NationStates Jolt Archive

What follows is a draft:

------------------------------------ UN Peacekeepers
-------------- A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Catagory: International Security ----------- Strength: Mild ------------------ Proposed By: UN Peacekeepers

Description: Whereas each year, millions - if not billions - of people die due to war; whereas rogue nations constantly make war; whereas civil wars ruin the lives of peoples in whole nations:

It is hereby proposed that a new branch of the United Nations be created. They will be entitled "UN Peacekeepers." Each nation in the UN that already has a military can loan a fraction of their soldiers to this new branch. Any volunteers from any UN member nation may also enlist. The duties of the UN Peacekeepers are as follows:

1) To protect and defend weaker UN member nations from imperialists.
2) To bring peace and stability to nations torn apart by civil war.
3) To prevent war in unstable areas.

Feedback is welcome. If you have any questions or comments please post them in this thread. If you find any errors in it, please notify me by pointing them out in this thread. The schedualed release date for this proposal is in one week.

If this proposal is not passed, I will revise it again and release it after one week of it not being passed.

In this thread, discussions of this proposal are also welcome.

how do you join? i want to

More often than not, two national militaries which use different languages, equipment, and procedures who come together are more likely to cause friction and increase the chances of friendly fire. And at the moment, certain nations whose policies with which we do not agree with, are currently in conflict with our own forces or neighboring regional nations.

How can one military force serve with those other national militaries whose political choices we vehementally disagree with. The Terran Assemblage will not have any member of it's military serving as a 'UN Peacekeeper' force, when those who control the UN use our men and women as cannon fodder, and not even sending their own national militaries to side with us during any conflict to keep this peace you speak of.

There are certain elements within the UN I do not doubt which would use their position and authority to weaken certain militaries and political entities by draining our resources for their own personal conflicts. We will not cast a favoring vote to this proposal.

More often than not, two national militaries which use different languages, equipment, and procedures who come together are more likely to cause friction and increase the chances of friendly fire. And at the moment, certain nations whose policies with which we do not agree with, are currently in conflict with our own forces or neighboring regional nations.

They would use the "universal" languages of the UN (English, Arabic, etc.)

How can one military force serve with those other national militaries whose political choices we vehementally disagree with.

It wouldn't be with other nations, but the UN as a whole. The UN's policy would be expressed, not individual naitons. If you disagree with the UN's policy, you shouldn't be a UN member.

The Terran Assemblage will not have any member of it's military serving as a 'UN Peacekeeper' force...

That's the good thing about this proposal. Joining the force is optional. Your own soldiers would decide, not your government. If you are really that controlling, then you go against the recently passed Universal Freedom of Choice resolution.

...when those who control the UN use our men and women as cannon fodder...

The UN Peacekeepers will be in no more danger than any other military force involved in the conflict. They are not "cannon fodder."

...and not even sending their own national militaries to side with us during any conflict to keep this peace you speak of.

Who says that? The peacekeepers will help keep peace, but national militaries are still free to get involved.

There are certain elements within the UN I do not doubt which would use their position and authority to weaken certain militaries and political entities by draining our resources for their own personal conflicts.

If they are there to "weaken a political entity" it would probably mean they are stopping imperialists from taking over helpless nations.

We will not cast a favoring vote to this proposal.

Your loss.

This sounds like a change to the game which has previously been made illegal for proposals. Am I wrong? Maybe you aren't suggesting a second UN or anything. I don't totally understand.

This sounds like a change to the game which has previously been made illegal for proposals. Am I wrong? Maybe you aren't suggesting a second UN or anything. I don't totally understand.

This is no change of game mechanics. It would only be a change of the game mechanics if armies were part of the game mechanics. This is no more of a change of the game mechanics than that insane proposal banning armies.

---Post deleted by NationStates Moderators---

Actually it'll probably just ring as long as it takes them to ban your IP address or something.

Anyway.

As a non-UN member whos already concerned about anti-military zealots making their bid for power in the UN(See the "Ban Armies!" thread), I must ask this question: Will this apply only to UN members as it should, or is this another cockeney attempt to force your will on those who chose not to be part of your organization?

Ping ! Looks like game mechanics, perhaps Enodia could peruse it a tad to give their administrative position to its validity?

- The Rep of Komokom,

Who until further notice will not be giving support to this proposal other then the requisite trouble shooting as with suggesting Enodia be asked to check it. Translation: A "no" vote at this time.

