NationStates Jolt Archive

I have proposed that we combine every member nation's Intelligence agencies (no matter how miniscule) to form a power house of intelligence gathering to co-ordinate intelligence matters to stop blundering and disagreements of individual agencies.

The proposal is to eliminate all the red tape involved in coalitions of intelligence gathering and put it all under one roof to provide better and more accurate intelligence to the UN and place all major decisions on action from intelligence gathered into the hands of the UN council as to provide security for all nations of the world from terrorism and other acts of violence and hostile intentions.

In this charter it is stated that it cannot be used against nations unless it has due cause and the deliberation of a select committee of nations not involved in any way with the subject of the investigation.

Thankyou for your time
JJ Wolf

I have proposed that we combine every member nation's Intelligence agencies (no matter how miniscule) to form a power house of intelligence gathering to co-ordinate intelligence matters to stop blundering and disagreements of individual agencies.

The proposal is to eliminate all the red tape involved in coalitions of intelligence gathering and put it all under one roof to provide better and more accurate intelligence to the UN and place all major decisions on action from intelligence gathered into the hands of the UN council as to provide security for all nations of the world from terrorism and other acts of violence and hostile intentions.

In this charter it is stated that it cannot be used against nations unless it has due cause and the deliberation of a select committee of nations not involved in any way with the subject of the investigation.

Thankyou for your time
JJ Wolf


So not so much "Big Brother" as "Huge, giant, monster, could-eat-your-nation-in-one-go-and-still-have-room-for-pudding brother" then?

I also don't see how you could manage the second part - the select committee of nations not involved - since almost all nations will be affected by something that would be large enough to come to the attention of the panel. And if they are not then they would probably have "friendly" nations who are, and so would still have a vested interest in the outcome.

we'll lend you you our glorious leader's mother in law, a world expert in intelligence gathering.....

We agree with TilEnca. You do not have our support.

Lady Desdemona of Merwell,
Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

So not so much "Big Brother" as "Huge, giant, monster, could-eat-your-nation-in-one-go-and-still-have-room-for-pudding brother" then?

that is an absurb and irrational judgment on the issue since the idea and purpose would be the pooling of all resources for the betterment of international security for all nations. If it was big brother, then the amendments to disallow the misuse of such power would not be part of it.

Article 4.
All information gathered by the combined agency must be revealed at all times to the UN coucil.

this will enforce regulation and monitoring of the use of the agency to prevent any misuse or abusing of power of the agency from any one or several nations.

I also don't see how you could manage the second part - the select committee of nations not involved - since almost all nations will be affected by something that would be large enough to come to the attention of the panel. And if they are not then they would probably have "friendly" nations who are, and so would still have a vested interest in the outcome.

That statement shows you have not correctly read through the proposal and have made an unfair calling on the matter. For all matters that affect the entire UN membership, then a council vote would need to be taken on the appropriate course of action from the intelligence gathered.

Article 2.
All intelligence gathered will be collected together, organised, and the best possible actions will be put forward to the UN to vote on.

this alone shows the appropriate actions taken when an issue has arisen and when the issue is about a member nation then the following is made true:

Article 3.
Under no circustances are agencies to be used by the UN to spy or gather information on nations unless decided on by a select committee of UN members not linked in any way to the subject of the investigation.

If no nation is left unlinked then a majority vote would need to be cast from the council for the choice of the fairest members to sit on the select committee to meet for the discussion and decisions on the matter.

Before you attempt to write the proposal off as nonworkable and an attempt of control, read the proposal through completely and understand it is for the security of all nations, not excluding foreign nations not part of the UN, to prevent any more disasters occuring from forms of terrorism or random acts of violence.

If you find that the collection and organising of intelligence under one combined roof to prevent misunderstandings and inaccurate reports being made such as has happened in the past, more of a hinderance, I find it rather distastful that such thoughts should even be considered or entertained. The pooling of resources in our military to create a coalition of peacekeeping forces has been a very successful model to prove that a combined resource collection and analysing station within the UN from all members would have far more benifit to our societies then ever before, and make our united forces a far more superiour fighting force with much less unquestionable information on missions.

