NationStates Jolt Archive

The Nation of Dolleran declares their frustration with the UN.

All nations are simply voting YES to every resolution. No one actually reads or decides how they feel. Every single resolution has passed. This is completely ridiculous.

All these "feel good" resolutions have no real effect. Save the trees, save the whales, save the dirt. They are fine, but what do they do?? Nothing.

Lets start proposing real resolutions. Lets get some business resolutions up there, or more contraversial issues.

Everyone just votes YES for no reason...think people! I encourage you to think!

Now already?

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke". Apart from that, I totally agree with Dolleran. These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

and a few that arnt on that list got defeated any way

that's why the Holy Republic of Kons has not entered, or tried to enter, into the sheepish United Nations.

First things first; no not all resolutions are passed through, no not everyone always votes 'yes', and sometimes people vote 'yes' because of a genuine care for the environment.

Now on to business…

You have identified the problem so do something about it. Write proposals, campaign for them, convince us that what you are doing is good for our countries.

If this is a problem in The UN you can fix it. We all know this 'fault', it comes up time and time again but it can be fixed. You just need to do something about it.

Desdemona,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Do you know what ‘gay science’ is?

i agree it is a joke we should protest the un

"These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

Just a wild stab in the dark, but perchance people maybe just don't agree with you on 'issues of real importance' Thats always the downside of democracy :wink:

Any particular examples that you'd care to bring up for discussion ?

I'm guessing also that most people who are pro-environment are not neccesarily 'eco-stalinist wacko's' ... just people who are somewhat pro-environment. Sure there are a few loonies but it does not neccesarily follow that everyone who disagrees with you IS a loony. Resorting to this sort of blanket stereotype/name calling isn't particularly likely to win any of them round to your way of looking at things either - quite the opposite. Bit of a counterproductive long term strategy old bean.

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke". Apart from that, I totally agree with Dolleran. These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

Ooh, a new one. So now I'm a [deep breath] 'pinko commie treehugger permissive liberal socialist immoral lefty fag eco-stalinist wacko'.

Excellent debut, Tomaenia. Good work...

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke". Apart from that, I totally agree with Dolleran. These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

I believe that the UN is a singular instution, and would therefore be "is a joke." After all, we say the US is the best country in the world, not the US are the best country in the world.

But, on topic, you are absolutely right, I dropped out of the UN after I realized the voting pattern that was going on. These proposals are usually ridiculous and infringe on my nation's sovereignty.

An evangelist, a stripper, and a horse walk into the UN Member's Club. The bartender says: "What is this, some kind of joke?"

An evangelist, a stripper, and a horse walk into the UN Member's Club. The bartender says: "What is this, some kind of joke?"

Definitely the most worthy comment in the thread so far!

why, isin't it obvious to you fools? If you vote yes on any proposal you must be a left wing eco-stalinist wacko! The pattern fits! I care about the environment and I'm a leftie, so it follows that therefore I simply must vote yes on every proposal! Dare I say a shameful first post? And no offence citizens of Americaland, but surely Japan is the best country? It's rapidly catching you up in industrial output, has a much nicer world image, doesn't start wars, has Nintendo not Microsoft, doesn't produce offensive dross like "Friends" and doesn't have Geroge dubya Bush in charge! And I speak impartially, being British myself.

N.B how does eco-stalinism actually work?

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke". Apart from that, I totally agree with Dolleran. These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

Cry me a fucking river.

why, isin't it obvious to you fools? If you vote yes on any proposal you must be a left wing eco-stalinist wacko! The pattern fits! I care about the environment and I'm a leftie, so it follows that therefore I simply must vote yes on every proposal! Dare I say a shameful first post? And no offence citizens of Americaland, but surely Japan is the best country? It's rapidly catching you up in industrial output, has a much nicer world image, doesn't start wars, has Nintendo not Microsoft, doesn't produce offensive dross like "Friends" and doesn't have Geroge dubya Bush in charge! And I speak impartially, being British myself.

