NationStates Jolt Archive

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #1
Fight the Axis of Evil

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Maxtopia

Description: As the world become a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace. This means, of course, building lots of new weapons. Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.

Votes For: 2
Votes Against: 1

Implemented: Tue Nv 12 2002

Above is the UN Resolution entitled "Fight the Axis of Evil." We the Oppressed Peoples of ZhengHe and many others like us are working to repeal the Fight the Axis of evil resolution. To me the reason for repealing this resolution seems quite simple, but to others it may not be. Let me state why I, the benevolent dictator of ZhengHe personally thing this resolution is flawed.

1.) The fact that the resolution was voted upon by only 3 UN nations. As you all know there are 10's of thousands, perhaps 100's of thousands of nations that are members of the UN, thus these 3 member nations do not express the majority of the UN body. In fact they only represent a miniscule minority of us, which is why it baffles me how it was passed with only "3" votes. That is an order of powers smaller then 1% of the members of the UN, so resolution does not represent us and thus should be outlawed.

2.) How is building new and better weapons in the interests of peace. There is only one reason I can think of why the UN or any organization would want to build new weapons, which is to win wars. Now the UN is a peaceful organization, which means it doesn't promote war so why would its nations want to build new weapons. To fight more effectively against our enemies? Perhaps, but that would be in the interests of national security, I suppose not peace and it is a short term answer to a long term problem.

3.) Why do you say that you might ask? After all, if we can beat the enemy then we no longer need to worry about them hurting us. Then I might add, why don't we just nuke every nation that we surmise as "unpeaceful", which is frankly, madness. This leads to my 3rd conclusion. Sure these nations cause problems and some of the terrorist organizations within them cause mass deaths among our people in our nations, but you can't penalize an entire people, because of the actions of an influencial minority. For the most part the common people in these nations are not at fault, but are coerced and/or brainwashed by corrupt governments. It would be injustice in the extreme to punish millions of people for the actions of thousands, no matter how horrific.

4.) This leads up to a whole new problem. If we were to develop weapons more advanced then what we currently possess the reprucussions would be catestrophic, because eventually the nations, which we fight against will possess these weapons and use them against us causing more death on both sides, not less. Having a larger military budget and creating new weapons to use against corrupt nations will not restore peace, it will cause more brutal war, in fact we may start another war, which is directly contrary to the peaceful objective of this resolution.

5.) Peace will not come by us destroying nations that are not peaceful, not to mention it puts too much power in the hand of a few. What if after destroying all these nations one nation were to decide that it thought some other nations in the UN were corrupt. After such widespread use of weapons of mass destruction what would stop him/her from using it on the rest of us, because they don't believe in what we do.

6.) You can't just going around destroying your problems, you must deal with them. As members of the UN, increasing military spending and creating new, more deadly weapons will not deal with our problem. Though it is certainly a more arduous option we must promote peace by example and hope that those nations who are not peaceful will either become as such or perhaps their peoples will overthrow the corrupt governments under, which they live and thorugh revolution form a more moral, more enlightened government in their country. We must promote these acts, because only then will there be worldwide peace among all nations. When we, the people of this world (all of us agree upon an everlasting peace among us nations, because it is the just thing to do), because in truth men were not put upon this Earth to destroy each other, but to love and learn and grow amongst each other and without peace we are nothing.

-How could we say that we want to restore peace if while doing so, we are committing war against other nations. It just doesn't make sense. Its certainly something to think about. I just wanted to point out that in context this resolution makes absolutely no sense, which is why I urge all nations to work with me to repeal this resolution. Thank you.

Sincerely, The benevolent dictator of ZhengHe and his peoples.

PS: For more information on the subject please follow this link to the Thread entitled, Repeal: Fight the Axis of Evil (Please Endorse) by Tuesday Heights: http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=364112

PSS: Might I also mention that we just need 35 more nations to Repeal the Resolution in order for it to be repealed. Please help us in this noble cause and if you can get some of your closely allied nations to repeal it too. Every Repeal Counts!

All I can say is "good luck."

Well thank you Tuesday Heights I appreciate edict of goodwill. I just can't believe that no one else seems to note the major flaws in this resolution. They seem to obvious to me.

I just can't believe that no one else seems to note the major flaws in this resolution. They seem to obvious to me.
Nope. Can't see 'em. Neither can the other 214,385 people who've submitted repeals on this one since repeals were permitted about a month ago. Guess we must just all be blind or something. Maybe it's the 20 or 30 additional repeals of this proposal in the queue that's blinding us. Yeah, that must be it.

What are you saying, that no matter how many nations try to repeal this resolution it won't be repealed?

Hmm..odd, yesterday it said that it only needed 35 approvals to repeal the resolution. Today it is 70. I sense foul play :mad:.

What are you saying, that no matter how many nations try to repeal this resolution it won't be repealed?

No, it will eventually be repealed. What Frisbeeteria is hinting at (though not in a direct manner) is that many others have tried to repeal the first resolution and failed.

When you submit a proposal, it is fairly easy to send hundreds of telegrams out to UN Delegates and ask that they endorse your proposal. If you use a unique name "Good Samaritan Laws" (for example), then UN Delegates will know how to use the search feature and endorse your proposal and not some other "Good Samaritan Laws" proposal.

In the case of the "Fight the Axis of Evil" repeals, there are usually 5 to 15 repeals, each with the same name. UN Delegates must cycle through 10 to 20 pages of proposals to find your repeal to endorse.

The reality is there is very much a "split" vote.

My solution is extreme. I'd set aside a weekend and try to telegram every single UN Delegate that has ever endorsed any "Fight the Axis of Evil" repeal and try to coordinate their repeals. I'd explain to them that I have sent similar telegrams to hundreds of other UN Delegates and suggest that if they all focus on the same motion to repeal at the same time, that we could finally get over this.