United Intelligence Agency

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Lovers Eden

Description: My fellow UN members, let us put a stop to hostile actions and global terrorism on fellow nations.

The combining all UN member nation's Intelligence agency's resources to enable an elite and extremely effective force to combat the rise in global terrorism and other acts considered unjust or hostile towards other nations.

It will allow us a much better chance of stopping all forms of crimes against humanity. It will also eliminate the problems seen when one agency's intelligence doesn't coincide with another's and then a backlash follows on the wake of that.

Article 1.
All members of the UN must submit their intelligence agencies resources immediately to the UN peacekeeping forces when requested.

Article 2.
All intelligence gathered will be collected together, organised, and the best possible actions will be put forward to the UN to vote on.

Article 3.
Under no circustances are agencies to be used by the UN to spy or gather information on nations unless decided on by a select committee of UN members not linked in any way to the subject of the investigation.

Article 4.
All information gathered by the combined agency must be revealed at all times to the UN coucil.

Article 5.
In all other matters concerning the UN United Intelligence Agency, a UN resolution must be drawn up and proposed before action can be taken.

Status: Lacking Support (requires 132 more approvals)

Voting Ends: Wed Nov 10 2004
Article 1: Removes all intelligence aspects of that pesky old National Sovereignty.
Article 2: The UN doesn't vote on matters of intelligence, it votes on proposals and resolutions
Article 3: You can't make "select committees". It's a game mechanics violation
Article 4: Given that the purpose of Frisbeeteria's intelligence agencies is to keep aware of other nations, we're not giving that TO the other nations on a whim. Also, there is no such animal as the "UN Coucil", or even the UN Council.
Article 5: No UN resolution can require another UN resolution be implemented. Again with the game mechanics.

This proposal is illegal in four of its five articles, and the arguments presented in its defence don't add to our confidence levels. "The pooling of resources in our military to create a coalition of peacekeeping forces has been a very successful model..." - ummm, when did this ever happen? There is not a coalition of peacekeeping forces in THIS UN. Perhaps you are confusing this with some other similarly named body.

Sorry, it fails the test on every level. Pass.

Considering not all UN nations coexist peacefully I don't think this would go down to well. Not every one has an intelligence and some only internal.

The council would have to be RPed

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

I would concur with every point of the opposition on this matter to date, and present my own...

This also takes no account into tech levels... In matter of intelligence my nation is probably far in advance of yours... should the UN be able to scan and retrieve data from the entirety of some small nation in one whop with ubertech? I doubt it. Should they have access to Spectre and Wraith Class survailence vessels fitted with Predator Cloaks? I don't think so... Intelligence in this Nation is handled by SPECOPS of the Tekanian Stellar Marines, under the guidance of the Stellar Navy... And this should not be technology provided to the relatively primitive nations of these United Nations...

Article 1: Removes all intelligence aspects of that pesky old National Sovereignty.

It mainly is to implement the ability to gather information and process it with the resources of all nation's agencies instead of spending money on a UN one and not having a diverse collection of various able bodied agencies through which they can use the resources of.

Article 2: The UN doesn't vote on matters of intelligence, it votes on proposals and resolutions

The idea is for the united agency to put forth proposals on areas of interest that have arisen with the best possible gathered intelligence, and as such all proposals put forth by everyone are all matters of intelligence anyway.

Article 3: You can't make "select committees". It's a game mechanics violation

the fact that the whole concept is not to be taken as seriously as to implement new game physics/mechanics, but to just add another small dimension of realism to the UN and bolster international security.

Article 4: Given that the purpose of Frisbeeteria's intelligence agencies is to keep aware of other nations, we're not giving that TO the other nations on a whim. Also, there is no such animal as the "UN Coucil", or even the UN Council.

the whole idea is to place the observation and awareness of other nations into the hands of a united front as to form the best opinion possible on steps to be taken. As for with observing nations within the UN, what is it that your nation is trying to hide from us or discover about fellow nations? If nothing, then there should be no problem with the sharing of information gathered should there?

