NationStates Jolt Archive

This is the last bad resolution I watch I am resiging.

Enodscopia
Former Delagate from Lanes Moon Republic3246

Perhaps, advocate for change instead of being a coward and leaving the UN because you have a petty disagreement with a proposal.

I have to agree with TH, to a point. Rather than throw up our hands and leave, the Greenskinz have pledged to fight this proposal up to the last minute. But if it passes, we will also be forced to resign, in the interest of national security. We would stay and keep fighting, but due to game mechanics it would be pointless.

Well I thought about it, this resolution is down 600 votes and if by some means we are able to beat it down what will the next proposal be, is it worth it.

Enodscopia
Former Delagate from Lanes Moon Republic3246

Endoscopia....I feel your pain...please telegram the 'Theocracy of Punk Daddy' to talk about ways we can join nations with similar ideals together so that Tuesday Heights and the like cannot say that there is cowardice amongst the defenders of freedom.... :wink:

Misty Creek earlier today resigned from the UN. This and other UN laws have weakened our economy and infringed on our citizens rights to self determination. We encourage others to leave the UN, but this is thier choice and we do not believe in using force with the exception of in our own defense. We refute the socialist world government that calls itself the UN.

I don't agree with this law, either. Nuclear Arms are necessary until a global disarm occurs. But all I can do is have my voice heard, and hope that it reaches. Doesn't mean I have to run from it.

so instead of staying until the last minute to help the people who don't want it, you're leaving and letting us take it like that? I'm not sure who's worse, you or the people trying to pass this resolution

In Frigben's opinion this isn't half as bad as the abortion resolution, which completely overstepped the bounds of national sovereignity. This one just ensures the destruction of all UN nations, which may be a good thing, as we reap what we sowed with stupidly passing the abortion resolution. (Note: Frigben is pro-choice) Regardless, we are voting NO on this resolution.

The votes against are starting to catch up with the votes for. However, I doubt they'll catch up completely and overtake them, so I am preparing to quit the UN myself.

Frigben begs the honourable right-thinking UN nations not to quit till this resolution passes or fails. Your vote counts in opposing it.

If I do quit the UN, it will be at the last minute, when all hope is lost (if it ever gets to that stage).

Don’t resign we need to fight the U.N. from the inside with votes.

There are too many idealists in the UN for it to be fought. Save yourselves, vote against and then get the hell out while you still can. If this isn't looking dead by the 9th then I'm out too.

Domocolees has hit the nail right on the head.

I presume that some of you nations will rejoin when theres a resolution you like the look of?

Medicasia will also be forced to withdraw from the UN. We are a small country who relies upon nuclear arms, and the uranium mining industry. I will stay in until the last safe moment, but my conventional forces are insufficient to protect me without my small stockpile of 10 ICBMs

The Kingdom of Big Bolshevik is glad it is not part of the U.N. This idiotic proposal is one of the reasons why.

It's all very well and dandy for those tea-totlers to sit down holding hands in a little circle, proclaiming "End Nuclear Arms", but the fact is that other countries which are not part of the UN will have the balance of military power.

Also, BB's scientists tell me that depleted uranium shells are not really "nuclear weapons". They are used as anti-tank weapons because depleted uranium is strong enough to pierce the armour of enemy tanks. The radioactivity is simply a side-effect.

What's next for the UN? A resolution banning mobile phone towers on the basis that "they emit harmful [sic] radiation at a strength of 900MHz [sic]?" Get a life, guys!

It is the People's Republic of Renard's intention to within the UN, but to remain in defiance of this resolution: Use of DU in (anti)tank rounds is common place and will remain so until alternative technology is economically preferable.

I may stay as a UN member, but defy the current resolution (OOC: Yes, I know I can't technically defy it :P). How are they going to stop me having nuclear weapons? And if I do have nuclear weapons, what are they going to do about it? With no nuclear weapons of their own, there's no way anyone can take them seriously enough to consider them a threat.

I too am against this resolution, and am probably going to leave the UN because it is not the first time a resolution that I do not like will (may be) be passed.

Oh and btw....if theres anyone there who is actually FOR this, I wouldnt mind hearing their reasoning...if it hasnt already been posted and I missed it

With just 72 hours to go we are putting wheels in motion to removes ourselves from the United Nations.