But that is a lot of work. I certainly am not interested in doing that right now, largely because I'd rather focus my nation's political resources on getting new proposals to the UN floor.

I too wish you luck, and would vote in favour of most motions to repeal that first resolution, but it is not an easy task.

Hmm...if only we could all coordinate our efforts together, agree on a moderate proposal and then all go out at the same time and try to get as many votes for that proposal as possible. I didn't realize each proposal was different. Then we could probably get it repealed easy.

Hmm...if only we could all coordinate our efforts together, agree on a moderate proposal and then all go out at the same time and try to get as many votes for that proposal as possible. I didn't realize each proposal was different. Then we could probably get it repealed easy.

Exactly! :)

I think your nation and Tuesday Heights should work together and first build a list of UN Delegates you'd like to contact. When you have a long list (say 100 delegates) build a form letter together, and then come back here asking for a few more nations to help you telegram. Depending on the timing of your efforts, I might be willing to help in the campaigning.

If this isn't exactly clear, I'll ask the International Democratic Union members if we'd be willing to help construct a list and move this along, but unfortunately we are still talking about a lot of work!

I would suport the repeal. Though I'm generaly not very pro-war, I would suport a resolutoin to fight the axis of evil. It would have to define axis of evil and call for other options in addition to war.

I would vote to repeal if i was a member of the UN. I am currently awaiting my application to be approved. But if there is anything else I can do, let me know.

I would suport a resolutoin to fight the axis of evil. It would have to define axis of evil and call for other options in addition to war.

I like this idea. It seems only logical to first define what an Axis of Evil is and then continue with further actions.

I'm all for teaming up.

Sounds good. If everyone is on the right train of thought, this thing should be repealed.

The people of the Protectorate of Odvaha strongly oppose any effort to weaken international security and allow evildoers to endanger their lives, or the lives of free people around the world, and for this reason Odvaha supports UN Resolution #1: Fight the Axis of Evil.
We cannot allow the Axis of Evil to proliferate weapons to Rouge nations and terrorist states, to suppress the rights and liberties of free peoples around the world and within their own borders, and their countless violations of human rights.
We must address our problems, however to limit ourselves only to diplomatic measures will not save us when the evildoers strike the hearts of our cities, and kill our citizens in their homes and on our streets. The people of Odvaha will stand against the darkness and defend itself, and not allow the international body to dictate its foreign policy.

I'm all for teaming up.
So am I, lets do it!

Just to let you know, I agree that every repeal counts in regards to getting rid of "Fight the Axis of Evil." I have put forward my own repeal of Resolution #1. Just look for the one authored by The Magdalen Islands.

My main argument, and I hope many of you will agree with it, is that Resolution #1 is essentially illegal.

Res. #1 was passed on Tuesday, November 12, 2002. However, the NationStates UN came into existence on November 13, 2002 -- one day AFTER the vote on Resolution #1. So, technically, "Fight the Axis of Evil" isn't legally binding on our United Nations. Technically, it shouldn't be a resolution at all.

On another matter, many of the repeal proposals I've seen have noted the 2-1 vote that allowed Resolution #1 to be passed. I honestly have no problem with that. The final vote could have been 1-0 for all I care. Even now, with thousands of UN members in NS, there still is the possibility of extremely low voter turnout. Whether three nations vote on a measure or 30,000 nations, a democratic vote is still a democratic vote.

But Resolution #1 isn't legally binding and shouldn't be there. And of course, there are the obvious moral problems with the measure, with the whole idea that developing weapons is the path of peace. Many of you have articulately argued that that's just not the case.

So please support my repeal proposal. Thanks, and peace.

Before we go repealing 'Fight the Axis of Evil,' we should think about creating a military extension of the UN, for peace-keeping/peace-enforcement, counter-terrorism, enforcing international law, etc...

Does anyone agree with me on this? If you wish to help me work on a proposal, send me a telegraph.

How does this promote peace? Well, the fundamental logic of that can be found in my national motto...

Qui desiderant pacem preparate bellum.....

Those who desire peace prepare for war....

First let me introduce myself to the floor. I am Ambrosius Matthews, Officer of Foriegn Affairs, and Ambassador from the Repubic of Aphronia. I anmhonored to be part of this valiant community, and look forward to meeting with and learning from all of you.

Let me make my case against this resolution.

Let me begin with one my favorite quotes of on eof the fathers of the nuclear age, Albert Einstien. He states.

"A Nation cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."

Now I know there is solid points on both sides of the issue; however, I would indulge you to see it from my people's perscpective for a moment.

International military strength of this level was proposed to make us safer. To be more secure. To look at the tumultous present that makes conventional wisdom forecast an unpredictable future. A future where the value of human life is little, and the power to take it away is respected. We respect that power but fear lack of inhibition to use that power. We feel alone and helpless in the midst of this darkness. So we make weapons...weapons that beat back the darkness of tomorrow int the present. But are we safer? No. More prepared? Yes.

But I tell you honored collegues...Being prepared in this only invites what we are prepared for. The climate of the international community grows more isolated under these conditions. In the interests of enforcing this security that we feel so naked without, our diplomatic solutions become stymied, our exchange of ideas, culture, and trust in a true manner becomes neigh-impossible. We have seen that not understanding a culture, and it's motives can cause great loss of life. We made this resolution for peace against the fundamentailst and political terrorists, the dictators that see themselves as conquerers, and other extreme abberant sociopaths. A small portion of the world, whose presence only seems so big due to the power that technology gives to weapons in this age. Imagine all those weapons in large scale armed by every nation. The presence of annihilation as a possibilty causing tention to be very high...get along or else. This level of tension breeds intolerance and isolation. Have your kids grow up in that world and you have tomorrow's leaders armed with the weapons we are required to stockpile today, with evil and other becoming more synonomous as the imagination works on turning these people of different races, creeds, and religion into the enemy.

