NationStates Jolt Archive

This will force UN nations to support other UN nations under attack by an invasionary force, terrorists, etc. If help is needed.

This will help to keep terrorism down and our countries secure.

in other words, UN will provide militaristic help if any is needed for defense for any UN nation in need of it.

Go approve and help it pass into a vote!

- Ed

I oppose this because it failed the logic test.

The logical question: How will this help, if it does at all, nations being invaded by UN nations? Also, those invasions may be justified reactions to what the UN member has pulled. Finally, one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters, so that word can be used to subjugate people and supress attempts at Revolution.

I see this as nothing more than a cheap way to abuse membership in the UN.

I oppose this because it failed the logic test.

The logical question: How will this help, if it does at all, nations being invaded by UN nations? Also, those invasions may be justified reactions to what the UN member has pulled. Finally, one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters, so that word can be used to subjugate people and supress attempts at Revolution.

I see this as nothing more than a cheap way to abuse membership in the UN.

Its to help UN nations that are being invaded by non UN nations, not if UN invades UN, which should never happen. The UN member is a part of the United Nations, how united are we if we don't help each other out? They are still terrorists to one of our brother/sister nations and commiting crimes in that nation. I don't see how this is abusing membership in any way, I see this as a way to help fellow UN nations in need.

- Ed

Could you please post a copy of the resolution here so we can see it?

This will force UN nations to support other UN nations under attack by an invasionary force, terrorists, etc. If help is needed.

This will help to keep terrorism down and our countries secure.


Thats it. I didn't go too in depth because I didn't think I'd need too. If it doesn't pass I'll write a more detailed one. But hopefully It passes

I oppose this because it failed the logic test.

The logical question: How will this help, if it does at all, nations being invaded by UN nations? Also, those invasions may be justified reactions to what the UN member has pulled. Finally, one nation's terrorists are another's freedom fighters, so that word can be used to subjugate people and supress attempts at Revolution.

I see this as nothing more than a cheap way to abuse membership in the UN.

Mmmm sorry, you failed the logic test. Maybe help against non-UN nations? Ever thought of that? Maybe if a UN nation gets too corrupt and decides to attack or commit an international crime, we can all take it down. Revolution in someone else's country? It does nothing to supress revolution. It helps countries out that are being attacked either wrongly, or just by an enemy. If someone invades someone with a valid reason, then it's ok, and they should be backed up. Freedom fighters or terrorists don't matter. When someone attacks a country with an unfounded reason, we need to help.

Its to help UN nations that are being invaded by non UN nations, not if UN invades UN, which should never happen. The UN member is a part of the United Nations, how united are we if we don't help each other out? They are still terrorists to one of our brother/sister nations and commiting crimes in that nation. I don't see how this is abusing membership in any way, I see this as a way to help fellow UN nations in need.

1) UN nations sometimes openly war with each other on the forums. I've seen it time and time again. Even the real UN is mostly divided, so that point is moot.

2) I have nothing against UN members helping each other out, but this opens the door for abuse too wide.

3) There are still legitimate reasons for a non UN member to invade a UN member. Like, let's say said UN member has openly attacked them or is supporting terrorism in their nation. And, considering what I have seen on here, it does happen.

4) In real life, the American Revolutionaries were considered a form of terrorists by the British. So what is to stop a nation from using this as a method of suppressing what is in reality a revolt by labelling it terrorism? Keep in mind the only real difference between revolution and terrorism is who is doing the labelling.

5) The options for abuse? UN member pulls something incredibly stupid against a non UN member that results in said non UN member invading in response. UN member, in turn, calls out for help. Suddenly that non UN member is overwhelmed by people not given a choice but to help because of this proposal. Or the UN member has a revolt in their nation by the populous, labels those revolting as terrorists, and uses UN members and this proposal to force several UN nations to help them put down the revolt.

6) The exact resolution.

This will force UN nations to support other UN nations under attack by an invasionary force, terrorists, etc. If help is needed.

This will help to keep terrorism down and our countries secure.

That's about as clear as mud on a cloudy night. I could use that successfully to help me crush anyone not in the UN who attacks me, destroy all attempts at social reform by labelling people terrorists, and manage to utterly abuse it in other ways. It also does not answer the question of how to help nations invaded by other UN nations.

This allows for too much abuse for me to even consider and is badly worded to boot. Try rewording it.

Maybe help against non-UN nations? Ever thought of that?

Uh huh. And where in my posts did you see me disputing it would do that? Nowhere? Didn't think so. I'm still waiting for that to have a point beyond wasting my time with something I didn't even dispute.

Maybe if a UN nation gets too corrupt and decides to attack or commit an international crime, we can all take it down.

Where do you see it stipulated in the proposal? Nowhere. And doing so goes against the spirit of this resolution and, depending on your affiliation with the UN, may end up with you getting attacked as well.

