simply put then sport is war without the unnecessary loss of life. Why not codify that situation?

One of you mentions that war leads to invention. We would argue that warfare by its nature causes chaos and prematurely ends lives. Who knows what those killed in warfare would have contributed to society? What noble deeds, what invention could those lives pass on to their children, to society? With warfare one will never know. This small proposal in part attempts to rectify that problem.

As for those UN members who fear this proposal is too broad, too powerful in scope, we say to you, what is the UN for but to protect its members. IF the proposal becomes a resolution and IF it passes, there is nothing to prevent belligerent nations from dropping out of the UN and thereby ignoring the Sport for War Act. But that goes for any resolution the UN passes.

UN Delegates, we ask you to vote for this proposal to make it into a resolution. The whole UN deserves to have a chance to vote on this. Perhaps then we can make a change for the better in this world.

Ufhur the Hated
Minister for Sport, Empire of Warnocks Wizards

P.S. Oh, and PING

How are you going to enforce this? If a nation is willing to go to war, how is it going to be hindered by defeat at a sports event?

Obviously, this proposal, while well meaning, is incredibly daft and I hereby declare all of you who support it to be idiots.

How does the UN enforce anything? International pressure, sanctions, dare I say the presence of a UN force to protect the law abiding nation, etc. If you belong to the UN, you must adhere to any resolution passed. IF this passes, why should it be different from any other resolution.

Oh, and thank you for the name calling and dismissing the issue out of hand.

I didn't mean it... :D I just thought it would be funny to say that.

Anyway, UN resolutions are enforced according to their category and strength, not their text. Thus the resolution would have no effect on RP, unless a nation chooses to enforce it on other nations.

As for how you suggested they would be enforced:

UN force-No one would provide troops. And even if they did, attcking nations probably wouldn't back off.

Sactions- You don't want to know how I deal with those.

International Pressure-People don't cave in that easily.

How about this: If someone can't spell the word "swinging" correctly, they get their resolution deleted.

"swingeing" eh? and if this resolution actually gets passed (that is, if there are enough stupid people to say "hmmm... i dont like war and its useless") then i WILL create some coalition of people who like was, blatantly ignore this and attack you.

This is very reminiscent of the Anime and Manga called Mobile Fighter G-Gundam where each country delegates a champion who represents said country and then fights in a battle using a mobile fighter where it's one on one. It's a great idea, however there are a few problems with this suggestion:

1) Smaller countries with little or no economy would not be able to participate because they lack the funds to build a proper mobile fighter (or sports team in this case.)

2) While it may still seem like a great idea, fights could-and would-break out during the sports matches as in a lot of cases they do. In such a large scale match, there would be those that are uber-patriotic and would feel that the other side is wrong and what do you get? Fists flying.

Therefore, the Dominion of Xylvaria politely nods in the direction of the Warnocks Wizards but will vote against this proposition if it is brought up in General Assembly.

Oh yeah...and PING

How about this: If someone can't spell the word "swinging" correctly, they get their resolution deleted.


Swinge \Swinge\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Swinged} (sw[i^]njd); p. pr. & vb. n. {Swingeing} (sw[i^]nj"[i^]ng).]

1. To beat soundly; to whip; to chastise; to punish.

2. To move as a lash; to lash. [Obs.]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary

Here's the scenario:
Assume war is outlawed and I choose to ignore it, violate the war and invade you. If you defend yourself, you are just as guilty of fighting a war as I am, so NO....This resolution is completely preposterous. No vote here! :?

We believe it was von Clausewitz who likened warfare to little more than a duel on a large scale.
Warnocks Wizards is obviously unfamiliar with Herr von Clauswitz' work.

This proposal embodies the same intent as the creation of the modern Olympic games, which were intended to substitute competition in sport for competition in war. You may judge for yourselves how well that worked.

Warnocks Wizards is obviously unfamiliar with Herr von Clauswitz' work.


Feel free to make any assumptions you like.

Here's a question for some of you that have posted to this thread:

Why is it that because you disagree with something, some of you feel the inherent need to start name-calling and making immediate personal value judgements about someone you disagree with? In the end, it does little to advance your point of view...

PONG!

PING

As the author of this bill I feel it is about time I weighed into this.

Firstly, a few things off my chest.

1) Thankyou Warnocks Wizards for supporting and defending this bill.
2) Ryanania: there is a difference between 'swingeing' and 'swinging'
How about this: those who can't tell the difference get their arguments ingnored? :wink:

Secondly:
1) According to the rules of this game, any resolution taken up by the UN must be implemeted by its members. Therefore- unlike real life- if passed no member state can go 'oooo sorry, don't like that, still going to keep my army, ner ner ner-ner ner'. Unless you leave the UN, of course. So Franco Slaughter are you thinking of leaving the UN?