Those that would cause us harm would only have to play to those fears and we would hurt ourselves...we even took the first step.

Don't Let us continue in this vein. Please vote to repeal.

LABELING COUNTRIES AS THIS OR THAT IS WRONG! We should not legislate clear efforts to dicotomize the world. The UN stands for UNITED NATIONS not Good Nations against Evil NAtions!

94 approvals...

Just so everyone on the forums knows, there's a repeal proposal by New Western America that has 112 approvals. It would be exellent if all of those who support a repeal on this thing could get this one to vote, today (10-18). I do not care whose gets to vote (as my attempt at a repeal is immediatly after it) just that one does, and this one currently has the most appprovals. This is obviously time sensitive, so if you are reading this on the 19th or afterwards, ignore it.

6 more to go people, come on if you have't already approve it so we can get this over with.

Yes, it's through!!!! Now all vote for and we'll finally get rid of it!!!! VICTORY!

Holy crap, one actually made it.

well, that'll half the number of proposal the mods and delegates have to wade through :)

well, that'll half the number of proposal the mods and delegates have to wade through :)
Only if it passes.

Personally, my UN nation will be voting against it, as I rather like Fight the Axis of Evil. History and all.

as we speak, it is easy for terrorists to gain access to radioactive materials, even nuclear warheads and so called "briefcase bombs".

In order to really rebel terrorism, all Nuclear Weapons, nuclear warheads, Uranium tipped anti-tank shells and other weapons containing either radioactive, or biological materials must be banned in all UN-countries.

Even if this leaves all non-UN countries out, we will still have the control over the majority of all radioactivity containing materials.

This way we could make it harder for terrorists and other "not-pure" countries to obtain these weapons, and we would also pollute earth less with radioactive materials because we wouldn't be allowed to use uranium-tipped shells and others during life-fire exercises.

The idea of building more weapons in order to rebel terrorists was a bad idea to start with, we've seen terrorists wave around RPG's, AK47's, M16's and even Stingers, who builds these weapons? we. who uses them? they.

Whoever got the Repeal Fight the Axis of Evil resolution to the floor, congrats, however, I am dismayed at the lack of justification for such a repeal.

My UN nations vote goes against the repeal

The senate of the Neutral Republic of Aeruillin expresses its satisfaction that such a proposal has at last made it to the floor in all the time the nation has been a UN member. The agreement to cast Aeruillin's vote in favor of this proposal is near unanimous among the senate, and Aeruillin's representative at the UN notes that already a large majority of members appears to be for the repeal.

Only if it passes.

Personally, my UN nation will be voting against it, as I rather like Fight the Axis of Evil. History and all.

Even if it passes, nations will still fill the queue with tons of repeal motions. I think Dilberteria will not be the only UN member to simply spam away in the queue.

That said, I'd like to point out that the Fight the Axis of Evil resolution will always remain a part of NS UN history. We've added the resolution into NSWiki and the United Nations Associate Archive. The repeal is a separate / proceedural motion, and should the repeal pass, that simply means that the resolution is no longer binding. It does not mean that our memories will be erased.

Of course, at this point in time, my government is abstaining. Chances are my nation will change its vote to match the majority view of the International Democratic Union, but with or without my nation and region's vote, it looks like this motion to repeal will pass.

Margravia urges a "NO" vote on this resolution.

Terrorism is not a police problem. Terrorists are the military of proto-nations who lack the resources to field a real military force. Terrorism unseats and destroys civilized nations who are unwilling to fight back. It is the deliberate rendering of defenseless civilians as the targets of cruel attacks with the broad overall goal of subverting a nation's political process and autonomy. It is the enslavement of the peace-loving many to the fanatical few who cannot otherwise convince others to sign on to their political agendas other than at the point of a gun or under fear of a bomb.

Terrorism is ultimately a military problem and it needs a military solution. Just as you would not tolerate dissident groups in your country taking up arms, so too should you not tolerate terrorist groups within your own borders preparing to attack your people -- or those of your neighbors.

The "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution, whatever its procedural flaws, does not authorize unilateral military intervention by one member nation into another. It authorizes military intervention by the U.N. to eliminate terrorist threats and alter the policies of nations which tolerate terrorists within their borders.

Only nations who sponsor and benefit from terrorism have anything to fear from this resolution. Show your nation's opposition to terrorism by voting "NO."

The following is the text of the repeal:


Repeal "Fight the Axis of Evil"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution

Category: Repeal
Resolution: #1
Proposed by: New Western America

Description:
UN Resolution #1: Fight the Axis of Evil (Category: International Security; Strength: Strong) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: While there is much fear surrounding the issue of global terrorism, the answer is most definitely not for UN members to build massive numbers of weapons.

Four reasons:

Member nations should not be forced to have a large military budget, especially when so many are struggling to pay for domestic costs like healthcare and education.

The "Axis of Evil" could be use to label any country as an excuse for other countries to invade.

Terrorist organizations are just that, organizations, not armies, and therefore large forces are not necessary to eliminate them.

Finally, massive mobilization of troops and building of weapons only serves to bring about fear in the minds of the people.

The best way to combat global terrorism is through intelligence; perhaps a new resolution regarding this should be brought to the floor.

Votes For: 1,890
Votes Against: 466
Voting Ends: Sat Oct 23 2004

my regional U.N. delegate has voted for that resolution, and i will not withdraw my support from her, as i assumed that we would have disagreements

however, my nation has voted against the repeal of this resolution. I feel that the people will be LESS fearful if they know that they have protection from when the bedbugs bite. I fully realize the purpose of terrorism is to bring about change through the instillment of fear, but I also feel if we take actions to prevent it, then they lose all control of the changes made, and it allows us to take actions against them. We can just hide in our rabbitholes and wait for them to strike, and we can't just..."run"... away from it all. In the end, we will have to face off with them if we intend to survive as a series of cultures, and we must do it on our terms.

