NationStates Jolt Archive

all of the resolutions that are presented and voted on by the UN are liberal/left leaning, pro-enviroment, anti-bussiness resolutions. AND THEY ARE ALL APPROVED!!! When was the last time a resolution was voted down? Any country that joins the UN sacrifices its economy and has to increase its Civil rights, and in the real world that is not the case. In the real world Syria is in charge of the Human Rights comission, what a joke. Is the rest of the world supposed to follow Syria's example? NO! If a resolution is passed, every country has the option of not enforcing it. France and Germany decided to not enforce UNR 1441, while the US and UK did. Were France and Germany condemed by the UN for not supporting a resolution that they voted for? Hell no, they were praised by the rest of the world, even though the supposed "world governing body" gave the US and UK the authority to go into Iraq.

Sorry to get off on a rant, but I was just trying to prove that in the real world, just because the UN approves something, not every UN nation institutes those resolutions into real laws.

all of the resolutions that are presented and voted on by the UN are liberal/left leaning, pro-enviroment, anti-bussiness resolutions. AND THEY ARE ALL APPROVED!!!
That says one of three things:
1. There isn't enough organised opposition to them by those on the Right who would vote against them.
2. Those on the Left vastly outnumber those on the Right and democracy (or a majoritarian form thereof) is being served.
3. Those on the Right tend to spend more time submitting proposals which, while they might be valid to debate are invalidly submitted.

Personally, I'll go with 2 right now.

When was the last time a resolution was voted down?

Quite recently, actually. If memory serves, The Global Market has had at least one resolution voted down. There were quite a few in the early days of the site, but that's getting on for a year ago now.

Any country that joins the UN sacrifices its economy and has to increase its Civil rights, and in the real world that is not the case.
Warning, Cheap Argument Alert (from me): In the real world, the benefits of joining the UN are considerable. Here, let's be frank, they amount to debating about resolutions. You're not forced to stay in.

In the real world Syria is in charge of the Human Rights comission, what a joke. Is the rest of the world supposed to follow Syria's example? NO!
Real world is one thing. If you want to rant about the real UN, do so in General.

If a resolution is passed, every country has the option of not enforcing it. France and Germany decided to not enforce UNR 1441, while the US and UK did.

I won't get into the semantics of Res. 1441 here, but I'll go as far as to say that the FAQ for the site makes it nice and clear that you can't pick and choose which resolutions your country adopts.


Were France and Germany condemed by the UN for not supporting a resolution that they voted for? Hell no, they were praised by the rest of the world, even though the supposed "world governing body" gave the US and UK the authority to go into Iraq.

Before anyone starts degenerating this into a debate about the role of the UN, Resolution 1441 or anything like that, can I ask you to post in General about it rather than here. I'm not criticising the initial poster for having done so, just trying to clear something up before it becomes an issue.


Sorry to get off on a rant, but I was just trying to prove that in the real world, just because the UN approves something, not every UN nation institutes those resolutions into real laws.
Again, the FAQ makes this very clear.

If you think about the reasons for mostly leftist resolutions, the answer is obvious. Right-wingers (like myself) tend to dislike/distrust the UN, and therefore would not join it in this game. The people most likely to join the UN would be the Leftists, hence mostly Liberal agenda on the tables. Its a self-creating cycle. The solution is simple. Leave the UN and escape its influence, or rally a massive Conservative invasion. The second option isn't likely, since most of us won't even touch the UN, so if you don't like it... leave it. Simple, really. I know I'll never join, b/c it doesn't share my beliefs.

I just dont see why the UN in this game is skewed to the left rather than the right. Most of these resolutions, if they were presented the the real life UN, would probably not even be brought to vote.

I did not try to make this out to be a debate about UNR 1441 or anything like that, I just wish that the UN was more balanced, like the real UN.

That's the problem, United. The people who join the UN in NS are mostly leftist, so the issues are leftist. Unless you can convince a bunch of Republicans to join (like 500), don't expect anything different. Anywho, good luck.