Revolution in someone else's country? It does nothing to supress revolution.

The revolutionaries are labelled as terrorists, considering the actions they are taking are considered terrorist actions most of the time anyway. Suddenly, all other nations are forced to support. No definition of terrorism and no allowing for revolutionaries are in the proposal. Try sticking to just the proposal.

It helps countries out that are being attacked either wrongly, or just by an enemy.

There is no stipulation for "right" and "wrong" attacks. Try finding it in the proposal.

If someone invades someone with a valid reason, then it's ok, and they should be backed up.

Quote me the portion of the proposal where it states this.

Freedom fighters or terrorists don't matter.

Actually, it does matter, or the U.S. wouldn't make such a stink about the two being different.

When someone attacks a country with an unfounded reason, we need to help.

I'm not disputing that. I'm just including hostile UN members that may try it with other UN members as well.

Mmmm sorry, you failed the logic test.

Maybe you might want to read both the proposal and what I said again. Next time, don't combine things I didn't dispute with things not even in the resolution for making an argument.

This will force UN nations to support other UN nations under attack by an invasionary force, terrorists, etc. If help is needed.

This will help to keep terrorism down and our countries secure.

in other words, UN will provide militaristic help if any is needed for defense for any UN nation in need of it.

Go approve and help it pass into a vote!

- Ed
(OOC)

Just to bring this in to the real world for a moment, wouldn't that mean the UN would have had to come to Iraq's aid when America invaded?

(Please note - this is not an attempt to start a debate on the invasion of Iraq, so please don't use it as such or this thread will spin out of control).

When America, the UK and Spain invaded then - according to this proposal - the UN would have been duty bound to provide military aid to Iraq to fight the invasion.

You don't think that would have been a huge conflict of interest? Not to mention a very, very bad situation?

(Back in character)

Aside from my comment above, my nation has it's motto for a reason - we will not go to war with anyone. So if this passed and we were required by law to go to war on behalf of another nation (who might be the most evil, abusive nation you can imagine and is deserving of being invaded) then we would have to break that law.

So rather than be put in that position I am going to not support this.

This will help to keep terrorism down and our countries secure.

So, our countries more secure when we are all legally bound to be at war with people? And terrorism will decrease when we come to the aid of regimes with disgusting foreign policy or human rights records?

Sounds good to me!

Why do these proposals about terrorism fail to point out that there is a terrorism problem in, hell even a weak majority, of UN nations?

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

1) UN nations sometimes openly war with each other on the forums. I've seen it time and time again. Even the real UN is mostly divided, so that point is moot.

2) I have nothing against UN members helping each other out, but this opens the door for abuse too wide.

3) There are still legitimate reasons for a non UN member to invade a UN member. Like, let's say said UN member has openly attacked them or is supporting terrorism in their nation. And, considering what I have seen on here, it does happen.

4) In real life, the American Revolutionaries were considered a form of terrorists by the British. So what is to stop a nation from using this as a method of suppressing what is in reality a revolt by labelling it terrorism? Keep in mind the only real difference between revolution and terrorism is who is doing the labelling.

5) The options for abuse? UN member pulls something incredibly stupid against a non UN member that results in said non UN member invading in response. UN member, in turn, calls out for help. Suddenly that non UN member is overwhelmed by people not given a choice but to help because of this proposal. Or the UN member has a revolt in their nation by the populous, labels those revolting as terrorists, and uses UN members and this proposal to force several UN nations to help them put down the revolt.

6) The exact resolution.



That's about as clear as mud on a cloudy night. I could use that successfully to help me crush anyone not in the UN who attacks me, destroy all attempts at social reform by labelling people terrorists, and manage to utterly abuse it in other ways. It also does not answer the question of how to help nations invaded by other UN nations.

This allows for too much abuse for me to even consider and is badly worded to boot. Try rewording it.

1. Alrighty. We'll have to break those little fights up then.
2. I think you explained later on down the line why this is so
3. If a UN member is doing so they should be ... dealt with and or kicked out for certain actions. IE attacking another UN nation, harboring terrorists, etc.
4. Sure they are revolutionaries until they terrorize YOUR country. I'm sure you wouldn't let them overthrow YOU and YOUR government now would you? But then again maybe you will, just let them take over...
5. I'll have to organize a relief thing in the new resolution.
6. Yea it's a tad bit short. I'll reword it most def.

3. If a UN member is doing so they should be ... dealt with and or kicked out for certain actions. IE attacking another UN nation, harboring terrorists, etc.


BUZZ

This would be illegal.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

(OOC)

Just to bring this in to the real world for a moment, wouldn't that mean the UN would have had to come to Iraq's aid when America invaded?