Each nation in the UN that already has a military shall give a fraction of their soldiers to this new branch.

We've seen this suggested before. You can't 'give' a military, or a fraction thereof. It's made up of national property and employees, and taking those is a tax. Use of it could be loaned, of course.

We would rather see individual conflicts addressed by individual UN resolutions and any forces necessary being volunteered by uninvolved member states to serve under the UN flag for the duration. Of course, game mechanics and the hazy state of the NS world make passing such resolutions deeply impractical. But in the absence of such, we'd rather have no peacekeepers than inefficient, mandateless, autonomous ones.

This is actually better than the "Ban all Armies" proposal.

except...

To say that Rouge Nations cause all (if not most) wars is wrong. the Ban All Armies has alot of nations UN and Otherwise showing how far they'll go to protect their national interest.

Forcing a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE on nations is in violation of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE since I and my people may not want to learn yet another language.

Peace keeper wrote:
"It wouldn't be with other nations, but the UN as a whole. The UN's policy would be expressed, not individual naitons. If you disagree with the UN's policy, you shouldn't be a UN member. "

Sounds Totalitarian to me... again this is in violation of the the Right to Choose. the above line basically saying "Accept my ideas because it's right and your ideas are wrong."

Peace keeper wrote:
That's the good thing about this proposal. Joining the force is optional. Your own soldiers would decide, not your government. If you are really that controlling, then you go against the recently passed Universal Freedom of Choice resolution.

Your soldiers can choose... wow. I wanna see them in battle!
General: The enemy is in range... attack!
Soldier 1: I hate war, I choose to go home! leaves
Soldier 2: nah General, we need to flank them. Bravo company come with me.
(only 2 soldiers from Bravo company follow, the rest choose to stay and watch tv)
the rest of the soldiers chose to sleep in so they're still in their tents.
and if the general does anything about it... he's in violation of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE Resolution.

Peace Keeper wrote:
The UN Peacekeepers will be in no more danger than any other military force involved in the conflict. They are not "cannon fodder."

How can you guarentee this when in your examples you can't even follow the RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution?

Peacekeeper wrote:
"If they are there to "weaken a political entity" it would probably mean they are stopping imperialists from taking over helpless nations."

While this sentiment is a favorable one. Realistically you know this is not true.

BTW: Enjoying the new resolution yet?

Now if the Peacekeeping force is used to help protect UN interests (missionary, health and welfare ect) in war torn nations, then it might be favorable. but this needs alot of work.

Actually it'll probably just ring as long as it takes them to ban your IP address or something.

Anyway.

As a non-UN member whos already concerned about anti-military zealots making their bid for power in the UN(See the "Ban Armies!" thread), I must ask this question: Will this apply only to UN members as it should, or is this another cockeney attempt to force your will on those who chose not to be part of your organization?

What follows is a draft:

------------------------------------ UN Peacekeepers
-------------- A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Catagory: International Security ----------- Strength: Significant ----------- Proposed By: UN Peacekeepers

Description: Whereas each year, millions - if not billions - of people die due to war; whereas rogue nations constantly make war; whereas civil wars ruin the lives of peoples in whole nations:

It is hereby proposed that a new branch of the United Nations be created. They will be entitled "UN Peacekeepers." Each nation in the UN that already has a military shall give a fraction of their soldiers to this new branch. Any volunteers from any UN member nation may also enlist. The duties of the UN Peacekeepers are as follows:

1) To protect and defend weaker UN member nations from imperialists.
2) To bring peace and stability to nations torn apart by civil war.
3) To prevent war in unstable areas.

UN Peacekeepers, could we suggest that you change the strength from "Significant" to "Mild"? [OOC]: In game mechanics terms, the strength really indicates what effect this proposal will have on military budgets. Since you're not proposing any new recruitment, but merely asking nations to send existing soldiers to the peacekeeping force, "Mild" strength seems far more appropriate.

We appreciate that, in roleplaying terms, this proposal will have a significant effect, but that's not really what the proposal strength indicates.

This is actually better than the "Ban all Armies" proposal.

except...

To say that Rouge [you put color rouge, it should be rogue] Nations cause all (if not most) wars is wrong. the Ban All Armies has alot of nations UN and Otherwise showing how far they'll go to protect their national interest.