I just dont see why the UN in this game is skewed to the left rather than the right. Most of these resolutions, if they were presented the the real life UN, would probably not even be brought to vote.

I did not try to make this out to be a debate about UNR 1441 or anything like that, I just wish that the UN was more balanced, like the real UN.

My country is a "leftist-leaning college state" and I see these ridiculous resolutions being presented and even my "leftist-leaning college state" must vote against them. The freedom of humor was the real joke. would you see the real UN even present that topic for debate? The one that is currently in queue, "Equality For All" has a sentence in it that I do not like and that is why I will not vote for it. that sentence in it is: We propose that all nations under the UN charter respect the very essence of life and vow to preserve and protect it, in all its many forms whether human, or otherwise.

Does this mean that abortion will be outlawed in my country? If so doesnt that take away from my civil rights while also decreasing my human rights because the mother, no matter what her health my be, must give birth to the child, because the UN Resolution states that my country must "vow to preserve and protect life, in all its many forms"?

The UN is skewed to the left in this game because any right wing resolutions would be (and deserve to be) shot down in flames. Can you imagine the following right wing resolutions getting passed? "Ouytlaw Civil Liberties", "Outlaw Elections", "Abolish Welfare", "Screw the environment, lets make as much money as possible before we die". Left wing resolutions are about improving people's quality of life, whereas right wing resolutions (if they ever got approved, ha ha) would be about extending human suffering and misery.

The UN is skewed to the left in this game because any right wing resolutions would be (and deserve to be) shot down in flames. Can you imagine the following right wing resolutions getting passed? "Ouytlaw Civil Liberties", "Outlaw Elections", "Abolish Welfare", "Screw the environment, lets make as much money as possible before we die". Left wing resolutions are about improving people's quality of life, whereas right wing resolutions (if they ever got approved, ha ha) would be about extending human suffering and misery.
I was hoping to avoid this partisan drivel.

The UN is skewed to the left in this game because any right wing resolutions would be (and deserve to be) shot down in flames. Can you imagine the following right wing resolutions getting passed? "Ouytlaw Civil Liberties", "Outlaw Elections", "Abolish Welfare", "Screw the environment, lets make as much money as possible before we die". Left wing resolutions are about improving people's quality of life, whereas right wing resolutions (if they ever got approved, ha ha) would be about extending human suffering and misery.

A "left wing" resolution in Queue right now would outlaw abortion, so what exactly is your point? Outlawing a woman's right to choose would kinda affect civil rights in a negitive way, dont you think?

To me, I feel that most resolutions presented or voted on, regardless of left or right, are just idiotic. "The Freedom of Humor" is just as stupid as any "outlaw elections." At least the right is smart enaugh to not present these topics, while the left is more than happy to bring up any resolution on "freedom to smile" "freedom to cry" "freedom to love one-another."

No, Gnool, the reason was stated earlier in the thread. Center and Right leaning states leave the UN or don't join to begin with in order to escape the Leftist tilt. Aubreyad was all fired up about joining the UN, that was before we saw the resolutions that had been passed and were in the queue. The reason the real uN is different is that there, it's a de facto requirement to be in the UN. Here, it's 100% optional. So if a state doesn't like the way the uN is tilting, it can leave. And the more Center and Right states leave, the worse the tilt becomes. It's a downward spiral making the UN more and more Left-leaning and less and less representative. It's a pity, but I recognize reality and Aubreyad acts as an Observer, debating but not voting.

Aubreyad

I was hoping to avoid this partisan drivel.

Sorry I'll try not to voice my opinion in the future

A "left wing" resolution in Queue right now would outlaw abortion, so what exactly is your point? Outlawing a woman's right to choose would kinda affect civil rights in a negitive way, dont you think?

Left-wingers have always been the first to demand the legalisation of abortion. It's the right wing bible thumpers who are opposed to it.

If right wing nations don't like the way the UN is tilted, the only thing they can do about changing it is to join the UN in droves and put a stop to all the left/liberal resolutions. Yelling from the sidelines won't do a thing. (And I admit my earlier post was meant to get people angry).