Article 5: No UN resolution can require another UN resolution be implemented. Again with the game mechanics.

Again you are taking it far too seriously, i'm not proposing new game mechanics but to add a small degree of fun and some realism in a way, it's just a game, enjoy it!

This proposal is illegal in four of its five articles, and the arguments presented in its defence don't add to our confidence levels. "The pooling of resources in our military to create a coalition of peacekeeping forces has been a very successful model..." - ummm, when did this ever happen? There is not a coalition of peacekeeping forces in THIS UN. Perhaps you are confusing this with some other similarly named body.

Sorry, it fails the test on every level. Pass.

It has proven to be legal in all articles since your grounds for dismissal are biased and degenerative of the fun of playing nationstates.

I apologise for being under the impression this game's UN has such a force as peacekeepers and withdraw that comment but change it to the fact that it could prevent any nation from taking unwarrented action with inaccurate intelligence unapproved by the UN and unconciously contradicting what the UN stands for in their actions.

As it helps to enforce UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #10 "Stop privacy intrusion" and UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #75 "The Nuclear Terrorism Act", the united agency will be of great use in these resolutions.

Considering not all UN nations coexist peacefully I don't think this would go down to well. Not every one has an intelligence and some only internal.
This would be a great opportunity to bring nations closer and allow the mightier nations with larger agencies to provide the cover over the smaller and meeker nations who have yet to form a formal intelligence gathering network within their nation.

This also takes no account into tech levels... In matter of intelligence my nation is probably far in advance of yours... should the UN be able to scan and retrieve data from the entirety of some small nation in one whop with ubertech? I doubt it. Should they have access to Spectre and Wraith Class survailence vessels fitted with Predator Cloaks? I don't think so... Intelligence in this Nation is handled by SPECOPS of the Tekanian Stellar Marines, under the guidance of the Stellar Navy... And this should not be technology provided to the relatively primitive nations of these United Nations...

To form the opinion as such is to disregard what the UN stands for in its entirety and shows you have little regard for other smaller member nations within the UN. You are using class distinction on nations and as such is prejudism and also can be called racist if taken any further.

We are all part of the UN and as such are all equals within the global community are we not?

It's obvious that you never read the rules topic, Before you make a proposal... (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=282176).

It's obvious that even had you read it, you would blow it off based on your own interpretations.

It's obvious that you aren't interested in polite and constructive criticism, so I'll stop bothering.

It's obvious you will respond to legitimate complaints with ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments that are logically inplausible.

This proposal is illegal under established game rules, and will most likely be deleted. I'm not being critical or taking it too seriously. I'm stating a simple fact. If you can't be bothered with learning the rules, I can't be bothered with supporting you.

This would be a great opportunity to bring nations closer and allow the mightier nations with larger agencies to provide the cover over the smaller and meeker nations who have yet to form a formal intelligence gathering network within their nation.
Why do you assume these nations even want one?

We are all part of the UN and as such are all equals within the global community are we not?
We are not all at the same level of 'development'. We do not subscribe to the same ideologies. My country has more 'say' then yours (being a delegate). We do not have the same government type.

And, as Frisbeeteria pointed out, your proposal breaks the rules. Fun or not.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

It's obvious that you never read the rules topic, Before you make a proposal... .

It's obvious that even had you read it, you would blow it off based on your own interpretations.

The fact that the IRC was proposed and accepted as a united entity doesn't count i take it?

It's obvious that you aren't interested in polite and constructive criticism, so I'll stop bothering.

It's obvious you will respond to legitimate complaints with ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments that are logically inplausible.

if you cannot accept someone standing up to your constructive criticism with arguements of their own only for you to diss them for it, don't bother posting utter tripe such as this and forget about it.

Why do you assume these nations even want one?

could it possibly be that this is partially the point to the concept maybe?