2) The arguements that a smaller nation state will not have the infrastructure/ investment to produce athletes or other sportsmen capable of competing against world powers are false; neither will these nations be capable of producing military industries comparable to larger states either. Think of Finland v Russia at the start of WW2; Finland may have had the better soldiers man-for-man, but it was ground under by the sheer volume of Russian infantry. In international sport quite often a smaller/ less powerful nation can punch way above its weight by the abilities of one (or more) gifted individuals; an example being Senegal v France at the World Cup in 2002. Smaller nation states have more to gain from this than they think.

3) International economic sanctions, when properly applied can make massive indentations into an armies ability to fight. Example: Iraq in 1990 (pre sanctions) and 2003 when the US/UK invaded. The army was worse off after ten years then had been before. The USSR army was large and awesome; poor economics meant that when the Soviet system collapsed we found out that the Red Army was not the threat we thought it was.

4) I am prepared to admit that if this resolution were to be passed in 'real life' there would need to be a time lag before full implementation as nations downgraded their armies; perhaps an international force (UN) would be the last to disband to stop rogue nations taking advantage.

5) This is supposed to be a game, and if I have got the intentions of the game designers right, a game about political intentions, political agendas and so on. It follows on from my political beliefs that war is bad. I know I'm a bit out of the mainstream for saying so, but there you go. Anyway, my feeling that war is bad and my desire to play internet ping pong during my working day has culminated in this proposal.
I was hoping for a slightly more adult debate than 'this is so retarded'.

6) OOC; I am slightly concerned for the mental well-being of those who say that they enjoy amputations and kicking the crap out of other nations. You're either joking (I hope), still a child think that that's cool (you'll grow out of it once you've seen real blood and seen real people screaming in agony), or one of those people who were bullied at school and can only feel comfortable here in an imaginary world. Whereupon you re-enact the self same behaviour that others have exhibited towards you.

I was hoping for a slightly more adult debate than 'this is so retarded'.

PONG :D

Ping.
That's the spirit!

PONG

PING !
C'mon everbody. Join in.

qp
Wor PONG innit
qp

ping

pong
The proposal didn't get enough endorsements... it failed :(
But let the ping pong continue!

qp
It's a disgrace
qp
PING
qp

So...what if a non-member state (such as CH ;) ) decides to start bombing a UN member? What happens to the resolution then? :P

This is not a resolution to be implemented at once; it would take a gradual effect and the armies would gradually be withdrawn with the exception in the interim of an international (ie UN) army, which would be used to prevent rogue nations taking advantage.
In real life, non-UN members which failed to remove their armies would face such cutting sanctions that an army would be devastated by the poor economy and would be useless for invading anybody. Look at what sanctions did to Iraqs army; look at what poor economics did for E Europe & Russia.
However, I am prepared to admit that this game is not real life. One look at many of the forums, with many nations having elves and dwarves and other sh!te running around, should convince you of that.
There is a name for the type of bloke who likes hanging around with fairies, and it ain't necessarily complimentary.

This is a game about politics and policies; if I ruled a nation and had international influence then yes, I would try various and all schemes to reduce warfare and the plight that warfare brings to many innocents. So in that respect, I am playing this game as it was intended.

And you forgot to take a shot at ping pong. Do you mind if I take mine?
Thankyou......PONG!

You should try it. It is, strangely, addictive.

I declare war on the author of this thread! :twisted:

qp
You and whose PING PONG team?
qp
PING!
qp

I declare war on the author of this thread! :twisted:

Come and have a go if you think yer hard enough

PONG.

There is a name for the type of bloke who likes hanging around with fairies, and it ain't necessarily complimentary.

qp
Brighton Fan, innit
qp
PING
qp

But Warnock will cheat.

Right, let's count to a million...

1

But Warnock will cheat.

Right, let's count to a million...

1

Right, then...

1,000,000

oh, and PONG
:wink:

And with a flying leap across the table he connects... PING

2

qp
TWISTER!!!!!
qp
(Should have good rp potential)
qp
Left foot green
qp

qp
Sorry, just when the game is getting going...
qp
PONG
qp

qp
with his left foot on green
qp
right elbow on red
qp
he somehow manages to PING across the table
qp
have so many threads been merged at once I ask
qp

with left foot on green

right elbow on red

and left hand on blue

I have to have the bat between my gleeming white teeth and...stretch...and.......

PONG!

it's easy when you get a technique going.

qp