NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings from the Peoples' Republic of Takeshistan!

:arrow: Coles Notes: UN Delegates please sign on to the Swords to Plowshares resolution to curtail excessive military spending.

We have always aimed to be a shining light of social and economic process in the West Pacific, but as internationalists we recognize that such progress must be accomplished in concert with the world proletarian struggle.

The continued senseless production of military hardware is a burden on the shoulders of the working class. By diverting resources from more productive arenas, it serves to delay or even reverse our struggles. It is eternally argued that such production is necessary in the face of this or that external threat, terrorist menace, or "rogue" nation. The thinner such arguments wear logically, the louder are they shouted. Consider our own defensive arrangements.

Takeshistan maintains only a tiny professional army to defend our airspace, territorial waters, and shores. We believe that real defence is accomplished not by ever more deadly and destructive machinery, but by a committed and trained citizenry. Every able-bodied Takeshian, male or female, trains from the age of 14 in small arms and basic infantry tactics. Every Takeshian has a Kalashnikov on the wall. Through this strategy we aim to deter aggressors without risking the rise of militarism. In addition, we seek to enhance collective security through treaties of mutual defence.

The Takeshian strategy has been successful enough that we wish to export it, through a UN resolution capping expeditionary military forces while encouraging the establishment of true national defence.

This resolution needs your support! Sign on to the Swords to Plowshares Resolution -- strengthen defence while reducing the instruments of aggression!

:!: Hasta la Victoria Siempre! :!:

Takeshistan.

This is another case of the UN going too far. Each nation has a right to defend itself, and to spend any amount of money it should choose on doing so.

Furthurmore matters of internal policy, namely the national budget, is of no concern to the UN.

Vote no in the intrest of curtailing the UNs inroads into nation sovereignty

National soverignty must not be a shield behind which to conceal aggressive intentions. We should have learned that from Hitler and Stalin. This resolution says nothing about forces for strictly internal defence, such as National Guards, police, and security forces. It applies only to military forces capable of operating outside the national territory of a nation -- expeditionary armies, ballistic missiles, air forces, navies.

Surely no sane nation would allow its citizens to amass tanks or fighter jets, even if only out of personal curiosity. Whatever the individual rights issues that could arise, the potential for infringing on the rights of others is so great that national government must step in. Likewise, allowing nations to amass military hardware beyond the needs of real defence is unacceptable. International authority must step in to prevent the soverignty of other nations from being literally trampled by the boots of aggressor armies.

Takeshistan.

You first.
:twisted:

You first.
:twisted:

OK.

Although we support disarmament in principle, in practice it is an invitation to invasion.
Consider the nations who are not UN members; how would you deal with their aggressions?

Yep, it would mean an overlapping UN army to protect the UN from outside threats. And to be able to stop internal aggression.

Unless you can proof god exists or put the fear of god in people, they tend to be selfish enough to ignore these principals. And that would end the world under the dictatorship of the one Nation that voilated this principal :P.

Wait a minute here. Takeshistan suggests a closer examination of the proposal. Nobody is suggesting nations abandon their right to self-defence.

The critical part of the proposal specifies a reasonable cap on military spending, with two notable provisions:

:arrow: It only applies to forces capable of being used for aggression; purely defensive forces such as National Guard, missile defences, interceptor planes are not affected.

:arrow: It only applies in the absence of a direct threat from "an entity not respecting this resolution". Nobody is expected to twiddle their thumbs while an aggressor force gathers.

Perhaps, rather than simple yes/no discussion, we could hammer out a more acceptable compromise. A more nuanced resolution might achieve most of the substantial aims, while easing the legtimiate concerns expressed here.

:wink: OOC: Besides, keep in mind that there's a lot of wiggle room here. Japan (the real one) is capped constitutionally to half this standard, but they use various tricks to get around it. You could class regular Army reserve troops as National Guard, modify long-range aircraft to be "interceptors" easily converted right back to long-range fighters, buy destroyers for the Navy but assign them to the Coast Guard and call them patrol boats, etc etc etc.

Takeshistan.

True. We need to have some control over our own countries.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

It does indeed not seem to be limiting in its demands regarding limiting self-defense. It does, however, step into the heart of the sovereignity issue. Can we demand that member countries place limits on their own budgets? I think not. That goes beyond the power of the UN.

There is more to defense than purely defensive weapons.

Once one nation has attacked another nation, it is perfectly legitimate (and in fact practically imperative) for the attacked nation to make OFFENSIVE acts against the attacker to diminish its capability to continue the assault.

You, sir, are a fucktard.

Exactly. If a nation is attacked, then attacking the aggressor's industrial centers is a defensive tactic. Otherwise, the aggressor is just going to send wave after wave.

Also, you need two parties to make peace, but only one to make war.