A "left wing" resolution in Queue right now would outlaw abortion, so what exactly is your point? Outlawing a woman's right to choose would kinda affect civil rights in a negitive way, dont you think?

Left-wingers have always been the first to demand the legalisation of abortion. It's the right wing bible thumpers who are opposed to it.

Read the resolution moron. "Equality For All: A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" would actually ban abortion and reduce civil rights. It would also outlaw killing ANYTHING, including corn, peas, carrots, and other stuff people eat. Not too bright of a proposal if you are trying to increase people's civil and human rights, but outlawing abortion and telling them that they have to eat feces to survive.

I just dont see why the UN in this game is skewed to the left rather than the right. Most of these resolutions, if they were presented the the real life UN, would probably not even be brought to vote.

I did not try to make this out to be a debate about UNR 1441 or anything like that, I just wish that the UN was more balanced, like the real UN.

In relation to the 1441 stuff, I know you didn't set out to make this thread a debate about it. Like I said, I was trying to defuse a potential situation of what are (in my opinion) valid points about the UN in this game descending into a debate about Iraq.

Nevertheless, in answer to the main substance of your point:

The political character of a group is determined - as far as I can see - by the political outlook of its members. The Republican Party in the USA is dominated by Right-wingers in various incarnations, hence it's a Right-Wing organisation. A group such as Socialist Alternative here in sunny Australia is dominated by Left-wingers of a particularly rabid variety, hence it's a rabidly Leftist group.
Where the real UN has shortcomings (Syria as Human Rights chair is just one I could name if I really had to sit down and think about it), the advantages in joining - or possibly the disadvantages in not joining - greatly outweigh the shortcomings. Hence, even a very Right-wing government such as that of George W Bush in the USA or, some years ago, Maggie Thatcher in the UK isn't going to stand up and say "we're withdrawing from the UN".
Here, however, there is a school of thought which suggests that there's no real need to join the UN. I haven't looked at the numbers, but I'd suggest that there are at least as many nations not in the UN as there are in it - probably slightly more outside. As a result, as TRSN pointed out, Right-wingers who distrust the UN are much less likely to join unless they believe that there is some hope of "reforming" the system from the inside. Because the collective forces of the Right are located both within and without the UN, they can't muster as much support for their own resolutions as the collective forces of the Left.
As for the fact that most of the resolutions presented here would be voted down even if they made the floor - I couldn't agree with you more. Let's just be thankful that this is a simulation and a rather loose one at that, rather than the real world.

Read the resolution moron. "Equality For All: A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights" would actually ban abortion and reduce civil rights. It would also outlaw killing ANYTHING, including corn, peas, carrots, and other stuff people eat. Not too bright of a proposal if you are trying to increase people's civil and human rights, but outlawing abortion and telling them that they have to eat feces to survive.

so true. so many people start proposals that say "to improve worldwide human and civil rights" then it has some thing about not letting you have a racist political view or tv show or something. that would go under moral decency.

Whatever happened to a middle ground? I thought the objective was to create a untopia here. True it's only a game but as much as I here about meeting in the middleI don't see much of it. I'm a moderate conservative, who doesn't much care for the UN, but if you're going to make a difference you've got to start somewhere. I've applied, and I challenge other conservatives to do likewise.

As for the fact that most of the resolutions presented here would be voted down even if they made the floor - I couldn't agree with you more. Let's just be thankful that this is a simulation and a rather loose one at that, rather than the real world.

Precisely.

I thought about the fact that my nation would have to take on board all passed proposals before I joined the UN.

To me, the point of having a nation is to see how it evolves through my decisions (issues) and UN proposals.