The Ban All Armies proposal will result in massive amount of nations leaving the UN. It will also result in rogue nations that are not in the UN to invade the helpless UN nations, leading to the UN's downfall. We wouldn't want that.

Forcing a UNIVERSAL LANGUAGE on nations is in violation of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE since I and my people may not want to learn yet another language.

I am not forcing a univeral language in this resolution. I was mearly suggesting, in another post, that a universal language that many people know (such as English) could help communication. [OOC: I lived overseas for years. I know that in most places in the world, people know some (sometimes very little) English as a second language. I also know that most soldiers can learn survival phrases in a language to communicate with each other.]

Peace keeper wrote:
"It wouldn't be with other nations, but the UN as a whole. The UN's policy would be expressed, not individual naitons. If you disagree with the UN's policy, you shouldn't be a UN member. "

Sounds Totalitarian to me... again this is in violation of the the Right to Choose. the above line basically saying "Accept my ideas because it's right and your ideas are wrong."

What a paradox. The Ban All Armies proposal would be forcing nations to ban their military, instead of giving them the right to choose. And I never said that my ideas are right and others are wrong.

Peace keeper wrote:
That's the good thing about this proposal. Joining the force is optional. Your own soldiers would decide, not your government. If you are really that controlling, then you go against the recently passed Universal Freedom of Choice resolution.

Your soldiers can choose... wow. I wanna see them in battle!
General: The enemy is in range... attack!
Soldier 1: I hate war, I choose to go home! leaves
Soldier 2: nah General, we need to flank them. Bravo company come with me.
(only 2 soldiers from Bravo company follow, the rest choose to stay and watch tv)
the rest of the soldiers chose to sleep in so they're still in their tents.
and if the general does anything about it... he's in violation of the RIGHT TO CHOOSE Resolution.

Did you know that most military forces are voluntary anyways? What I meant is that people can volunteer to enlist. The soldiers couldn't leave in combat, like all other voluntary forces - YOU VOLUNTEER TO ENLIST AND THEN YOU MUST SERVE THE TERM! Did I make myself clear?

Peace Keeper wrote:
The UN Peacekeepers will be in no more danger than any other military force involved in the conflict. They are not "cannon fodder."

How can you guarentee this when in your examples you can't even follow the RIGHT TO CHOOSE resolution?

That is assuming.

Peacekeeper wrote:
"If they are there to "weaken a political entity" it would probably mean they are stopping imperialists from taking over helpless nations."

While this sentiment is a favorable one. Realistically you know this is not true.

Again, that is assuming. Besides, it is voluntary. The soldiers would be willingly risking their lives in the name of peace. They know the risks and they can deny to join.

Now if the Peacekeeping force is used to help protect UN interests (missionary, health and welfare ect) in war torn nations, then it might be favorable. but this needs alot of work.

Understood. Any ideas of what clauses to add to make the resolution clearer or do you just want to continue to cut up everything I say?

UN Peacekeepers, could we suggest that you change the strength from "Significant" to "Mild"? [OOC]: In game mechanics terms, the strength really indicates what effect this proposal will have on military budgets. Since you're not proposing any new recruitment, but merely asking nations to send existing soldiers to the peacekeeping force, "Mild" strength seems far more appropriate.

We appreciate that, in roleplaying terms, this proposal will have a significant effect, but that's not really what the proposal strength indicates.

Okay.

...

This proposal should be sent to Prismos, who seems to be under the mistaken opinion that such forces already exist.

As soon as this proposal passes, Prismos is ready for your intervention.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sorry for the tone used. When I read your proposal, I just finished posing on the Ban all Armies thread and that kinda predjuiced my thinking.

Some of the lines could be reworded but I gotta think on that for now.

I think this would be a very good idea, actually. If and when it passes, I would be glad to submit some soldiers of mine to help the cause.

http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2002/e32002/playstation2/redfaction2/rf2_thumb006.jpg
Comrade Hessinger
National Military Commander of the Triunal Wohlstand Republic
First Socialist Labor Party Congress of Wohlstand
"When you kill a man, the only thing you should feel is the recoil"

Thanks.

"That's the good thing about this proposal. Joining the force is optional. Your own soldiers would decide, not your government. If you are really that controlling, then you go against the recently passed Universal Freedom of Choice resolution."

But it is the right of the government to state the number of troops they will send, what capacity they will provide support, and what equipment they will be issued.

Your interpretation of the Universal Freedom of Choice does not apply to this new resolution you are proposing.