NationStates Jolt Archive

I implore all UN members to back my proposal to clamp down on nations who tolerate terrorists (there's no such thing as freedom-fighters).

Passing this resolution will put the UN in a stronger position to act when nations step out of line, and help keep World peace.

As a UN delagate I make the following proposals.

1) That any nation state suspected of harbouring terrorists to openly and officially denounce terrorism.
2) That every nation state co-operate fully in the apprehension of suspected terrorists.
3) That the UN recognises that nations suspected of harbouring terrorists are a threat to World peace, and should halt all weapons programmes immediately, declare a full description of their military capabilities to the UN, and open their borders to UN weapons inspectors.
4) That all nation states who threaten World peace be banned from developing weapons of mass destruction. Any who already have weapons of mass destruction to disarm immediately.
5) That those nation states in breach of the resolution will face severe consequences, including trade embargos (excluding medical supplies and humanitarian aid), and in extreme cases a military solution to be implimented by the UN.

I implore all UN members to back my proposal to clamp down on nations who tolerate terrorists (there's no such thing as freedom-fighters).

So the French Resistance were terrorists? The Boers were terrorists? The Cossacks were terrorists? Those underground organizations that smuggled Jews out of Nazi Germany and occasionally killed some Nazi soldiers were terrorists? Etc., etc. It's a problem of defintion. But whereas oppressive government has historically been FAR more dangerous than terrorism, I am compelled to vote down this bill.

Since when were the French resistance, Cossacks and Boers state-sponsered?

The diffrence in the French resistance and terrorists is that the French resistance didnt target unarmed and innocent civilians. Terrorism 9at least in the context of the game) should be defined as puposful, and deliberate attacks on cicllian populations in order to further a religious or political agenda. For example, a palastian who attacks Israeli soldiesrs is committing an act of gurellia warfare, however a palsentian who attacks a 13 year olds birthday party is a terrorist.

Since when were the French resistance, Cossacks and Boers state-sponsered?

French resistance was sponsored by the Britain and some other countries. Cossacks were sponsored by Britain, France, America, Canada, Finland, Romania, Ukraine, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, even Serbia.

And Calamshan, the French Resistance DID attack many unarmed civilians. Many French civilians who were "collaborating" with the Germans were killed.

A palastian who attacks Israeli soldiesrs is committing an act of gurellia warfare, however a palsentian who attacks a 13 year olds birthday party is a terrorist.

Okay that we can agree on.

Police can cause terror whether they intend to do so or not.

Military actions (even wars) are a form of terrorism. How can you end terrorism and enforce it?

So far i personally agree on the topic for this bill to go up for vote possibly,it would strengthen UN nations against rogue/conquest and power hungrey Naton States that will not talk or negotiate honestly or are clearly lying(if proved by actions) to be deatl with in a MASS AMMOUNT that way less casualitys are more then likley to accur by getting the job quickly and having a strategy war room team to come up with military strategies to avoid entrapment or any tricks the enemy may be to set upon friendly peace observing and terrorist hating nations that are there in the first place cause they refused to cooperate,if this bill gave no room for the offender to cooperate then id clearly reject even backing it up for now,but as of now its something id be willing to sign if put infront of the UN.

How do you intend to stop state sponsored terrorism? How do you define it? Who gets to decide which nations are harbouring terrorists or a threat to world peace? For example the USA would say North Korea is a threat to world peace, many other nations would say that the USA is a threat to world peace.

http://www.gladstone.no-ip.com/bush_twat_small.gif

I think you are getting ahead of yourselves.

The UN cannot have a military. That would then leave it up to the UN members to provide the military and bear all costs associated with some fight.

How does that work? Not all nations have a military, and not all nations are financially stable enough to contribute to "world peace"