I don't like the fact that my country (UK) is developing into a rightwing society, so i'm trying to keep my NS nation to the left and not lose out financially, as predicted by those on the right.

all of the resolutions that are presented and voted on by the UN are liberal/left leaning, pro-enviroment, anti-bussiness resolutions. AND THEY ARE ALL APPROVED!!! When was the last time a resolution was voted down? Any country that joins the UN sacrifices its economy and has to increase its Civil rights, and in the real world that is not the case. In the real world Syria is in charge of the Human Rights comission, what a joke. Is the rest of the world supposed to follow Syria's example? NO! If a resolution is passed, every country has the option of not enforcing it. France and Germany decided to not enforce UNR 1441, while the US and UK did. Were France and Germany condemed by the UN for not supporting a resolution that they voted for? Hell no, they were praised by the rest of the world, even though the supposed "world governing body" gave the US and UK the authority to go into Iraq.

Sorry to get off on a rant, but I was just trying to prove that in the real world, just because the UN approves something, not every UN nation institutes those resolutions into real laws.

I don't think you have read 1441.. or you would know that no where in it did it authorize the Americans to go into Iraq unilaterally and depose it's leader. I can provide you with a copy of 1441 if you'd like to actually read it. It's a shame that when people hear things enough they believe them without actually reading the document for themselves so that they are clear on the facts and don't just take other peoples word for it. I suggest you actually read 1441 before making more inaccurate statements about what it said and what it didn't. :wink:

all of the resolutions that are presented and voted on by the UN are liberal/left leaning, pro-enviroment, anti-bussiness resolutions. AND THEY ARE ALL APPROVED!!! When was the last time a resolution was voted down? Any country that joins the UN sacrifices its economy and has to increase its Civil rights, and in the real world that is not the case. In the real world Syria is in charge of the Human Rights comission, what a joke. Is the rest of the world supposed to follow Syria's example? NO! If a resolution is passed, every country has the option of not enforcing it. France and Germany decided to not enforce UNR 1441, while the US and UK did. Were France and Germany condemed by the UN for not supporting a resolution that they voted for? Hell no, they were praised by the rest of the world, even though the supposed "world governing body" gave the US and UK the authority to go into Iraq.

Sorry to get off on a rant, but I was just trying to prove that in the real world, just because the UN approves something, not every UN nation institutes those resolutions into real laws.

Actually I think Libya is in charge of the human rights comission. :roll:

And when did the UN give the US/UK permission to go into Iraq? 1441 just said to search for weapons...

For once, I agree with you, GM.

The NS UN is actually supposed to work.

I've no problem with the leftist biase of the UN, the right not being in it is even better, we on the left get to create the world we want and know that the right will never pose a serious threat to us as invaders/greifers!

The UN is power plain and simple, if you dont want it you have no right to complain about it's effects.Period

The imbalance in NS and NS-UN is an inevitable function of the nature of the game.

First, NS attracts Utopian idealists who believe that the perfect society can be created by government action. These people are, almost by definition, leftists. For those who reject authoritarianism, there's not as much attraction in being the despotic ruler of a simulated country (and we're all despots, no matter what our UN ratings.)

Second, NS-UN is a poorly conceived organization, which is not only absolutely unlimited in power, but devoid of any of the restraints consistent with good government, such as separation of powers. Members can (and obviously often do) vote without even looking at the debate over resolutions, something that would not be possible for a member of a legislature. They also vote without any consideration for the realistic consequences of resolutions, because these do not actually happen in NS. Leftists, just like in the real world, will happily vote for anything that superficially purports to do something good, without any cognizance of its actual effects; unlike the real world, there are no real consequences for them to learn from.

This kind of government - absolute totalitarianism, without any kind of restraint, balance, or responsibility - appeals naturally to leftists, but not to centrists, libertarians or indeed to many rightists. If the real UN were like NS-UN, it would have zero members. Conversely, non-leftists would tend to reject NS-UN even if it weren't dominated by leftists, because its nature ensures that it really doesn't have anything to offer anyone who isn't a radical authoritarian.

I don't think you have read 1441..

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

:idea: it's there, you just have to read between the lines...

:idea: bump

First of all, there is no 'in between the lines' in an international document such as a UN resolution. What there are however, are different interpretations of clauses within.

I read the text of 1441, and I see nothing in the text that authorizes the commencement of hostilities with Iraq in any event.