We are not all at the same level of 'development'. We do not subscribe to the same ideologies. My country has more 'say' then yours (being a delegate). We do not have the same government type.

as i stated before "Class distinction" is not a welcoming factor into the UN and as such is breaking the laws within the UN. We are in it as equals, not to dictate on other nations.

could it possibly be that this is partially the point to the concept maybe?
So you assume they do because it's easier not to.

as i stated before "Class distinction" is not a welcoming factor into the UN and as such is breaking the laws within the UN. We are in it as equals, not to dictate on other nations.
Listen, you started this 'class distinction'. We said nations are different you think we mean better or worse. You started this 'class distinction'. You were the one who implied that less tech equals worse nation.

Now let me tell you something. In my experience, which is far from official, a lot of nations are annoyed by the assumption that we are all the same and are at the same levels.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

So you assume they do because it's easier not to.

I'm saying that for those nations that do not have currently or intend on creating one in the near future, it would be of greatest good.


Listen, you started this 'class distinction'. We said nations are different you think we mean better or worse. You started this 'class distinction'. You were the one who implied that less tech equals worse nation.

Now let me tell you something. In my experience, which is far from official, a lot of nations are annoyed by the assumption that we are all the same and are at the same levels.

I started it because that's exactly how it went, someone basically has stated "we are too advanced for you" then THAT is class distinction plain and simple.

I have not at any point claimed we are all the same but rather equals which is an entirely different context. It is stating that we all have a fair say in the way the UN puts forth policies on issues that are brought to their attention, some more then others true, but we are all representative of the UN, all all must abide by their governing laws, if this is in any way unclear to you, then maybe you should review what the terms same and equal mean again.

and yet again i quote for evidence to support my claim: this should not be technology provided to the relatively primitive nations of these United Nations

To form the opinion as such is to disregard what the UN stands for in its entirety and shows you have little regard for other smaller member nations within the UN. You are using class distinction on nations and as such is prejudism and also can be called racist if taken any further.

We are all part of the UN and as such are all equals within the global community are we not?

It has nothing to do with prejudism or racism.... So you might as well cut that ignorant banter... it has to do with reasonable and responsible development... You would not arm Tribesmen with fully automatic weapons... you wouldn't go back and give Brittish soldiers in the 18th and 19th century ground launched cruise missiles in their many conflicts... It's called NON-INTERFERANCE with primitive cultures... in many cases for their own benefit. And I would not give the plethora of relatively primitive UN nations access to cloaked vessels that performs scans at 8pm that could ascertain what everyone in a nation had for breakfast the previous morning, any more than I would hand an almost 2km long Orion-II SCV to one of those primitive nations to glass an enemy with... Merely because you are primitive, does not mean I hate you, it means I deal with you differently...

Now let me tell you something. In my experience, which is far from official, a lot of nations are annoyed by the assumption that we are all the same and are at the same levels.


While nation's do get annoyed by the assumption that others are of smiliar tech levels or in a common Earth, there is also a good reason for this assumption. Look at the daily issues. References to not only modern day problems, but even a few real-world things like the International Red Cross (not to be confused with the NS UN created International Red Cross Organization) pop up! In the case of the IRC, I suspect that it popped up before the IRCO resolution (should be number 29).

Anyway, there are very few resolutions that could stand the "let's make sure the crab people and dancing penguins aren't offended" test. Those that do, are often pretty basic. Like the now repealed Axis of Evil. It really didn't say or do anything, so I'd suggest that it doesn't ignore the possibility that a nation of dancing penguins might exist.

But let's look at some of the age based resolutions ... how old does a dancing penguin live to be? Are they as long-lived as "real-world" 0enguins. If so, any of the age based resolutions kinda are imposing a view point.

Many months ago there was a movement (proposal process) to have a resolution coming up with standards, including removing references to humanity. And yet, most of the daily issues are still very human / Earth centric.