N.B how does eco-stalinism actually work?

Eco-stalinism references:

The Phantom of "Ecological" Nationalism Today, the menace of nationalism is intensified by an objective factor which could become supreme, namely, the growing threat to the natural environment. Nature was one of the factors constituting the nation, and not only an external determinant of its existence or, to an essential degree, of the specificity of its being. When nature as the natural environment is threatened a nation is compelled to protect its land, forests, water, and even its air. Conflicts caused by such hazards could once again become decisive and fundamental -- just as in the past they concerned pastureland, convenient geographic location and forests, conceived as sources of food and fuel, and finally as sources of subsistence.

Wars waged for the natural environment are becoming a new threat with terrible consequences, an outright phantom hovering over the world. It is said that increasingly difficult conditions for survival, caused by the degradation of the natural environment, will inspire aggressive ideologies with genocidal programmes, such as eco-fascism and eco-stalinism
[from chapter XIII of a book on Pope John Paul II and the United Nations, by Janus Kucznski)

..............................
Is green growth possible?
Planning Green Growth
By Pete Dickenson
CWI Publications & Socialist Books
January 2003
£3 (€5, $5)
Reviewed by Manny Thain
CAPITALISM IS LEADING humanity to disaster. This profit-driven system is using natural resources at a faster rate than they are being replenished. Our atmosphere, land and water are being filled with poisons that are choking the lifeblood out of the planet and its peoples.

Does that mean that we are all doomed? Maybe. But not necessarily. This pamphlet is, after all, published by the Committee for a Workers’ International, which puts forward a coherent global alternative to ‘free market’ mayhem. The point is that it is not enough to understand the world, we have also to change it.

In Planning Green Growth, Pete Dickenson, a long-standing Socialist Party member and contributor to this magazine, outlines a socialist alternative to this environmental devastation.

After explaining the scale of the problem, Pete lists three widely-accepted ways to reduce ‘environmental intensity’ – the amount of pollution produced per unit of consumption. A case could be made for simplifying some of the terms used. For example, "changing the composition of output" includes promoting an integrated public transport system, thus cutting down on pollution. And the other two ways of reducing environmental intensity – switching from fossil fuels to renewable sources in the production of energy and commodities, and the development of new, environmentally-friendly technology – merge into one another.

Pete attempts to quantify the immensity of the problem: "It has been calculated that the impact on the environment resulting from all sources of pollution must be reduced by 50% to ensure sustainable growth. This means that environmental intensity must be reduced by more than ten times if it [is] assumed that consumption and population increase significantly". The calculations to support this are provided in the back of the pamphlet. They are unavoidably based on assumptions. Nonetheless, they act as a sobering reminder that even a dynamic, democratic socialist society, employing the best, most environmentally-friendly techniques, will have to strive might and main to turn the situation around.

Pete goes through some of the measures being implemented today, explaining the rationale and shortcomings of property rights, the tradable permits promoted at Kyoto in 1997, and eco-taxes such as congestion charges, amongst others.

Throughout the pamphlet runs Karl Marx’s analysis of capitalism. This theory, worked out around 150 years ago, is still the best guide to the workings of capitalism. It explains how it is a system based on profit-driven production. That capitalists are compelled to seek out new markets in their search for profits. How this leads to international competition between corporations, and fierce rivalry and conflict between the nation states in which they are based. It explains how periods of worldwide economic expansion are intersected by times of retrenchment and protectionism, cycles of boom and bust.

Under these shifting conditions, international agreements – whether they be trading pacts, single currency deals or environmental controls – are temporary, limited to the boom times when there is plenty to share around.

Pete takes up some of the main alternatives put forward by environmentalists, while warning that there are many shades of opinion in the ‘green movement’. As with many ‘green ideas’ they contain a superficial attractiveness: if production was limited to what people needed there would be less waste, resources could be shared more evenly, and we could all live simpler, sustainable lives.

It is not adequate for socialists to dismiss these ideas out of hand. They can be presented attractively, not least to those involved in anti-globalisation and anti-capitalist campaigns. We have to explain why we do not believe that they can solve humanity’s problems.