The Federation of El-Auria joins Margravia and like-minded nations in voting "No" to repealing UN Resolution #1. We urge all nations who value the lives of their people over those of terrorists to join us in voting "No."

On another matter, many of the repeal proposals I've seen have noted the 2-1 vote that allowed Resolution #1 to be passed. I honestly have no problem with that. The final vote could have been 1-0 for all I care. Even now, with thousands of UN members in NS, there still is the possibility of extremely low voter turnout. Whether three nations vote on a measure or 30,000 nations, a democratic vote is still a democratic vote.

This is the problem with "democratic" voting. In the "real" UN, resolutions must be passed unanimously to be binding, this way you don't have some nations imposing their will on others, simply because more of them think it's a good idea.

With tens of thousands of members, it is impossible to come to a unanimous consensus in any length of time. The way it is now makes it possible for any proposals at all to get through.

Still, if future resolutions could only pass with a voter turnout of above 50%, it would be an improvement.

Concerning the resolution at hand: 'Axis of Evil' is a repugnant label. As well we could label the nations we oppose 'infidels' or 'heathens'. Fighting terrorism by attacking other countries is a policy that has proven worthless already, and that accomplishes only the opposite of its goal.
If there is a way to protect countries from terrorism, it lies in increasing domestic security, not lashing out randomly against nations that appear to be a threat. That is why the Republic of Aeruillin urges members to vote for the repeal, to protect the credibility of the UN as an organization promoting peace, not war.

This is the problem with "democratic" voting. In the "real" UN, resolutions must be passed unanimously to be binding, this way you don't have some nations imposing their will on others, simply because more of them think it's a good idea.

OOC: IIRC UN General Assembly resolutions are not binding if they target individual nations, but are binding (with or without unanimously) to UN organizations. Unlike NationStates the concept of sovereignty is still very important.

With tens of thousands of members, it is impossible to come to a unanimous consensus in any length of time. The way it is now makes it possible for any proposals at all to get through.

Still, if future resolutions could only pass with a voter turnout of above 50%, it would be an improvement.

Concerning the resolution at hand: 'Axis of Evil' is a repugnant label. As well we could label the nations we oppose 'infidels' or 'heathens'. Fighting terrorism by attacking other countries is a policy that has proven worthless already, and that accomplishes only the opposite of its goal.
If there is a way to protect countries from terrorism, it lies in increasing domestic security, not lashing out randomly against nations that appear to be a threat. That is why the Republic of Aeruillin urges members to vote for the repeal, to protect the credibility of the UN as an organization promoting peace, not war.

OOC: if we had to wait for 50% turnout, even less would pass than now. I mean, how many people have made a country and then left?

IC: I dont see how our current actions against terrorism, begun from the resolution facing being reversed, have failed. We now have those who would assume to take control of us through terror on the run. To not press the advantage is to ask for them to hit us again. I for one, do not like the idea of putting a "kick me" sign on my nation's proverbial backside. I will stand with the U.N. whichever way this resolution goes, but mine will also be one of those who stands up and says "I told you so" when this strike finally comes. I intend to keep pushing my nations Militarys funding, as well as its Law enforcement.

I hope you all will join me in trying to prevent this premature measure from going through, This will do more harm than good. I thank all who have listened to me drone on, for at least paying some heed to my words.

...Only nations who sponsor and benefit from terrorism have anything to fear from this resolution. Show your nation's opposition to terrorism by voting "NO."


You have to be joking. :p Quite funny too. The phrase above is almost as ridiculous as´"...either you are with us or against us".

There is no way we should make more weapons. Lets see, 1st off we're scared of people with weapons so why scare more people with more weapons?
Even if they do attack us are we just going to nuke them? Kill all those innocent people? For what? Just to scare them off so they can attack later?
I believe the term is "An Eye For An Eye"

... leaves the whole world blind.

The best way to combat global terrorism is through intelligence; perhaps a new resolution regarding this should be brought to the floor.

The resolution passed 2-1, and is clearly undemocratic. Furthermore, the term "Axis of Evil"...

The "Axis of Evil" could be use to label any country as an excuse for other countries to invade.

At this point in time I will abstain until a majority is reached in Havocaos. I am their delegate, and will do my best to represent them. Personally, I am in favour of this repeal, and a new resolution to address terrorism.

... leaves the whole world blind.



The resolution passed 2-1, and is clearly undemocratic. Furthermore, the term "Axis of Evil"...



At this point in time I will abstain until a majority is reached in Havocaos. I am their delegate, and will do my best to represent them. Personally, I am in favour of this repeal, and a new resolution to address terrorism.

A terrorism resolution sounds like a good idea.

But first let's get rid of this Axis of Evil crap.

A terrorism resolution sounds like a good idea.

But first let's get rid of this Axis of Evil crap.

Sydia, Delegate of the North Pacific, had one that they were passing around a few weeks ago. If you don't mind, I'll pass your request along and see if that nation is interested in promoting that proposal again. It was actually pretty close to reaching quorum.

Strange. The "Fight the Axis of Evil" resolution passed so it could be repealed, but when a proposal to do just that was made into a resolution, it's passing so far too. :confused:

Meriadoc still must review this resolution to see if it agrees with this resolution.

A terrorism resolution sounds like a good idea.

But first let's get rid of this Axis of Evil crap.

Honorable countries, you have all just meantioned how hard it is to get in a resloution...so whats to garentee that the terrorism bill will get through

Now, my nation is very willing to compromise. You want this bill out, and I want protection...so kill this resolution against a resolution til a alternitve resolution is attached too. This issue can't just be seen in shades of black and white. If you want it to die and let us leave our arms wide open* then let it. But if your against the first resolution, but want some protection, then kill this one, and bring up one with protection attached.

Again, thank you for listening to what may seem to have been a lecture, I hope the idea will stay fresh in your mind, even if the words don't.

