NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey everybody,

I submitted a proposal today suggesting that all arms trading between U.N. member states should be banned. I think that this could promote peace between nations and hinder terrorist access to weapons.

Sorry, but even as a very peaceful nation I consider this ridiculous.

Rehochipe has no significant arms industry. However, we have one or two rather fractious neighbours, and consider the maintenance of a well-armed military essential to our nation. We therefore rely on arms imports from our allies.

What needs to be cut down on is illicit arms trading and trading of unnecessarily inhumane weapons types. We believe Galdago has a proposal in the works to address this issue.

Sorry, but even as a very peaceful nation I consider this ridiculous.

Rehochipe has no significant arms industry. However, we have one or two rather fractious neighbours, and consider the maintenance of a well-armed military essential to our nation. We therefore rely on arms imports from our allies.

What needs to be cut down on is illicit arms trading and trading of unnecessarily inhumane weapons types. We believe Galdago has a proposal in the works to address this issue.

Build an arms industry if you're that bothered. Maybe it'll help cut unemployment in your nation.

Rediculous in the extreme. The only trading that should ever be banned is human slaves.

I think you're stretching that slightly by saying it's ridiculous 'in the extreme'. Ridiculous in the extreme is saying something like 'All aunties must die because I don't like mine' :roll:

Oh well, looks like anybody trying to break into this game has a tough time of it. Bye.

This is absurd.
a) Not all nations wish to have huge numbers of arms factorys. It will ruin their economy and enviroment. If a nation wanted to have 100 tanks for a national defense force you're saying that rather than just buy some tanks from a country skilled in building them you have to put in the effort to build factories when you only need an insignificant number.

b) Arms manufacturing is a primary means of trade for many nations, this proposal would force them to give up their most properous source of income and leave them stuck with too many weapons and a useless infastructure. The only way I can possibly think of for them to make up the cost is to train huge armies and go to war. Thank you for promoting the peace.

c) Even if this did pass, no UN nation would respect it and none would bother to enforce it.

d) Guess what? Most terrorist/militant nations are not part of the UN, which means they would still trade with eachother happily, while-if UN nations actually followed the proposal-they would be left far weaker.

From your response above I see you don't take critisim well, but you have to realize that not everyone will agree with you, especially if your proposal makes no sense.

I just wanted to voice my agreement with exham.

Too much arms trading is a bad thing. Look at me, I've ended up with one long green arm and one short blue arm.
Tsk.

This is absurd.
a) Not all nations wish to have huge numbers of arms factorys. It will ruin their economy and enviroment. If a nation wanted to have 100 tanks for a national defense force you're saying that rather than just buy some tanks from a country skilled in building them you have to put in the effort to build factories when you only need an insignificant number.

b) Arms manufacturing is a primary means of trade for many nations, this proposal would force them to give up their most properous source of income and leave them stuck with too many weapons and a useless infastructure. The only way I can possibly think of for them to make up the cost is to train huge armies and go to war. Thank you for promoting the peace.

c) Even if this did pass, no UN nation would respect it and none would bother to enforce it.

d) Guess what? Most terrorist/militant nations are not part of the UN, which means they would still trade with eachother happily, while-if UN nations actually followed the proposal-they would be left far weaker.

From your response above I see you don't take critisim well, but you have to realize that not everyone will agree with you, especially if your proposal makes no sense.

Fine then, I'm resigning from the UN. I'm sure you can understand that if people call your first proposal 'ridculous' and 'absurd' it gets quite annoying. Thanks for being welcoming people, great boards. Oh, and I apologise for being intellectually inferior - I'll just go plow the fields now.

How many arms sales to terrorists are done in public? NONE. Banning legitimate arms sales will do nothing to stop sales under the table. This proposal will in fact help terrorists by hindering the abilities of those who would fight to stop them.

Fine then, I'm resigning from the UN. I'm sure you can understand that if people call your first proposal 'ridculous' and 'absurd' it gets quite annoying. Thanks for being welcoming people, great boards. Oh, and I apologise for being intellectually inferior - I'll just go plow the fields now.

Good. Go plant some trees so the next army that attacks you can march in the shade.

This is absurd.
a) Not all nations wish to have huge numbers of arms factorys. It will ruin their economy and enviroment. If a nation wanted to have 100 tanks for a national defense force you're saying that rather than just buy some tanks from a country skilled in building them you have to put in the effort to build factories when you only need an insignificant number.

b) Arms manufacturing is a primary means of trade for many nations, this proposal would force them to give up their most properous source of income and leave them stuck with too many weapons and a useless infastructure. The only way I can possibly think of for them to make up the cost is to train huge armies and go to war. Thank you for promoting the peace.

c) Even if this did pass, no UN nation would respect it and none would bother to enforce it.

d) Guess what? Most terrorist/militant nations are not part of the UN, which means they would still trade with eachother happily, while-if UN nations actually followed the proposal-they would be left far weaker.

