NationStates Jolt Archive

There are many reasons why "Fight Axis for Evil" should not be repealed but these are the main ones to me.

1) UN delegates also have the right to protect themselves against large numbers
of military attack.

2) Even if there are a lot of terriost nations i have one friend (Jaxus/Jaxusim) who has a two terriost nations but he would never accompany a world wide terrioist attack. and if there is a attack of such enormity he will help to fight against the nations that are attacking. :)

seriously Sportiana

PS: any one who wants to argue this is welcome.

The UN shouldn't force member nations to spend money on a part of their budget they may never use - if you read the original Resolution, it forces all nations to "massively increase military spending" for no actual coherent reason.

What you are trying to say is true but some of the U.N nations will only put some money into it if they are forced. And i do agree with you on the fact that nations should not be forced to "massively" increase their army but i do also agree that the U.N nations should have a large defence in order to protect the world.

P.S: This is actually Sportiana. Sportian is my other nation.

If you don't like what they do leave then you don't have to follow along with anything they pass it works very well in that case usually.

If you don't like what they do leave then you don't have to follow along with anything they pass it works very well in that case usually.

lol :)

http://www.animeleague.net/~berrik/emot-w-hat.gif

the proposal said that in order to maintain the peace, we need to build more weapons. someone explain this logic!!! i say the axis of evil act is a :gundge:

This "Axis of Evil" resolution is pure useless garbage. When it was passed, only 3 people voted. The resolution does nothing to deter terrorism. This so called axis of evil, we don't even know what countries it is made up of! This resolution should have never been enacted in the first place, and it is long overdue for being repealed.

This "Axis of Evil" resolution is pure useless garbage. When it was passed, only 3 people voted. The resolution does nothing to deter terrorism. This so called axis of evil, we don't even know what countries it is made up of! This resolution should have never been enacted in the first place, and it is long overdue for being repealed.
The goverment of Greater Greece completly agrees. Making more weapons does not deter nor help to fight terrorists. We need to increase funding to intelligence so we can foil an attack plot BEFORE it happens.

As the neighbor to a potential terrorist state, we know the danger inherent to ANY dealings with such an organization. However, we do vote that certain restrictions should be placed on the resolution. For example, Eirie believes that only when the organization under attack has a suitably large stronghold in a country known to support them should they be attacked. However, to safeguard against wars being covered as "surgical anti-terrorism strikes", we propose that the action should only be undertaken by a willing coalition of at least 5 nation states, from which at least three should be from different regions.

the proposal said that in order to maintain the peace, we need to build more weapons. someone explain this logic!!! i say the axis of evil act is a :gundge:

I am The Holy Purple cow of The Nomadic peoples of Jessiecow, and i approve this message (Entirely)!

I deffinately agree! Explain this logic? INCREASE of WEAPONS!? Well, this is how far i have been able to figure it out:

Let's say small left-leaning college state "Tinni-tinny" (I made this up, i am not noteing anyone.) Was ENFOURCED to spend 3/4ths of its Fedural Bugit on this "Increasing of weapons", While the other 1/3rd goes to income tax and medical reasons, which unfortunately for them was not enough. So, economy isn't all too great for them. But, this law would also benefit the terrorist-corporrate paradise state of "Bomminia" ( This name too is inevidibly made-up.) Giving them more time and money to be spent on what they already have, and proably don't really need so much of it to this extent. So, let's say these two are neighboring countries... (Whoda guessed this part in the plot of the story?!) "Bomminia" decides that it needs more land space for it's uranium labratories and factories. Unfortunately for them, They have de-forested and used up all of their available space already. So, they then see their tiny but, stunning neighbor. Well, since "Bomminia" overstocked already on it's supplies of defense weapons, and they could really do alot with their neighbor's country they decide to attack it into the next Ice Age. "Tinni-Tinny" hears about their neighbor's sudden plans, and get's ready to rally the troops. Sadly though, little or no money was left for medicial, health, or citizens so now over 70% of the population is sick or dying...

Can you guess what happens next? :confused: I can!!! I vote against this act! :mad:

That proposal, alas, should not force anybody to do anything. If I do not want to give money, so be it.

HOWEVER, increasing military budgets will help. What you do not understandi ist that military funding doesnt just pay for tanks and jets and guns. It pays for research into new technolgy that will help prevent terrorism. Bomb snoopers, the new X-Ray scanners, and other such things. Besides, jets and tanks and guns are what we fight terrorists with. Without increasing the supplies, how can any military expand their role?