(Please note - this is not an attempt to start a debate on the invasion of Iraq, so please don't use it as such or this thread will spin out of control).

When America, the UK and Spain invaded then - according to this proposal - the UN would have been duty bound to provide military aid to Iraq to fight the invasion.

You don't think that would have been a huge conflict of interest? Not to mention a very, very bad situation?

(Back in character)

Aside from my comment above, my nation has it's motto for a reason - we will not go to war with anyone. So if this passed and we were required by law to go to war on behalf of another nation (who might be the most evil, abusive nation you can imagine and is deserving of being invaded) then we would have to break that law.

So rather than be put in that position I am going to not support this.

War with anyone? So if someone invades your nation, your just gonna take it like a bitch? Let them take over your land? Take over your beliefs? You can't be a sissy in the world nowadays, you have to stand up. I'll write in more into the resolution defining which UN nations will support each other. I guess I'll make it so if a UN Nation is lawbound not to go support another UN nation, they don't have to go when I rewrite it. I won't start anything with Iraq, at least not here.

I'll write in more into the resolution defining which UN nations will support each other.

UN resolutions can't interfere in RP.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

1. Alrighty. We'll have to break those little fights up then.
2. I think you explained later on down the line why this is so
3. If a UN member is doing so they should be ... dealt with and or kicked out for certain actions. IE attacking another UN nation, harboring terrorists, etc.
4. Sure they are revolutionaries until they terrorize YOUR country. I'm sure you wouldn't let them overthrow YOU and YOUR government now would you? But then again maybe you will, just let them take over...
5. I'll have to organize a relief thing in the new resolution.
6. Yea it's a tad bit short. I'll reword it most def.

1) The UN is not allowed to interfere in RP and cannot interfere in small squabbles of nations arguing with each other. And some of those wars start because of interactions by nations outside the UN and alliances set up.

3) This is illegal.

4) I'm a dictator of a corporate police state focusing heavily on the military. I opress my people all the time, so I'm not the best example.

Also, not all UN nations maintain militaries. Tiamat Taveril, for example, is a nation of pacifists, which is why they have me as an ally.

War with anyone? So if someone invades your nation, your just gonna take it like a bitch? Let them take over your land? Take over your beliefs? You can't be a sissy in the world nowadays, you have to stand up. I'll write in more into the resolution defining which UN nations will support each other. I guess I'll make it so if a UN Nation is lawbound not to go support another UN nation, they don't have to go when I rewrite it. I won't start anything with Iraq, at least not here.

Okay - what makes you think that insulting me, my people and my country is going to make me support your resolution? You don't think it would just make me hold you, and anything you write, in utter contempt?

War with anyone? So if someone invades your nation, your just gonna take it like a bitch? Let them take over your land? Take over your beliefs? You can't be a sissy in the world nowadays, you have to stand up. I'll write in more into the resolution defining which UN nations will support each other. I guess I'll make it so if a UN Nation is lawbound not to go support another UN nation, they don't have to go when I rewrite it. I won't start anything with Iraq, at least not here.

And to actually respond to this (despite the contempt thing) if you are going to modify it to say that "yeah - you have to support any member state that is invaded, unless you don't want to, or have a good reason not to" then there is the chance that it will become totally toothless and not worth actually enacting.

4) I'm a dictator of a corporate police state focusing heavily on the military. I opress my people all the time, so I'm not the best example.

And if some liberal democratic revolutionaries try to overthrow that government, I'm not going to come help stop them just because DemonLordEnigma labels them terrorists. Hell, I'm more likely to provide aid to the "terrorists".

And if some liberal democratic revolutionaries try to overthrow that government, I'm not going to come help stop them just because DemonLordEnigma labels them terrorists. Hell, I'm more likely to provide aid to the "terrorists".

Actually, all of my terrorists are trying to install a more opressive government in one of my allies and I am opposing that. They are striking against me to force my military from helping my ally.

1. Alrighty. We'll have to break those little fights up then.

I think you have the wrong idea of the UN. The UN is not an alliance, it is an organisation of nations bound by nothing more than adherence to the UN resolutions. Within the UN you have nations with wildly varying viewpoints. What you're trying to enact is a mutual assistance pact for every UN member with every UN member, which is not going to work.

Let's teleport the cold war Soviet Union and the United States into NS world. Both are UN members. Now, the USSR is invaded by, say... uhhh, (for sake of example) Layarteb. With this resolution in place, the USA would be obligated to come to the aid of a nation it was virtually at war with against a nation with similar ideology. Do you see how ridiculous this is? And that brings up my earlier point - the UN is not an alliance. Both the USA and the USSR during the cold war were UN members and they were taking actions against each other all the time. Think Korean War. Think Cuban Missile Crisis.

That is why I think this resolution is completely ridiculous, not to mention possibly illegal.