I think it is great that players want to play fantasy, medieval, or future tech games. The problem is when any two different nations interact. I doubt many people in the II forum would really be happy by the Mikitivity Necromancy Assemblage walking in and animating the battle field dead and trying to take over a few villages. "Your magic doesn't exist!"

In these cases nations just choose to ignore one and another.

So here is the real problem though is when different styles of roleplay reach the NS UN.

Again, the general classifications for resolutions are based on Max's ideas of Earth like problems. Gun Control, Recreational Drugs, International (not Intergalatic) Peace and Security ... and most importantly Environmental (which does deal with galatic problems, but things like Uranium, Forestry -- via Woodchipping, and Air Pollution -- via the Automobile Industry).

While it is possible to make a resolution that even the dancing penguins would be happy with ... you can't have it both ways. People that want to play the NationStates "race" -- I mean "tech" card, should then also avoid voting against things like the flat out ban on nukes solely on the basis that they feel the UN would be left without defenses, because the "tech" card suggests that perhaps a magic shielf of skeletons could be used to protect a nation from nukes, or that the planet could be cloned by a hybrid whale boy minus the aggressor nation. Magic and technology are fun to roleplay, but if you want to vote against one idea because you personally feel it flies in the face of magic and/or tech, you are now setting yourself up such that you really should accept it when other people hand your magic / tech card back at you.

It is an imperfect situation ... but it really comes down to having a pie and eating it too.

If you interpret "primitive" as an insult, I really feel sorry for your blatant ignorance. Merely because you are primitive does not mean I think LESS of you, it means I am more concerned for your development.... especially since it is "relatively primitive".... technological inferiority is not a bad thing, we are equals in say, however, not all are actual equals in technology...

I have a responsibility to other cultures, who are technologically primitive, to deal with them in a different way than those who are technological equals or superiors... It's a simple matter of logic and responsible judgement...

Would you force a delegation of Amish to flt accross a nation to meet with you? No... you would treat them differently... however, treating them differently does not mean you hate them, or have prejudice to them...

I am developing a certain amoung of annoyance with you at this point however... As you have demonstrated that you do not actually know what "racism" and "prejudism" is anyway...

... Gun Control, Recreational Drugs, International (not Intergalatic) Peace and Security ... and most importantly Environmental ...
Most importantly is a relative term. Frisbeeteria is much more concerned with encroachments on national sovereignty than on the status of whales or rain forests thousands of miles from us. You may view that as short-sighted, but that's the nature of NationStates - I and I alone get to decide what is important to my nation.

I never addressed Frisbeeteria's objections to the concepts behind this proposal, merely the game mechanics violations. Even if it complied with all game rules and didn't directly call for UN votes and committee formation, we would still be against it.

We've been marginally supportive of a few well-crafted intelligence-sharing proposals, but none of them successfully came up with a way to share such information in a way that wouldn't put relevant data into the wrong hands, or worse, a select group that vetted the material and decided for us what might or might not be important.

Anti-terrorist information sharing is an idea whose time has come. All that needs to be done is to find a way to implement it that is fair and balanced. This one ain't it.

Most importantly is a relative term. Frisbeeteria is much more concerned with encroachments on national sovereignty than on the status of whales or rain forests thousands of miles from us. You may view that as short-sighted, but that's the nature of NationStates - I and I alone get to decide what is important to my nation.


OOC: You've taken a small part of my statement entirely out of context (hopefully not be design), so I'd like to respond to that ...

When I said "most importantly" in front of Environmental, I'm not suggesting that this category of resolutions is more important to the UN or any nation, but that as an example of a category of resolutions that it IMPLIES that the NationStates UN is based on largely a modern tech / Earth.

Why? A "Woodchipping" or a "Uranium" resolution immediately assumes that these are issues or problems, and on the planet Cybertron, forests simply don't exist.

Tuesday Heights will never condede it's intelligence agencies to the international community nor will it share its intelligence with other nations unless there is a grave reason why to do so. We will fight this proposal, should it come to queue, with all the fervor and passion of a nation who values its secrets.