I think that forcing each an every UN member to have spend large amounts on increasing the amount spent on defence to fight terrorism should not be repealed for 2 reasons.

1) By forcing each member of the UN to increase their spending would be a large incentive on the fight on terrorism. For instance, one state is recieving multiple terrorist attack which are seriously crippling its once strong economy. Sure this state previously had the option to boost defence to fight terrorism and it did so, however with its own funding it can no longer sustain this and its economy is now being crippled in the fight, the other nations who have been forced to increase their terrorist spending are almost guaranteed to enter the fight to save the first nation because they would not want to waste the resources they had worked so hard for.

In a Nutshell?
GUARANTEED SECURITY for all small or middle size nations within UN
No country will resist the fight against terrorism with the resources at their disposal. I mean all UN nations say they will respond in YOUR TIME OF NEED, but really what will happen, bleak ignorance mostly... just look at real life.

2) The repeal does not even specify on "military spending" and "budget increase" so all swinging nations that do not want to specifically spend on huge amounts of weapons, can spend on dual purpose "military" such as trucks, multi-purpose vehicles, infrastructure, merchant navy, rations. Each of these is preparing for a war economy and who is to say which of these is military spending or not, particularly because a good roadworks system is vital for national defense.

Please consider my points as i believe they are valid and relevant to all UN nations, i welcome all rebuts as well.

I want to address the one who made this new UN Resolution being passed. Why sir/ma'am do you see it necessary that we should NOT fight the Axis of Evil. It matters not WHO they are. If some oraganization wishes to cause harm to yours, would you not put up some sort of protection to make sure it doesn't? Or would you just rather pretend that nothing will happen and they pose no threat at all, so that when the time comes you can blame other parties for your own mistake. So please, enlighten me.

I want to address the one who made this new UN Resolution being passed. Why sir/ma'am do you see it necessary that we should NOT fight the Axis of Evil. It matters not WHO they are. If some oraganization wishes to cause harm to yours, would you not put up some sort of protection to make sure it doesn't? Or would you just rather pretend that nothing will happen and they pose no threat at all, so that when the time comes you can blame other parties for your own mistake. So please, enlighten me.

The 'Axis of Evil' was never defined, so that means I can define it. You're evil. Here come the bombs.


Do you see what I'm doing? "Evil" isn't a word that should be used in legislation that crosses several boundaries of culture mostly because "Evil" is more often than not culturally defined. What my country sees as Evil may pass as perfectly normal and not evil at all in your country. Allowing a country with a more liberal interpretation of UN law to build up and call another country a Terrorist for no good reason, and then we can't do much about it doesn't sound like good polict to me.

Voted FOR the motion to Repeal.

Today, Emperor Aiden II made statements regarding his decision to withdraw from the UN.

"Brothers, my father made the decision to join the united nations. It is a decent organisation with a decent cause. It is with great regret, that I announce our withdrawl from this organisation. Having reviewed UN law, it is apparent that the organisation functions by the tyranny of the majority, forcing many nations to conform.

"Some time ago, many nations, moral nations like our own, were forced to legalise prostitution. The UN currently seeks to scale back allowances on weapons production, which is not acceptable in a time of war.

"While we understand that the main reason for such scale-backs is the wording of the original legislation, we find that this, and many other decisions that have been made by the UN, are antithetical to our own beliefs, and occasionally, our own moral laws.

"To preserve our way of life, and our way of thinking, it has become neccesary for us to leave the UN, and to end the tyranny of the Compliance Ministry. God be with all of you."

There are many reasons why "Fight Axis for Evil" should not be repealed but these are the main ones to me.

1) UN delegates also have the right to protect themselves against large numbers
of military attack.

Repealing this resolution does not take away that right. But that's beside the point. This resolution is about terrorist attacks, not millitary attacks.


2) Even if there are a lot of terriost nations i have one friend (Jaxus/Jaxusim) who has a two terriost nations but he would never accompany a world wide terrioist attack. and if there is a attack of such enormity he will help to fight against the nations that are attacking.

I fail to see what one friend with several nations has to do with not repealing this resolution.

The discussion is currently taking place in another thread. Please, let's keep our arguments there, so it doesn't get messy. Repealing this resolution is an absolute necessity, but if you want to discuss that, please join the other discussion.

Today, Emperor Aiden II made statements regarding his decision to withdraw from the UN.