(*OOC: sorry, im a martial artist, so I tend to express things through terms of fighting)

What is this madness? How can everyone be supporting a resolution that cuts back spending thats critical for protecting the Earth?

What is this madness? How can everyone be supporting a resolution that cuts back spending thats critical for protecting the Earth?

you can go ahead and keep on spending your tax money on bombs and stuff while the citizens of The Armed Republic of The Yellow Spot spend their time not oppressing people, driving them towards hopelessness and then terrorism. But don't force me to spend my money and nuclear crap we don't need.

The Peoples Republic of Snoogit say:

Its about time. We were wondering how long we could go before the UN would knock on our door asking why we weren't contributing more funds to the military.

What is this madness? How can everyone be supporting a resolution that cuts back spending thats critical for protecting the Earth?

Because we can turn right back around again and proposal a better resolution.

The NS UN was created on Nov. 13, 2002. This test resolution was adopted on Nov. 12, 2002. A day before the UN was open to membership.

As I mentioned earlier, Sydia has already worked on an international security resolution, and Agnost might have a similar measure (but I could be misremembering Agnost's proposal's category). In any event, do not worry, there are several nations from the North Pacific that are working to propose measures to improve international security and protect the Earth.

The NS UN was created on Nov. 13, 2002. This test resolution was adopted on Nov. 12, 2002. A day before the UN was open to membership.

Were you there to join the UN on that day and was denied membership? As far as I can remember, this resolution was passed with everyone that wanted to be in the UN in it, and it was passed mainly as a test and a joke.

Of course, the people of Old Narn will be voting against it for historical reasons, because we believe that the first resolution should always be kept, if for nothing else to show how far we've come, but that's another story.

Were you there to join the UN on that day and was denied membership? As far as I can remember, this resolution was passed with everyone that wanted to be in the UN in it, and it was passed mainly as a test and a joke.


Then you're remembering wrong.

If you've ever bothered to read the "UN Resolutions Throughout History" link, you'll see that the first resolution predates the start of the UN. Max and the Mods have always been up front about this.

Since the rise of civilization (November 13, 2002), the members of the United Nations have been working tirelessly to improve the standard of the world. That, or trying to force other nations to be more like them. But that's just semantics.

Clearly the resolution was a test, and not voted on by member states.

As for your second point, repealing a resolution does not erase our memories. The resolution is recorded in the UNA Archive and the NSWiki project, both are NGOs dedicated to preserving history. Trust me, you can vote in favour or against this repeal, but there is no reason to justify any vote on wishing to maintain history. There are nations and NGOs that are recording every statement made in the UN, and will not forget.

Fellow members of the United Nations. The most appropriate way to defend ourself against an 'Axis of Evil' is not to abolish our weapons in favour of intelligence, nor is it to forego intelligence in favour of weapons. This resolution should be repealed, yes, but replaced with a new resolution demanding higher spending on both intelligence and military power. Each is useless without the other.

What is this madness? How can everyone be supporting a resolution that cuts back spending thats critical for protecting the Earth?

Let me explain.

Resolution #1 doesn't protect you. It is worded in such general terms, that all it does is increase your millitary budget. But, in case of a terrorist attack, you can't hide behind that budget, no matter how high you pile it up. Moreover, I would argue that terrorism is only for a small part a millitary case, and for another large part a social issue, a foreign policy issue, a religious issue, a healthcare issue, an education issue, etc.

Back to the point. This resolution won't protect you. In fact, if a nation decide that your nation is part of the Axis of Evil, this resolution could even destroy you.

Resolution #1 is poorly worded. In fact, I doubt that it would pass in today's UN, or even get through the proposal queue with enough approvals. It's a test resolution. No goal was meant to achieve with ot other than seeing whether the NSUN system worked. Obviously you won't put in a lot of effort to make a proper resolution.

Despite our scepticism about terrorism, something our nation is free of thanks to a progressive attitude towards education, social wellfare and peacefull foreign policies, our nation wouldn't object to another, better, anti-terrorism propposal. But this would have to be less vague than this one. It will get passed if it is a good proposal; so far all good proposal that I have seen have gotten through at some point. Some pretty bad ones as well of course.

Last, but certainly not least: if the UN doesn't protect you, protect yourself. If this resolution gets repealed, all that happens is that a nation isn't forced to keep up a high millitary budget. But that doesn't mean you aren't allowed to. In other words, you can personally decide whether there is an Axis of Evil, and if so, whether you want to protect yourself against if through increasing whatever budget. The only difference is that it is no longer binding for all NSUN nations.

I think it is clear, that the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda will vote FOR the repeal, and urges all other nations to do the same. Because, even those who are pro Resolution #1 could continue the spirit of the resolution in their own national policies.

I think that the capitalists among you would appreciate this resolution as it allows you to build up your military might and intimidate smaller countries, without much dissent from the people. As the Imperator Meatloaf, First among many, of BOttaH, I feel that this resolution is the only thing that allows us to develop suficient military power to protect ourselves from the major threats in our region. Repeal this resolution, and many smaller countries, like BOttaH, will be pestered and forced, by the UN, to cut back on defence bugets, and even reduce the power of our police forces. In BOttah, there is almost no crime, and that is thanks to the supreme effort made by our Hand of the Light security forces. If this resolution is repealed, we will probably be forced to reduce our police powers and numbers, with catastrophic effects for the good, but naive, people in my country.

Therefore, I beg to oppose repealing this resolution.

Imperator Meatloaf, First among many of BOttaH

OOC: Hope didn't offend any of you, speaking as the good "communist" Meatloaf of BOttaH would. :sniper:

Assuming this resolution passes, there will be a period of time where the is absolutely no global resolution regarding the resistance to terrorist organizations. It is not easy to get a resolution in to be passed. So I propose that we must REJECT this resolution.