I admit I did not read the proposal - my response was based soley on what you had written in the first post of the thread.

But yet....

that is an absurb and irrational judgment on the issue since the idea and purpose would be the pooling of all resources for the betterment of international security for all nations. If it was big brother, then the amendments to disallow the misuse of such power would not be part of it.


Sorry, but I have to disagree. I might have intelligence files on members of my council, because that is what is done before they can be put forward for election. But once they have been elected they are no longer a threat, and the files are generally destroyed, unless there is good reason not to. Would I have to hand over all these files, that have no bearing on anyone else in any other nation, under this proposal? Cause that is what I define as big brother.



That statement shows you have not correctly read through the proposal and have made an unfair calling on the matter. For all matters that affect the entire UN membership, then a council vote would need to be taken on the appropriate course of action from the intelligence gathered.


As I said I didn't read it at all. But even with a vote you can not promise that it will be unbiased, and not used in an "offensive" manner against a single country. There is enough evidence in most of the other threads to show that members of the UN sometimes work together on proposals and resolutions (which is not a bad thing - it makes them better and so on) but if they can work together for good, then they can also work together for evil. And if they know everything about everyone in my nation then the evil could be pretty big evil - not something I want directed at me, my government or my people.


Before you attempt to write the proposal off as nonworkable and an attempt of control, read the proposal through completely and understand it is for the security of all nations, not excluding foreign nations not part of the UN, to prevent any more disasters occuring from forms of terrorism or random acts of violence.


I understand that that is the idea of what it is, but in reality (in the game, not the real world, since that doesn't exist in the NSUN!) it could equally be used for a government to find out a lot about a nation, and work out the best way to attack it.


If you find that the collection and organising of intelligence under one combined roof to prevent misunderstandings and inaccurate reports being made such as has happened in the past, more of a hinderance, I find it rather distastful that such thoughts should even be considered or entertained.


Again - I am all for not having misunderstandings between nations. But this would not only do that, but a lot of other things as well. And most of those things I find distateful.


The pooling of resources in our military to create a coalition of peacekeeping forces has been a very successful model


When did that happen? I thought the UN was not allowed to command standing or even temporary armies?


and make our united forces

And here is where you lose me. What united forces? My army is not united with anyone as far as I am aware. And it's not like UN member nations don't go to war with each other from time to time - if that was the case who would have access to the intelligence then?

I appluad your honesty TilEnca for admitting such an act, it shows you still have maturity with you.

as previously stated for those who have yet to read the thread entirely, (just read the thread) The proposal does not state you must hand over already classified material obtained, just file that information away till it is truely needed, but rather allow the use of your facilities to the furtherment of international security. And for those still stuck on the big brother issue, this is all simply coming down to a case that many members of the UN bear further investigation on matters such as being in violation of UN laws that have been passed.

example: (I am merely pointing out a fact about many member nations, not picking on specific nations since even my own is probably as bad others in its own ways) "Phone taps are frequently carried out by the police" (nation name withheld)
"And I would not give the plethora of relatively primitive UN nations access to cloaked vessels that performs scans at 8pm that could ascertain what everyone in a nation had for breakfast the previous morning"


If you wish to start on me about politics you better have a good argument because quite frankly most disagreements so far have been nothing but childish banter about not wanting to help other nations. If you only joined the UN on a power trip then you better start reconsidering your position because being part of the UN is about creating a better and united world, not sectioning it off in partitions like some of you are claiming should be done (especially your technology department).

My nation may seem small and insignificant but we are an outspoken and boisterious society dedicated to the preservation of life itself in all forms. We have extensive research and intelligence gathering facilities to facilitate for such important matters as researching the history of scratch-proof cat cushions, the DNA tree of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even what Adam and Eve used for grooming purposes. We will gladly open our doors to allow the UN to use such advanced organic computer technology that plugs into nearby gum trees to collect solar power to help preserve life from being wantingly destroyed by terrorist cells.

repeat: you are not being asked to give away national secrets or technology but rather offering the use of your intelligence agency's resources when requested by the UN without endangering National Sovereignty or providing V3 rockects to stone age civilisations. It is all to do with the gathering and sharing of information for the common good of all nations, friendly or otherwise.