Having newly joined the Unitied Nations we, the Holy Empire of Ralrearin, are most distressed by this resolution that those without foresight are trying to push forward. Our intent in joining the Unitied Nations was to further our bonds with the global community, however, it seems the global community is more interested in leaving themselves defenseless against those who wish to spread evil in this world. As such, should this resolution pass, the Holy Empire of Ralrearin will have no choice but to abandon the UN in order to preserve our National Securty.

Furthermore, it is quite disturbing for us to realize that the UN has such control over a distinct society such as ours. Imposing laws that limit our social and economic growth is nothing short of inept behaviour and poor Government.

~Ministery of Foreign Affairs, Holy Empire of Ralrearin.

I had to resign because of my disagreement with the abortion proposal. It had too much support to overturn and it is contrary to national policy. It would not work out in my country and we will not be forced into anything. Now that everyone else will soon give up nuclear arms, the world will be ours. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

I am hereby letting it be known that IF this resolution passes, I will be resigning my country from the United Nations.

That being said, I implore everyone to fight this resolution tooth and nail to ensure that we do not lose. In the interest of National Security, I can not allow my country to be without weapons. In the interest of National Security, I would hate to see my fellow brethren without weapons as well.

I am from a region where war is not only an accepted part of life, it is also expected. Most of the countries within this region are not members of the UN, and would have no issues overtaking a country who loses its nuclear arms. Should this resolution pass, may God have mercy on those countries who remain.

It is any nations rights to make and keep ANY type of weapon, wether that be a slingshot or an H-Bomb, it doesn't matter, what does matter is that peole keep trying to take away countries rights to there weapons.


If this resolution is passed, the country of JapanXAnime will resign from the UN

- Department of Foriegn Affairs, JapanXAnime

I, too, am against the resolution because if all the member nations of the U.N. are to disband their nuclear arms, what will stop non-member nations from attacking us. By disbanding our nuclear arms we will be making ourselves weak and leaving ourselves open for attack. If this resolution is passed, even though I just joined, I will leave the U.N. to voice my disapproval.

Iniquitia

On behath of all TCV regional UN members, we have come to a decision to all leave the United Nations if this propesition does past. We were weakend by previous resolutions, and for a while we got what we wanted in the last three or four, but this kicks the bucket.

The Whole region (that is in the UN that is) will be leaving if this does past, which I am affraid to say probably will.

As a last statement, I would like to say this, from a speach made by both the Tomverickan and Truittian Presidents (well, in my case dictator):

"The Nation of (said nations :roll: ) will offically resign from membership of the United Nations due to the Anti-Nuclear Act, which can and will devestate our home land security, and our main defence agenst any hostale forces. However, before we resign, I would like to announce that the United Nations has done little for us, both up and down has actually forced The Nation of (.....) to resign after this no matter what."

So, well, I hope they do go agenst this, but I doubt it....

--Supreme Dictator Gregory Sanderson of Tomverick

The Allied States of Esamir also disagree with this resolution. Our economy is greatly dependent on Uranium Mining and outlawing Nuclear Arms would greatly hurt our economy and our security. We are prepared to resign from the UN if this resolution passes.

-Leader of the Allied States of Esamir

All who want to start an anti UN region send me a telegram

Enodscopia
Former Delagate From Lanes Moon Republic3246

Machinen will resign if this resolution passes; it is the most poorly written resolution since the abortion one which passed, and that was the most poorly written since the one on Labor Unions...

why? not only is it poorly written, it is also incompetent; Depleted Uranium weapons are not Nuclear Weapons; they do not use fission.

this is moronic. Machinen may also declare war against the nation who proposed this incompetent resolution, as part of the crusade against idiocy.

-

Hey lets all nuke the one who proposed this.

One thing that strikes me is that the only people opposed to this ruling are the ones with Nuclear weapons. Although not everyone with nuclear weapons has refused to disband their WOMD.

Also all of those with these weapons say they have them for defensive reasons.
That seems a bit paradoxical. You have these weapons to defend yourself against others, who in turn also have these weapons because you yourself have these weapons aswell.
Don't you think it's time to grow-up?

And whats more many countries have argued they have nuclear weapons to fight against terrorist attacks.
Well if your Minister of Defense is planning on using weapons of that sort against an enemy that uses Guerrilla tactics then it is no wonder why your intelligence agencies have not caught these terrorists!

Don't you see that by saying "you need these weapons to defend yourself" you are putting yourself into exactly same catergory of nation that you fear and are defending yourself against?