Instead, we must have a resolution that fixes the current dilema. This resolution simply removes all solutions from the floor and hopes that in the future another resolution will be passed.

We must have a resolution that presents a new form of combating terrorism while simultaneously removing the current resolution regarding this topic. Otherwise there will be a prolonged period of time where there are NO rules for fighting terrorism. That is something that I cannot support.

Think of your children. Think of your citizens. They need SOMETHING. And this resolution takes away EVERYTHING. And there is no guarantee that another resolution will come any time soon.

Quagmir:

No, I'm not joking, and no, I do not at all understand why you think my argument is "ridiculous" or on the level of "with us or against us." (Please note that this is NOT the argument that I made.)

You're certainly entitled to your opinion and to vote your conscience. And it certainly looks like your side will win in this forum; good on you for that. But all you've done is mock my argument; you haven't offered me any reason why I should change my mind.

Does your nation tolerate slavery? Does it tolerate genocide? Is one nation justified in invading another to prevent genocide from taking place? I say yes, because of the grave moral imperatives that are implicated. Only nations that practice genocide need fear an invasion justified on those grounds. I also say that terrorism is of equivalent moral gravity as genocide.

Clearly you and I are reasoning from different premises here. I explained why I think a NO vote is better than a YES vote. So why, aside from your disdain for me, do you think the opposite?

The resolution passed 2-1, and is clearly undemocratic.

You have a strange definition of "democratic"...

Is there some minimum number of participants required to make a vote democratic? "Fight the Axis of Evil" passed 66% to 33% with 100% voter turn-out. I call that amazingly democratic. It's not the resolution's fault that there were only 3 members of the UN at the time it hit the floor (I could probably tell you who the three members were, but I'm not positive on the third, and it would be an OPSEC violation anyway). Needless to say, I don't believe any of them still exist (Maxtopia certainly doesn't). Of course, none of that matters. It was still a democratic vote, the numbers are irrelevant. Be glad the originally planned method (and one still favored by some of us) for recalls wasn't used. Specifically: For a recall to pass it needs a greater percentage than the original resolution. In other words, recalling "Fight the Axis of Evil" would require a 67% approval rate, something unlikely to happen.

Now, that being said, Mik is largely correct about his assessment of the realities behind FtAoE. It was a test resolution. In fact, according to [violet], it was to be removed before the game went public, but it slipped [violet]'s mind, and it's still there.

Fun aside: Older members of the UN (pre-migration) may notice that the UN list is shorter than it was. A few of the original proposals were removed in the move. The two that leap to mind was the one that altered the percentage of approval from 10% to 6% (a relatively easy bit of coding), and one that "required" proper grammar on all proposals. They were clear game mechanics violations and have been expunged from the records. That FtAoE remains is a testimony to the fact that it, at least, wasn't horribly out of line (real-world reference in the title not withstanding).

When too many liberals gather together, no good can come forth. They may be well intended, but oh so misguided.

Assuming this resolution passes, there will be a period of time where the is absolutely no global resolution regarding the resistance to terrorist organizations. It is not easy to get a resolution in to be passed. So I propose that we must REJECT this resolution.

Sydia has already resubmitted their International Security resolution about terrorism. It is much better than the test resolution Groot Gouda is advocating we repeal.

The amount of time between the two resolutions could be as short as a week, but realistically will be about a month. I'm estimating it will take Sydia, my government, and a few others about that long to collect over 150 endorsements.

Sydia's proposal can be viewed in its own thread. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=7291121)

If you fear about reducing international security forces, this proposal (and others) may comfort you.

When too many liberals gather together, no good can come forth. They may be well intended, but oh so misguided.

And we second that.

Fellow members of the United Nations. The most appropriate way to defend ourself against an 'Axis of Evil' is not to abolish our weapons in favour of intelligence, nor is it to forego intelligence in favour of weapons. This resolution should be repealed, yes, but replaced with a new resolution demanding higher spending on both intelligence and military power. Each is useless without the other.

One word shall be muttered out of the mouths of the citizens of The Rogue Nation of Lemiden when they hear this statement..."Amen".

You don't like being big bother, fine. Don't be. But don't expect the rest of us who wish to defend our peoples from those who would try to wipe out our society from doing the same. As i said before, you can kill the first resolution, but with the history of the U.N. for bogging down resolutions, have one ready to back it up. Don't give them this window to strike, or we will ALL feel the pain and sorrow from what happens.

- The Rogue Nation of Lemiden

One word shall be muttered out of the mouths of the citizens of The Rogue Nation of Lemiden when they hear this statement..."Amen".

You don't like being big bother, fine. Don't be. But don't expect the rest of us who wish to defend our peoples from those who would try to wipe out our society from doing the same. As i said before, you can kill the first resolution, but with the history of the U.N. for bogging down resolutions, have one ready to back it up. Don't give them this window to strike, or we will ALL feel the pain and sorrow from what happens.

- The Rogue Nation of Lemiden

"Amen"

Assuming this resolution passes, there will be a period of time where the is absolutely no global resolution regarding the resistance to terrorist organizations. It is not easy to get a resolution in to be passed. So I propose that we must REJECT this resolution.

No. Assuming this resolution passes, there is no longer the obligation to spend a lot of money on the millitary budget. But if your nation fears terrorist, you are free to protect your people. Sure, after repealing a proposal its effects are undone, but that will be for a very short time only.

What you are suggesting is that non-UN nations are unable to protect themselves against terrorism, because they are not subjected to Resolution #1. This simply can't be true.

Think of your children (...)

On behalf of the President of the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda, I would like to say:
"Aaaaaargh!".