To varying degrees, all ‘market-based’ approaches attempt to impose controls on the capitalist system. These include restrictions on international transactions, such as the Tobin tax which has featured prominently in anti-globalisation debates. But the multi-national corporations, which wield immense economic power, are backed by the military might of the capitalist states they are based in. So how could they be enforced?

It is ironic that many Greens have a genuinely internationalist outlook and yet espouse measures which would result in a siege economy, a boost to nationalism. Ultimately, they would cut across sustainable production and leave the neo-colonial world stranded and destitute.

There has to be an anti-capitalist solution. Eco-socialists reject ‘the market’ and believe that economic planning is essential – a point of view shared by the Socialist Party and the Committee for a Workers’ International.

Taking the ‘steady-state’ (or a drastically-reduced) economy to its logical conclusion, however, leads some eco-socialists to the horrifying conclusion that a totalitarian police-state would be required. How else to coerce people to give up a high standard of living or force corporations into small-scale production? Pete correctly characterises this approach as ‘eco-Stalinism’ and explains the strict limits of this pessimistic post-apocalyptic vision: "Ironically, this nightmare regime would probably not even have sufficient resources to operate the apparatus of the police state necessary to maintain itself in power".

[from Socialism Today magazine, Issue 73, 2003]

...........................................................................
And I tend to agree with the "civil rights cliques" that we should be careful not to sacrifice the things that make this country great for the sake of winning a war that may well have no identifiable end. I'm no fan of the "if we do A, the terrorists will have won" cliche but, at the same time, there's a certain amount of truth to it in some cases. Physical safety is not the only--or the most--important thing in life. Therefore, yes, I'm even willing to tolerate some bad behavior from political dissidents. That's not to say that they shouldn't be punished when they commit crimes, but I think that, as a normative matter, we should perhaps be willing to make a distinction between hot-headed young punks who go too far in the heat of the moment, and cold-blooded murderers who wish to bring about the downfall of this country and, for that matter, Western civilization as we know it. (And note here that I'm not only referring to Islamo-fascists; many other radicals' visions of the perfect society, while different from those of the Islam-fascists, are also radically different from the traditional Anglo-American vision of a democratic republic. I'm no more a fan of eco-Stalinism than I am of Islamo-fascism, except in the sense that the eco-Stalinists are a little harder to take seriously.)

I beleive this is a problem. My application for membership is pending, but when I do become a member and am able to vote I, unlike, it seems, many will vote NO for a reoulution if I do not beilive it would be a positive move for my region/nation.

Every resolution has passed? Well, I'm sure you would know, Dolleran, having been founded a whopping three days ago. Many more resolutions are passed than are failed, but have resolutions have failed -- most recently in my mind being the Space Defense Initiative, which was, what, two resolutions back? There have been plenty.

I might also point out that a proposal must gain the approval of at least 6% of the delegates to become a resolution. Considering the dominating apathy of delegates when it comes to proposal endorsement, getting those endorsements can actually be quite difficult, and the vast majority of proposals fail. Those which do become resolutions evidently have at least some merit.

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke".

In order to emphasize the unity of the UN, most treat it as a singular noun. The same is the case with "the United States," (in the case of US, that dates back to about the time when Lincoln was president, so far as I know -- gee, I wonder why Lincoln would want to emphasize unity?).

Someone should start a resolution to destroy the power of the UN, but write it in a pretty, overwritten way so that the herd votes it through. Then, we won't have any bad conscience about letting our Untermensch compatriots agree with everything that comes to them, because they'll have no real power.

I might also point out that a proposal must gain the approval of at least 6% of the delegates to become a resolution. Considering the dominating apathy of delegates when it comes to proposal endorsement, getting those endorsements can actually be quite difficult, and the vast majority of proposals fail. Those which do become resolutions evidently have at least some merit.