Now the UN had no place to tell a nation whether they allow abortions or not. That was an internal matter for the people of each nation to decide.
But when you fire a nuclear weapon you are affecting those around you and not just your own country. It's debatable that you effect other simply by posessing those weapons because by doing so they may seek-out the weapons for themselves. In which case you will of been your own catalyst for needing the weapons. Wouldn't that mean you are your own worst enemy?

One thing that strikes me is that the only people with Nuclear weapons are the ones opposed to this ruling. Also all of those with these weapons say they have them for defensive reasons.

That seems a bit paradoxical. You have these weapons to defend yourself against others who have these weapons because you yourself have these weapons.

And whats more many countries have argued they have nuclear weapons to fight against terrorist attacks.
Well if your Minister of Defense is planning on using weapons of that sort against an enemy that uses Guerrilla tactics then it is no wonder why your intelligence agencies have not caught these terrorists in the first place.

Don't you see that by saying "you need these weapons to defend yourself" you are putting yourself into exactly same catergory of nation that you fear and are defending yourself against?

Well yea the only people that are against it are the ones the have nuclear weapons, if you don't have nuclear arms why be against it. Ever heard of mutually assured destruction. And you can fight terrorism with nuclear weapons by threatening the supporting nations of the terrorist with your nuclear arms. If you are a smaller nation and have not the population to muster a large enough conventional force, nuclear weapons are your main defence.

Enodscopia
The former Delagate From Lanes Moon Republic3246

I have sat by long enough through countless resolutions that smacked Husitans Soverignty in the face long enough. While the previous resolutions have had no actaull economic effect on Husitan if this resolution passes it will destroy my Uranium Mining industry and vastly increase unemployment. So If this resolution passes I will pull Husitan from the UN until it comes to its senses.

Well yea the only people that are against it are the ones the have nuclear weapons, if you don't have nuclear arms why be against it. Ever heard of mutually assured destruction. And you can fight terrorism with nuclear weapons by threatening the supporting nations of the terrorist with your nuclear arms. If you are a smaller nation and have not the population to muster a large enough conventional force, nuclear weapons are your main defence.

My first point was supposed to point out the obviousness of this disagreement. We in the Ekpyrotic Universe have a funny sense of humour.

But I can't agree with your threatening of countries that support terrorists with nuclear weapons. By all means go for their leading officials and try to disrupt their flow of arms but a nuclear weapon can only ever hurt the people of that country the majority of whom are innocent.

For them smaller nations then maybe they will have to rely on friends in the UN and Allied forces to help them should they ever need assistance in such a matter.

Well yea the only people that are against it are the ones the have nuclear weapons, if you don't have nuclear arms why be against it. Ever heard of mutually assured destruction. And you can fight terrorism with nuclear weapons by threatening the supporting nations of the terrorist with your nuclear arms. If you are a smaller nation and have not the population to muster a large enough conventional force, nuclear weapons are your main defence.

My first point was supposed to point out the obviousness of this disagreement. We in the Ekpyrotic Universe have a funny sense of humour.

But I can't agree with your threatening of countries that support terrorists with nuclear weapons. By all means go for their leading officials and try to disrupt their flow of arms but a nuclear weapon can only ever hurt the people of that country the majority of whom are innocent.

For them smaller nations then maybe they will have to rely on friends in the UN and Allied forces to help them should they ever need assistance in such a matter.

I see the points that you are making but once you nuke a country that supports terrorism killing as many people as possible it will be along time before any other country supports a terrorist that attacks inside a country with nuclear weapons. The defence issue is that I have more faith in my ICBM lauch commanders than I do the UN.

Well yea the only people that are against it are the ones the have nuclear weapons, if you don't have nuclear arms why be against it. Ever heard of mutually assured destruction. And you can fight terrorism with nuclear weapons by threatening the supporting nations of the terrorist with your nuclear arms. If you are a smaller nation and have not the population to muster a large enough conventional force, nuclear weapons are your main defence.

My first point was supposed to point out the obviousness of this disagreement. We in the Ekpyrotic Universe have a funny sense of humour.

But I can't agree with your threatening of countries that support terrorists with nuclear weapons. By all means go for their leading officials and try to disrupt their flow of arms but a nuclear weapon can only ever hurt the people of that country the majority of whom are innocent.