I have proposed that we combine every member nation's Intelligence agencies (no matter how miniscule) to form a power house of intelligence gathering to co-ordinate intelligence matters to stop blundering and disagreements of individual agencies.

The proposal is to eliminate all the red tape involved in coalitions of intelligence gathering and put it all under one roof to provide better and more accurate intelligence to the UN and place all major decisions on action from intelligence gathered into the hands of the UN council as to provide security for all nations of the world from terrorism and other acts of violence and hostile intentions.

In this charter it is stated that it cannot be used against nations unless it has due cause and the deliberation of a select committee of nations not involved in any way with the subject of the investigation.

Thankyou for your time
JJ Wolf

Well, our nation doesn't know nor trust yours, so we're going against this proposal. We have no national interest in sharing information with you. We're not sharing our agents or methods with you.

In short - no.

as previously stated for those who have yet to read the thread entirely, (just read the thread) The proposal does not state you must hand over already classified material obtained, just file that information away till it is truely needed, but rather allow the use of your facilities to the furtherment of international security. And for those still stuck on the big brother issue, this is all simply coming down to a case that many members of the UN bear further investigation on matters such as being in violation of UN laws that have been passed.


Again this is where I disagree - mostly with the phrase "the furtherment of international security". The security of my nation might not be the same as the security of another nation.


If you wish to start on me about politics you better have a good argument because quite frankly most disagreements so far have been nothing but childish banter about not wanting to help other nations. If you only joined the UN on a power trip then you better start reconsidering your position because being part of the UN is about creating a better and united world, not sectioning it off in partitions like some of you are claiming should be done (especially your technology department).


I really wouldn't get annoyed at childish banter - wanting to protect your nation from interference by the UN or by other nations is a fairly common wish around here. And being asked, for any reason, to hand over intelligence files either on my people, or intelligence I might have gathered about other nations, is somewhat of an intrusion in to my nation. I am not so worried about the technology side of things as the actual information itself.

And the UN is not a federal government - it is a collection of people who are joined because they want to be a part of it. That doesn't (at least in my view) give the UN carte-blanche to act like a government and start demanding things of its members.


My nation may seem small and insignificant but we are an outspoken and boisterious society dedicated to the preservation of life itself in all forms. We have extensive research and intelligence gathering facilities to facilitate for such important matters as researching the history of scratch-proof cat cushions, the DNA tree of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and even what Adam and Eve used for grooming purposes. We will gladly open our doors to allow the UN to use such advanced organic computer technology that plugs into nearby gum trees to collect solar power to help preserve life from being wantingly destroyed by terrorist cells.


Ah - this might be where confusion is coming. My understanding of the word "intelligence" - in an internation setting at least - is knowlegde about other nations and people in my own nation. (OOC - real examples are MI5, MI6, the CIA and FBI etc). I don't really have an agency that deal swith all this, but thte local police forces and so on do that sort of thing.

From what you have said you are talking about scientific knowledge and so on. Which is a WHOLE other thing.

The first I really do want to protect, as I don't believe it is the place of the UN to demand it from me (under any circumstances), but the second I am more happy to share.

The Miko Mono Politburo can only view this idea with disgust and disregard. We see no benefit to combining our vaunted intelligence and security services with those of our potential enemies to allow them access to our sources and methods. Not only do we vigourously oppose this proposal, we hereby declare that if such an intelligence agency were to be created and its agents found on Miko Mono territory, they will be captured and summarily executed.

Obviously, the proposer is under the delusion of the world being a "friendly place". It most certainly is not one.

Obviously, the proposer is under the delusion of the world being a "friendly place". It most certainly is not one.

I disagree. I am pretty friendly with most nations - even those that I disagree with on almost everything they stand for. But it would be foolish to deny that there are nations out there that might do me harm if I give them the chance.