So what about proposals? Nearly every resolution passes. Whether or not proposals pass doesn't have anything to do with the mass uninformed voting that occurs on every resolution. The current resolution doesn't even state what it does, and it has nearly passed.

I kind of think that it was made that way on perpose to make sure that the UN would not be to powerful or to enfluential so there will be opposition.

"The UN" is a plural, therefore it has to be "are a joke". Apart from that, I totally agree with Dolleran. These left-wing eco-stalinist wackos, who vote "yes" on any resolution "helping the environment", and "no" on any issue of real importance. :roll:

1) No, you see, depends how you say it,

A) The United Nations are a joke.

:Refers to those individual nations who have united to form the U.N.

B) The United Nations is a joke.

:Refers to the United Nations as a singular entity, not a collection of states.

:) I think ...

2) I don't think you can black and white the problem by declaring one demographic to be the problem, what we are looking at is a massive gray area of membership who simply do not read the proposal well enough or par-take in or at least review the forum or even regional debates.

Its not one part who is to blame, but rather a large number of independant, ignorant or un-willing to care individuals.

My conclusion : Only through serious effort by players to limit the effect of such other players, via serious proposal conception and delivery into the U.N. can we hope to make a mark against this tide of waste.

- Le Représentant de Komokom, Ministre Régional de Substance.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

I don't find it that funny...

what's the punchline?

even though its been taken up already i thought i might add anyway. The correct term would be "The UN is a joke" because the UN is a band/company. Its like the name of a music band, you dont say "Slipknot are a joke" you say "Slipknot is a joke" (which is a load of crap because i like them, and my opinion is the only one that counts)

even though its been taken up already i thought i might add anyway. The correct term would be "The UN is a joke" because the UN is a band/company. Its like the name of a music band, you dont say "Slipknot are a joke" you say "Slipknot is a joke" (which is a load of crap because i like them, and my opinion is the only one that counts)

You like slipknot?

There 4 people who play music and twenty of their "friends"

I really can't believe people are already saying that 'every UN resolution passes' so soon after the Space Defense Initiative was defeated.

For the record: the game only records those resolutions that passed the General Assembly. So, if you are looking through the list of past resolutions, keep in mind that you are only looking at the resolutions that actually managed to pass, not the entire list of resolutions.

I also remember the Rhino one bein defeated soundly.

Please end the sheep analogy.

Sheep ? What, as in the "sheep" voters ?

Never! :wink: , its inoffensive to the majority and easiler describes the easily led voters who make no thought to the consequence of their action in the U.N. and the voting process.

- Le Représentant de Komokom.
Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

1) No, you see, depends how you say it,

A) The United Nations are a joke.

:Refers to those individual nations who have united to form the U.N.

B) The United Nations is a joke.

:Refers to the United Nations as a singular entity, not a collection of states.

:) I think ...

2) I don't think you can black and white the problem by declaring one demographic to be the problem, what we are looking at is a massive gray area of membership who simply do not read the proposal well enough or par-take in or at least review the forum or even regional debates.

I finally thought about it, and: you're right. It has to be "the United Nations Organization is a joke. :)

And yes, I think that I can black and white most problems without having any trouble. You can see that on my flag. :wink:

Oh my, you know, I actually went and looked, I really did.

Ha, its bored-time ... :wink:

- Le Représentant de Komokom.

Ministre Régional de Substance.
L'Ordre de Vaillant États.
http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/komokom.jpg (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/24401/page=display_nation)
Aspirez a la legalite avec l'egalite

I might also point out that a proposal must gain the approval of at least 6% of the delegates to become a resolution. Considering the dominating apathy of delegates when it comes to proposal endorsement, getting those endorsements can actually be quite difficult, and the vast majority of proposals fail. Those which do become resolutions evidently have at least some merit.

So what about proposals? Nearly every resolution passes. Whether or not proposals pass doesn't have anything to do with the mass uninformed voting that occurs on every resolution. The current resolution doesn't even state what it does, and it has nearly passed.

Quite. Saying the UN is functional due to the proposal system is undemocratic, and admits the failure of the wider voting system.