"Brothers, my father made the decision to join the united nations. It is a decent organisation with a decent cause. It is with great regret, that I announce our withdrawl from this organisation. Having reviewed UN law, it is apparent that the organisation functions by the tyranny of the majority, forcing many nations to conform.

"Some time ago, many nations, moral nations like our own, were forced to legalise prostitution. The UN currently seeks to scale back allowances on weapons production, which is not acceptable in a time of war.

"While we understand that the main reason for such scale-backs is the wording of the original legislation, we find that this, and many other decisions that have been made by the UN, are antithetical to our own beliefs, and occasionally, our own moral laws.

"To preserve our way of life, and our way of thinking, it has become neccesary for us to leave the UN, and to end the tyranny of the Compliance Ministry. God be with all of you."

I agree with what you are saying but the answer to it is not to leave the U.N the answer is to stand up for your ideals and morals in the U.N and the only way I see that anyone can do that is by staying in the U.N or joining the U.N. :)

I understand the fears that this repeal would hurt national "abilities" to figth terrorism, and, strictly speaking, it will. But, is this resolution the best one to fight terrorism? Is it even slightly good at it? That's why we need a new resolution to replace it.

The resolution raplacement process is kind of hairy and un-'felt out' right now. I mean, it's a simple enough idea, it's just there are possible snags and problems (such as the eesny weensy problem that the replacement resolution NOT PASS).

A sort of replacement to this resolution and a form of addition (much needed addition I confess) to the woefully undesized Nuclear Terrorism Act is here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366946) Please telegram your regional delegate to endorse this proposal.

I understand the fears that this repeal would hurt national "abilities" to figth terrorism, and, strictly speaking, it will. But, is this resolution the best one to fight terrorism? Is it even slightly good at it? That's why we need a new resolution to replace it.

The resolution raplacement process is kind of hairy and un-'felt out' right now. I mean, it's a simple enough idea, it's just there are possible snags and problems (such as the eesny weensy problem that the replacement resolution NOT PASS).

A sort of replacement to this resolution and a form of addition (much needed addition I confess) to the woefully undesized Nuclear Terrorism Act is here. (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=366946) Please telegram your regional delegate to endorse this proposal.

This I do agree with. Because sadly to say the Repealment of Fight Axis of Evil is succeding so. The proposal is something we need. I will talk to my regional delagate about this.

The Supreme Inquisitor of Yatsumica was seen making a press statement to the world, regarding the new resolution.

"it should not be repealed for the obvious reasons, terrorist attacks could easily be squashed by a military force of a couple thousands. what happens if terrorists attack a kingdom that doesnt have the power to surpress them, are you just going to stand by and let millions of innocent people die in a nuclear assault. or even if the terrorists attack a larger nation, they could possibly steal and sell of nuclear weapons or the such to other orginazations that will attack another country.

but i digress, it was voted for the issue previously, so it was obviously thought to be a good idea, to repeal it now with evidense that it could be bad either way would just be an injustice to the UN system."

I want to address the one who made this new UN Resolution being passed. Why sir/ma'am do you see it necessary that we should NOT fight the Axis of Evil. It matters not WHO they are. If some oraganization wishes to cause harm to yours, would you not put up some sort of protection to make sure it doesn't? Or would you just rather pretend that nothing will happen and they pose no threat at all, so that when the time comes you can blame other parties for your own mistake. So please, enlighten me.

Speaking as the madman who proposed this repeal:
You want to prevent one nation from harming another? Then in the real world, why hasn't anyone invaded Russia for the harm they caused the Chechnyans? Or Sudan for the genocide going on there? Or the United States for the deaths it caused in Iraq? The "Axis of Evil" is simply a label that one country puts on another as an excuse for invasion.
I have no problem with fighting terrorism. The problem is that terrorism can be used as a label--American revolutionaries 2 centuries ago would have been labeled terrorists by the British government. If you can prove that an ORGANIZATION plans on attacking you, then shut that organization down with minimal civilian casualites. If the government sponsors it (like the case of the Taliban) then an invasion can be considered.
If you still don't understand....re-read the proposal :cool:

And if you're really that worried about safety, nobody's stopping you from spending as much on your military as possible. :sniper:

Maybe you would like to explain how to "shut down" these organisations, your being very idealistic. Also the reason the US and other countries will not invade USSR (now russia) is out of pure fear imo. I mean a war against a equally powerful super-power will yeild huge loss of life and most likely no results(napoleon, hitler).