For them smaller nations then maybe they will have to rely on friends in the UN and Allied forces to help them should they ever need assistance in such a matter.

I see the points that you are making but once you nuke a country that supports terrorism killing as many people as possible it will be along time before any other country supports a terrorist that attacks inside a country with nuclear weapons. The defence issue is that I have more faith in my ICBM lauch commanders than I do the UN.

Screw the UN and thier pro-choice, inambitious, liberal self/global destructive ways, I was kicked out for submitting an explicit proposal reguarding abortions, those murderers have no place in humanity, I saw go to hell and burn forever United Nations, sad pathetic excuse for a liberal Global-Government, Damn you guys and burn in hell forever!!!!! :evil:

Screw the UN and thier pro-choice, inambitious, liberal self/global destructive ways, I was kicked out for submitting an explicit proposal reguarding abortions, those murderers have no place in humanity, I saw go to hell and burn forever United Nations, sad pathetic excuse for a liberal Global-Government, Damn you guys and burn in hell forever!!!!! :evil:

I left the UN because of my opposition to the abortion resolution, and I remain out due to this nuclear arms act. It simply demonstrates to me that the majority of people voting are incapable, or choose not to think about the consequences of certain decisions (although this is just a game).

I will stay out until I see a change in this....

I've been following this thread for a while, and it seems that just about everyone who has commented on this post is against the proposal. If that's true, WHY are we so far behind in the votes? Is no one out there THINKING?

I see the points that you are making but once you nuke a country that supports terrorism killing as many people as possible it will be along time before any other country supports a terrorist that attacks inside a country with nuclear weapons. The defence issue is that I have more faith in my ICBM lauch commanders than I do the UN.

What you have probably done is given other countries legitimate reason to back these terrorists.
Also you have created the new breed of terrorists that will attack your country in about 10-20 years for killing their family when they had done nothing wrong.
Plus you have effected the enviroment for the next 50+ years as well.
Violence incites more violence.

I think this resolution will define one thing; who has and who hasn't got peaceful intentions.

The UN want countries that aren't all mouth and are brave enough to actually be peaceful without the aggressive, suggestive statement of posessing nuclear arms.

If you can't adhere to what this resolution asks then you aren't endorsing the peaceful aims that the UN was created achieve. Ergo, not qualifying to be in the UN.
So a countries resignation from the UN for that reason could be viewed upon as a self-acknowledgement of failure to comply to those peaceful ideals. But then thats just semantics.

I've been following this thread for a while, and it seems that just about everyone who has commented on this post is against the proposal. If that's true, WHY are we so far behind in the votes? Is no one out there THINKING?

None of the people who voted for the current resolution come to this forum, if they did I'd club them all to death with a baseball bat.

I see the points that you are making but once you nuke a country that supports terrorism killing as many people as possible it will be along time before any other country supports a terrorist that attacks inside a country with nuclear weapons. The defence issue is that I have more faith in my ICBM lauch commanders than I do the UN.

What you have probably done is given other countries legitimate reason to back these terrorists.
Also you have created the new breed of terrorists that will attack your country in about 10-20 years for killing their family when they had done nothing wrong.
Plus you have effected the enviroment for the next 50+ years as well.
Violence incites more violence.

I think this resolution will define one thing; who has and who hasn't got peaceful intentions.

The UN want countries that aren't all mouth and are brave enough to actually be peaceful without the aggressive, suggestive statement of posessing nuclear arms.

If you can't adhere to what this resolution asks then you aren't endorsing the peaceful aims that the UN was created achieve. Ergo, not qualifying to be in the UN.
So a countries resignation from the UN for that reason could be viewed upon as a self-acknowledgement of failure to comply to those peaceful ideals. But then thats just semantics.

Well in 10-20 thats another reason to nuke them but if the strikes done right there wont be anybody left in 10-20 years due to radiation poisoning.
Who cares about there enviroment unless you have intentions of invading.
You are right violence incites more violence, Super Massive Overwhelming Violence prevails in all situations.

[
If you can't adhere to what this resolution asks then you aren't endorsing the peaceful aims that the UN was created achieve. Ergo, not qualifying to be in the UN.
It wasn't created to achieve peace. The UN doesn’t have an agenda, it's members do.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

The reason I think that a lot of people are rejecting this resolution is that it only affects UN Member States. If every UN Nation was to simulataneously and instantly disarm, the more violent non-UN States would seize the opportunity to strike those targets who now no longer posess the ability to strike back.