I agree. Though no nation has the right to attack another nation (that's intiation of physical force), the defending nation has every right to attack the offending nation's home territories until a peace is reached.

But to quote Klemens von Metternich (because somebody else's username reminds me of him): "Those who believe war to be inevitable are the ones that usually find themselves fighting it."

I agree. Though no nation has the right to attack another nation (that's intiation of physical force), the defending nation has every right to attack the offending nation's home territories until a peace is reached.

But to quote Klemens von Metternich (because somebody else's username reminds me of him): "Those who believe war to be inevitable are the ones that usually find themselves fighting it."

I speak not of the inevitability of war, but of the need to protect the rights of our nations. In the eyes of my country, the UN has a very limited role in sovereign affairs, particularly those that attempt to control the budgets of free nations. We must stop resolutions which aim to undermine our governments.

I agree. Though no nation has the right to attack another nation (that's intiation of physical force), the defending nation has every right to attack the offending nation's home territories until a peace is reached.

But to quote Klemens von Metternich (because somebody else's username reminds me of him): "Those who believe war to be inevitable are the ones that usually find themselves fighting it."

I speak not of the inevitability of war, but of the need to protect the rights of our nations. In the eyes of my country, the UN has a very limited role in sovereign affairs, particularly those that attempt to control the budgets of free nations. We must stop resolutions which aim to undermine our governments.

I never said that you said war is inevitable. Your nation name is Metternic. That reminds me of the Austrian prince and famous diplomat Klemens von Metternich. And that's one of my favorite quotes by him.

ya no, if i were a delegate, id vote wouldnt support that proposal. The hell with disarmament, call me militaristic but if i feel like invadin someone, what the hell am i supposed to invade them with? ants? Not only that wat am i supposed to defend my nation against evil nations that WONT disarm with? Seems as if you need to rethink that proposal of yours, disarmament is a dumb idea to me


Kaimoni .A. Sutton
President of the United States of Credonia
President of the United States of Stapestry

National soverignty must not be a shield behind which to conceal aggressive intentions. We should have learned that from Hitler and Stalin. This resolution says nothing about forces for strictly internal defence, such as National Guards, police, and security forces. It applies only to military forces capable of operating outside the national territory of a nation -- expeditionary armies, ballistic missiles, air forces, navies.

Surely no sane nation would allow its citizens to amass tanks or fighter jets, even if only out of personal curiosity. Whatever the individual rights issues that could arise, the potential for infringing on the rights of others is so great that national government must step in. Likewise, allowing nations to amass military hardware beyond the needs of real defence is unacceptable. International authority must step in to prevent the soverignty of other nations from being literally trampled by the boots of aggressor armies.

Takeshistan.

I beg to differ, while you hold some valid points as to wether disarmermant and military restrcitions may have diplomatic beinfits etc, you have failed to explain how this is the UNs juristiction.

:shock: Hey, how about the possibility of a proactive strike against a nation to self defence my own folks. ( I believe another "dictator" called "shrub" did this once in human history ) :twisted:

And how about the weapon industry and R&D. :?:

My nation believes that these are internal matters and shall under no circumstance be handled by an external organization like the UN.
Such proposals do no good to this organisation. Drop it. :!:

King of the Kingdom of Flikflauder

This is a peaceful country, but the backbone of our poor economy is the arms industry. Without it, the country would falter.

My arms industry is gigantic (top 200) but my military (bottom 750) and police (bottom 3000) are small.

Conclusion: I have the most well-armed citizens.

Here is my suggestion: all the looney left wing anti gun liberals can disarm thier countries. Just dont ask for the help of of nations who still have brains to come to your rescue when you get invaded. I prefer no war personally, but if it comes you can bet i'll do my best to put the calamshan boot up the arse of all invaders. If this proposal EVER becomes policy. This is one nation who will leave the U.N.

Here is my suggestion: all the looney left wing anti gun liberals can disarm thier countries. Just dont ask for the help of of nations who still have brains to come to your rescue when you get invaded. I prefer no war personally, but if it comes you can bet i'll do my best to put the calamshan boot up the arse of all invaders. If this proposal EVER becomes policy. This is one nation who will leave the U.N.

Like others have mentioned, effective defense often consists of offensive, retaliatory measures. Such a resolution would undermine a nation's ability to defend itself in modern times.

Here is my suggestion: all the looney left wing anti gun liberals can disarm thier countries. Just dont ask for the help of of nations who still have brains to come to your rescue when you get invaded. I prefer no war personally, but if it comes you can bet i'll do my best to put the calamshan boot up the arse of all invaders. If this proposal EVER becomes policy. This is one nation who will leave the U.N.

Liberals are center wing, the left is extrem, the right conservative.

Ps. I'm a classical liberal and believe it is the duty of a government to protect it citzens as higlighted by Andrew Heywood.