As President of the Democratic Republic of Conservative Cajuns I rise up in support against the effort to repeal UN Resolution #1 Fight the Axis of Evil. It is with great hesitancy that I speak against this appeal of Res. #1 as I believe Res. #1 is flawed as several of my fellow UN members have stated in their posts. The Democratic Republic of Conservative Cajuns agree with the premise of the Resolution and building "Peace through Strength" as the great Ronald Regan, President of the United States believed but believes it falls short on the intent of the Resolution's purpose.

UN Resolution #1 does not explicitly state in the text, but some interpretation of the Resolution would come to the conclusion that it compels member Nations to spend their monies on research and development of new weapon systems and increasing military budgets. No body of Nations collectively should mandate the decisions of any Nation, yet it should respect the right of every member Nation to decide what is in the best interest of that individual Nation. As President of the Democratic Republic of Conservative Cajuns, I pledge to never turn over control of the decisions of my Nation to the UN or any other outside force. The decisions must come from the people of each member Nation as to what the course of action will be for that Nation.

It is however, our duty as member Nations of the UN to set standards and guidelines for member Nations to observe in order to protect and preserve World peace and the rights of each individual member Nation. However dictating a course of action oversteps those bounds of responsibility. Collectively as a body, we may decide to take action against a Nation or Organization, but member Nations must decide if they are to join in that effort and is it is the best interest for them individually and in their best interest for the World they live in.

Having said this, I have voted against the repeal of Resolution #1 as I believe after Diplomacy has failed to create the peace among Nations, that often Military might and strength is the only way peace can be achieved either by an individual Nation or as a coalition of UN Nations. Military strength acts as a deterrent against rogue states with evil dictators that will use their weapons against other Nations for no cause or against their own people. Only when they fear retaliation from other Nations that are equal or stronger to them militarily will peace be achieved. A Nation who is willing to use their strongest weapon to demolish another nation when having the knowledge that that Nation will simultaneously attack with their equally as strong or stronger weapon systems is not only foolish but a danger to the peace of everyone. And the argument that if there were no weapons is a foolish argument as rogue Dictators and Terrorist will not follow any prohibition of arms just as they will not follow any mandate or request to lay down their arms.

Until a clearer new Resolution in support of Fight the Axis of Evil and the use of force against Nations that support Terrorism is passed by this body, my vote is against any repeal of Res. #1. Having said that, I would be in support of a repeal of Res. #1 pending passage of this new Resolution as I also agree the legality of Res. #1 having passed the day before membership was open in the UN.

Repectfully,
President, Democratic Republic of Conservative Cajuns

Some of you might have already seen it, but please have a look at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366946 for a good replacement of the soon-to-be-repealed Resolution #1. All our government can say is that this proposal should be endorsed by you or your delegate, especially if you voted against the repeal. This proposal will offer global protection against terrorism as well as preventative measures.

Friends!

Evil is bad, good is good. There is no inbetween.

Hence Melbin cannot support the repeal of this resolution.

The Grand Duke of Melbin

Some of you might have already seen it, but please have a look at http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366946 for a good replacement of the soon-to-be-repealed Resolution #1. All our government can say is that this proposal should be endorsed by you or your delegate, especially if you voted against the repeal. This proposal will offer global protection against terrorism as well as preventative measures.

Having read this, and on the hope that this resolution will replace it, I am changing my position on the repeal. I will now vote for a repeal. Trust is an important part of politics, and, although some may call me foolish, I will trust until I am betrayed. I trust that soon the above resolution will be proposed, and I, for one, will vote for it. I here recant all I have said against repeal of the resolution #1.

Imperator Meatloaf, first among many of BOttaH

Come and join us in the Lands of Unbalanced Personas.

Ok I like the idea. but it could never work. we need strong inteligence agencyies in our nations so find these terrorists yes but we also need the weapons do fight them. and there arent just terrorist groups there are terrorist nations that have to be fought to end terrorism for good. and to do that we need the weapons. I will say this, if the proposal does pass in the un, i will resign. the united nations will not dictate how my nation spends its money. and if we choose to spend it on our military so be it. then when all of the other member nation have been whiped out by terrorists and nations like mine with large strong militairies are still prosperous;we will see.

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5:

That's my answer.

If I remember right, when NationStates opened it was the 13th of November 2002 in Australia, but the 12th in the US (where the server is). I suspect Fight the Axis of Evil passed before this, essentially as a test resolution, but I could be wrong. Even if it was after, though, the voting period must have been much-truncated. In the early days, before impatient UN members complained, UN resolutions stayed on the floor for 7 days. This resolution, if it was presented to UN members at all, was there for no longer than a few hours.

Incidentally, if FTAOE is repealed (as seems likely), it won't vanish from the UN's "Past Resolutions" list completely. It'll still be there, but struck out.

']Incidentally, if FTAOE is repealed (as seems likely), it won't vanish from the UN's "Past Resolutions" list completely. It'll still be there, but struck out.
I can't tell you how much this pleases me. PLEASE tell me that it will still be Resolution #1 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=0), and the repeal will be Res #78.

If not, a whole bunch of links in various sites, including my UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Passed_UN_Resolutions), will have to be renumbered every time a repeal passes. If you can confirm this, I would be grateful.

(of course, I'll get confirmation in a day or two anyway, but what the hell)

I believe that the statement that freedom requires enternal vigilance, should state my opinion. The United States of Samurai Pizza Cats votes against the repealing of Resolution #1. :gundge:

Having read this, and on the hope that this resolution will replace it, I am changing my position on the repeal. I will now vote for a repeal. Trust is an important part of politics, and, although some may call me foolish, I will trust until I am betrayed. I trust that soon the above resolution will be proposed, and I, for one, will vote for it. I here recant all I have said against repeal of the resolution #1.


Originally my decision was to abstain on this issue, but the arguments in favour have vastly been well reasoned, and thus the Council of Mayors held a special session and asked that I change my governments vote IN FAVOUR of the motion to repeal the first resolution.

My office will continue to campaign for Sydia's proposal, as we feel it is a much more appropriate solution to the subject of international politics and always support well worded resolutions.