Although I'm not personally against this, since non-nuclear defensive measures aren't covered in the resolution fortunately, I've no idea how my region will decide, so I may yet vote with the "Nay!" crowd.

Leetonia is happy to see many of its upset UN brethren are working with the system. While we have personally voted for the past two proposals, it is upsetting to watch nation after nation throw up their hands in disgust and leave the UN before even making an attempt to take constructive action. The main reason these "bad" proposals keep popping up is that people who would keep them from even reaching vote, just keep leaving instead of taking action.

I've been following this thread for a while, and it seems that just about everyone who has commented on this post is against the proposal. If that's true, WHY are we so far behind in the votes? Is no one out there THINKING?

None of the people who voted for the current resolution come to this forum, if they did I'd club them all to death with a baseball bat.

No you wouldn't, silly Mickey. ;)

I, as regional delegate for Europa, have voted FOR the resution and I don't really care what delegate's from other regions think because I am entitled to my own opinion. If you disagree with the resolutions of the UN than you can leave it be, off course.

We at Europa are a peacefull region and I do not believe that our non-UN-nations will attack as soon as this resolutions to en nuclear proliferation is passed. Besides, our military capabilities depend on more then just nukes. Orioni is a proud nation and are not affraid of "the big bad nations with bombies". If it comes to it, we are prepared to die for our peace.

In history, there has been only one nation that has used nuclear devices against an other nation. This nation was not a rogue nation. I voted FOR because I think the members of the UN have an obligatoin towards all members nations and to the rest of the world. I believe we should set an example by doing what's right. If you have a brain than you will agree, if you react because of emotional fear of other, then i pitty you and hope that one day you will come to terms with your fear(s) and grow up.

If you have a brain than you will agree,
You know, just because people disagree with you doesn’t mean they are stupid, or that they aren't doing what's right for their nation.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World
Meet The Reps (http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=132588)

In history, there has been only one nation that has used nuclear devices against an other nation. This nation was not a rogue nation. I voted FOR because I think the members of the UN have an obligatoin towards all members nations and to the rest of the world. I believe we should set an example by doing what's right. If you have a brain than you will agree, if you react because of emotional fear of other, then i pitty you and hope that one day you will come to terms with your fear(s) and grow up.


May I remind my fellow delegates that the issue brough up here is an example of the bomb being used to save countless millions of more lives.... Imagine what would have happened if an invasion had been done. It would have been Normandy all over again....

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/tekania.jpg

"Qui Desiderant Pacem Preparate Bellum"
("Those who desire peace, prepare for war.")

how long is real life is one NS year? just out of curiousity.

If it looks close to passing I will be gone before it is implemented.

I will leave the UN if this resolution comes close to passing, not caring if mine are the swing votes. I don't care because I don't think any resolution should pass with only 50-55% approval. That is not a clear majority.

If it comes to it, we are prepared to die for our peace.

You'll die alright, but it won't be in the name of peace, it will be in a vain attempt to protect yourself as the homicidal non-UN members systematically declare war on us all.

News Flash:

ENPA Resolution passive in jeoperdy. More votes against it than for it :):):)

Enough!

This topic is for those who plan to resign from the UN if the ENPA is passed. It is NOT a place to debate the pros and cons of the ENPA. There is a topic for that so well named "Resolution at Vote: Ending Nuclear Proliferation". Please take the debate of the necessity of the resolution there. We, who are resigning, do not wish our topic be locked or deleted for becoming a second debate forum to the issue.


That being said, I would like to congratulate all the countries who have been pressing for the oppositional vote to the ENPA, and urge you to continue your telegrams and lobbying.

Thank you all for your cooperation and assistance.

GO US! The UN resolution is being overrun, and now it looks as if it will not pass. It is about time we took a stand to stop the UN from forceing these Bulls**t resolutions upon us. All they do is hurt our economies, put national security in jepordy, and plant trees so they can hug them. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOU VOTE AGAINS THIS HORRIBLE RESOLUTION!

-the president from the borderlands of ivana tapit

I and several other nations are coming up with a plan to fight resolutions like this one, and to get more conservative resolutions passed. If you are interedted, please telegram at The Most Serene Republic of Randomocitia, or e-mail me at: jpthecoolguy@bellsouth.net