Once again, the resolution essentially declares that Iraq is in material breach of past UN resolutions and the terms of the ceasefire at the end of the First Gulf War. It authorizes further inspections, and demands that Iraq not impede the work of the inspectors.

Now, I personally DO beleive that the invasion of Iraq was necessary and just. However, that does not make me blind to the fact that 1441 by itself does not call for hostilities.

Stephistan and The Global Market are right in this regard. I reiterate their point...please READ the articles you reference, before using them in a debate.

I don't think you have read 1441..

http://www.un.int/usa/sres-iraq.htm

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

:idea: it's there, you just have to read between the lines...

:idea: Okay, my mistake, you really don't have to read between the lines.... allow me to requote the resolution...

"Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the Council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,"

get it yet... the ceasefire is lifted when Iraq stops complying with the rules of resolution 687... which they did.... this is the part of 1441 that gives it merrit... otherwise it would be meaningless

get it yet... how about now.... no... give it a second...

...please READ the articles you reference, before using them in a debate.

:idea: I couldn't agree with you more...

Again... before a 1441 debate (General Forum is WIDE open) begins, let me bring this back to my frustrations about NS-UN.

The problem with the organization is that it is inherently favoring the leftist groups, and throwing out conservatives and even moderates who believe that each nation joining a world organization should maintain some shred of dignity and national soverignty.

With respect to the "just leave the UN" point, I must respectfully disagree. Not joining the UN has many grave consequences, including the inability to be your Region's leader (often or almost always the UN Delegate,) and will obviously have no voice in who your region's leader will be (because endorsements are by UN members only.) To have any voice in regional politics you need to join the UN, so you cannot simply leave whenever its inconvenient.

So sad... and all my "Nullification" proposals either get removed or die...

With respect to the "just leave the UN" point, I must respectfully disagree. Not joining the UN has many grave consequences, including the inability to be your Region's leader (often or almost always the UN Delegate,) and will obviously have no voice in who your region's leader will be (because endorsements are by UN members only.) To have any voice in regional politics you need to join the UN, so you cannot simply leave whenever its inconvenient.

Not true. As region founder, I can kick any nation trying to get UN delegate status.

If this thread contains the word/number "1441" at any time after my post, it will move to General very rapidly indeed. Can people please continue only to rant about the NS UN.

With respect to the "just leave the UN" point, I must respectfully disagree. Not joining the UN has many grave consequences, including the inability to be your Region's leader (often or almost always the UN Delegate,) and will obviously have no voice in who your region's leader will be (because endorsements are by UN members only.) To have any voice in regional politics you need to join the UN, so you cannot simply leave whenever its inconvenient.

Not true. As region founder, I can kick any nation trying to get UN delegate status.

True, but many nations no longer have a founder (and none will be created for them because Mods truly do not know who is the founder.)

Also, if a UN Delegate does eventually rise, however, they can kick you out of your region and eliminate your control permanently.

At any rate, the point I'm trying to make is that you cannot just leave the UN if you wish to have any voice in deciding the region's leader (assuming this is not the founder!)

Could it be that in an international game the centre ground is not what Americans are used to? Both the republicans and the democrats are considered rightwing parties by the standards of most other western countries. America is the home of capitalism and from an external point of view all of you recent administrations have been very right wing.

The American far right is so far right that it is considered extremist and dangerous by most international players in the game.

Just a thort....

The Right Wing is the right wing. 8)

Could it be that in an international game the centre ground is not what Americans are used to? Both the republicans and the democrats are considered rightwing parties by the standards of most other western countries. America is the home of capitalism and from an external point of view all of you recent administrations have been very right wing.

The American far right is so far right that it is considered extremist and dangerous by most international players in the game.

Just a thort....

It's actually getting to the point where Americas themselves are realizing that democrats are right of center, and the Republicans are an extreemest right wing organization.

But, because of the winner-take-all electoral system in the US, and the abilities of the election winners to change the rules to make it easier for them to maintain their grip on power it is very difficult for the majority of Americans to have a say in how their country is run.