I can't tell you how much this pleases me. PLEASE tell me that it will still be Resolution #1 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=0), and the repeal will be Res #78.

Me as well.

You also now have your history for this motion to repeal and can probably start working on the NSWiki entry *now*.

First, a thank you to those who ar voting in favor of this, and for those against my repeal movement I do respect your opinion.

Second, for the couple of people who sent me angry telegrams...if you don't like my resolution, don't vote for it!!! And for the person who sent me the one-word telegram that said "Idiot!!!!!" I would like to point out the Red Sox, who called themselves a bunch of idiots. Look where they are now...

Finally,
When too many liberals gather together, no good can come forth. They may be well intended, but oh so misguided.
I don't consider the founding fathers of the U.S. to be misguided...

PLEASE tell me that it will still be Resolution #1 (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=0), and the repeal will be Res #78.
This is correct.

Glad we're not going to screw up your Timeline. :)

America's founding forefathers seriously were misguided, but i suppose thats off topic. I have no evidence im just soeaking out of my ass, but its true.

Second, for the couple of people who sent me angry telegrams...if you don't like my resolution, don't vote for it!!! And for the person who sent me the one-word telegram that said "Idiot!!!!!" I would like to point out the Red Sox, who called themselves a bunch of idiots. Look where they are now...


OOC: People are basically very insecure. I imagine every one of us that has had a resolution on the floor has received a number of threats (which is also a stupid thing to do) or at the very least some basic insults.

I've been keeping a list of this individuals that send hostile telegrams and adding them to my Do Not Contact list. If you visit the IDU forum (link below), I'd be happy to include those names on my list, because obviously these individuals have a problem with anybody who thinks differently than them.

If a telegram really crosses the line, consider keeping it and reporting it to the moderators. This should be a fun game, not one where people are mistreated by a few individuals.

BTW, original I was going to abstain, but the arguments in favour swayed my vote to YES.

We quite like being an exis of evil. Ergo, are quite happy to vote to cut your defence spending.

Au revoir,

Of The New Empire
(Delegacy, Uninterested Nations)

Evil is bad, good is good. There is no inbetween.


"That stance may have a place in fundamentalism, but certainly not in international politics," Vanessa Siliagh, the foreign minister of Aeruillin, rebukes. "We cannot conduct diplomatic negotiations between nations by arbitrarily labeling some of them as good and others as evil, based on their skin color, their economic or militaristic policies, or their government system. Are we reverting to Stone Age politics now? In the modern world, one of the only acts we can classify as evil is the polarization of societies, and the causing of international conflicts! The United Nations represent a neutral body that attempts to promote peace between nations, not a group of thugs that helps each other in taking out perceived 'enemies'."

:P

First off, we need to get the ball rolling on this legistlation. If we are repealing the Axis of Evil resolution, then put one in place to protect our countries.



I don't consider the founding fathers of the U.S. to be misguided...

well, I can answer that too...I don't consider the founding fathers liberal
-I mean, they were for lesser goverment control, liberals are for more
-They were for gun rights for everyone, liberals want us unarmed against criminals supplied by the black market
They made that constitution in a wise way...liberals want to rewrite it. The liberals say the "laws now don't fit the times". Guess what...the fact that were here now says they do.

the fact that were here now says they do.

This is like saying that "five hundred years ago, they caught and burned all the witches. They were very successful - have you seen a witch anywhere recently? They were also very wise to do that: After all, we're here now and not all killed by those dastardly witches."

The logic should not be "we're still alive --> everything done in the past is good." Rather it should be "we're in a situation that could be much better and much worse --> What have we done in the past, what part of it led to our situation being better, and what part was a complete, total mistake that we and generations afterward will be paying for?"

If you're living in a world you think is perfect, you're obviously wearing one of those rose-colored Bush goggles. All is Well - why, then, is the death toll in Iraq increasing? Why are humans being decapitated? Why are humans being tortured in prisons? Why are wedding parties being bombed by American airplanes? Why are humans being killed by suicide bombers? You can't blame this all on the 'evil terrorists' - there is something wrong with the human mindset in general, and America's current policy is no different from the policies of Al-Quaeda.

I completely agree that it should be repealed. I voted to that effect. And I believe that you are winning. Good luck.


God Bless
Erica

:headbang: This has to be changed the only Axis of evil in our minds are a those who would force military spending on nations which cannot nor wish to

Christ people are morons..does anyone not realize that UN proposals only affect those nations who join before said proposal is past? The fight the axis of evil resolution only affected those nations in the UN at THAT particular time. No more no less. This entire repeal process is rather negative..so now the proposal did not strengthen my security..but it did manage to weaken my security..solely because some people didnt like the way the proposal was worded when it was first past..lets get something straight..it did not affect you..but because of your misguided leftist viewpoint you forced others to be affected. Thank you, you no sense fool. Yet another reason why the UN is a joke.

Nobody's forcing you to remain a member and throwing your luck in with us misguided commie pinkos and leftist hippies. :p
You can't argue with the majority, it was passed 83% against 17%. There's little to be disputed there...

hes right, once the resolution has passed theres little to do about it.

Well, people can stop trying to repeal it now. The "repeal" link should be de-activated after the repeal occurs...

This peice of international feel-goodery and anti militarism has caused me to resign from the UN and continue, as Supreme General of the Protectorate of Hillmore, and continue my support for the US's fight against the axis of evil

Thank you, and my opinion of the intelligence of the average American has now decreased by another little notch (and here was me thinking it couldn't go deeper).

Leave the real world, and the US, out of this. This is fictional. If you want the Nation States world to go down in nuclear winter, you can try to influence the UN, fight it, whatever you want. If you want the *real* world to drown in chaos and war, then there is little sense in wasting your time arguing in Nationstates. Instead, go out, vote Bush and be done with it. <_<