From your response above I see you don't take critisim well, but you have to realize that not everyone will agree with you, especially if your proposal makes no sense.

Fine then, I'm resigning from the UN. I'm sure you can understand that if people call your first proposal 'ridculous' and 'absurd' it gets quite annoying. Thanks for being welcoming people, great boards. Oh, and I apologise for being intellectually inferior - I'll just go plow the fields now.

A bit thin-skinned are we ? Because we won't kowtow to the creator of a proposal that almost everyone can agree is not the most wise of concepts, you quit the UN. Well see you in a few years when life toughens you up a bit.

::sigh::

Happens all the time HoopHoopland - recent arrivals join the UN, try and change the world, and get their possibly well-intentioned ideas shot down.

No reason to quit the UN though, you'd do well to loiter for a little while to pick up the tempo and general feeling of the boards before jumping in on the deep end and trying to bring about world peace overnight.

However, I do think that certain nations should tone down their critisms; it does not help the UN one bit, and it does not make newly joined nations feel welcome at all. I'd urge all those nations who have been so critical to remember we were all newly joined once, and I know I would not have appreciated being so brutually put-down.

As for the idea of banning arms trade, it's certainly well meaning. However, I think it needs more review.

First of all, it would be really, really good if you'd posted a copy of the proposal on here - makes it easier to read the nitty gritty rather than evaluating it on your brief initial post.

Secondly, it's always a good idea to submit a proposal in draft form on here first - that way you get some input from the regulars on here, and they might highlight something you've missed, something in need of clarification etc.

Anyhow, I'll post the proposal on here now:

Ban on Arms Trading
A resolution to reduce barriers to free trade and commerce.

Category: Free Trade Strength: Mild Proposed by: HoopHoopland
Description: A proposal to ban both legal and illegal international trading of arms between all U.N. member states.

Approvals: 8 (Concerted Socialists, Atlantic Quays, Kerry Haters, Geministan, America the American, 1 Infinite Loop, Pilgrimania, Dollyhead)

Status: Lacking Support (requires 145 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Apr 28 2004

Okay, that's actually pretty disappointing. I don't think many nations will support banning legal arms trading, although the illegal part is good.

Secondly it does not show sufficent content. There is so many areas it does not address, such as imports from non-UN states.

If you were going to ban any arms trading, IMO you should ban illegal trading, urge member states to work co-operatively to ban the illegal transit of arms, and urge nations to increase legislation on the arms industry with a view towards reducing legitimate weapons falling into the wrong hands.

But anyway, this proposal is not getting my support and I will argue strongly against it in the unlikely event it passes.
_________________________
http://ubbt.moby.com/userfiles/2312817-hirotaflag.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=hirota)

However, I do think that certain nations should tone down their critisms; it does not help the UN one bit, and it does not make newly joined nations feel welcome at all. I'd urge all those nations who have been so critical to remember we were all newly joined once, and I know I would not have appreciated being so brutually put-down.
Sorry, but certain nations have an interest in preserving our national interests, and will not tolerate other nations, newly joined or not, trying to infringe on our sovereignty. It would be a disservice to my nation (or anyone who values freedom) to go easy on some half-assed, ill-conceived, authoritarian proposal just because its author happens to be a thin-skinned newbie who might not feel welcome.


If you were going to ban any arms trading, IMO you should ban illegal trading,
Yes, make illegal arms trading illegal...

This message was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department.

"Yes, make illegal arms trading illegal..."

Having said that, is there any UN legislation explicitly stating what constitutes 'illegal arms trading'? Hmm, more on this later, methinks...

Fine then, I'm resigning from the UN. I'm sure you can understand that if people call your first proposal 'ridculous' and 'absurd' it gets quite annoying.

What else do you expect when it indeed IS ridiculous and absurd?

G Bugles old boy, do you mean to say we're in agreement on this issue? :shock:

You Hippies can't ban arms trade!!! Do you hear Me!! It will ruin the economies of thousands of nations including mine!!

Illegal arms trading should be banned, there could be nothing more frightening to wake up after a night on the town, in a bath of ice, with both your said limbs missing, replaced by those of an 70 year old female biker gang member. :D

- The Rep of Komokom, RMoS, pleading temporary sanity.

You cannot ban what's already banned! If it's illegal, that means it IS banned.

Sheesh :twisted:

Too much arms trading is a bad thing. Look at me, I've ended up with one long green arm and one short blue arm.
Tsk.

Fozzie Bear steps up: *ahem* WOKKA WOKKA!

G Bugles old boy, do you mean to say we're in agreement on this issue? :shock:

Shit, you're right.

/me changes his mind

:D