NationStates Jolt Archive

hello. Being a very new member of the UN, I felt somewhat hesitant to post but have since decided to express myself in the hopes of being accepted in hearts and minds of the senior members.

I have read the first few pages of this thread, but not all of it, and this last page. since I am such a late arrival and the vote is coming quite soon, I forced myself to rely on my own instincts. I have not read the entire thread, so I am sorry if I repeat some views or issues already addressed, but perhaps they were issues that should be readdressed.

it seems logical that banning the weapons does not guarantee that it will never be used. in fact, it in some ways adds to the terror of the weapon if its use is threatened. I'm sure this has been accounted for.

but should the resolution pass as it is?
should it be revised? or, should it be appended by another subsequent resolution that has been created and approved by a UN council before its adoption?

chemical weapons are, on the whole, far to simple to be effectively banned with broad definitions that would encompass all chemicals that are potentially harmful or fatal. the technology of a chemical weapons factory is present in many forms inside the average developed nation's homes.
the ban of chemical weapons, to me, aims a curving the human predisposition to violence and destruction. but, true cruelty cannot be banned, as we all know. this would only bean effective case if the world was open to a universal understanding and love that transcended all the physical existence and pains that chain us to barbaric ways, those that facilitate warfare.

I believe the job of any body like the UN as a forum of the worlds is to set the ideals and standards for the member nations and all the world to aspire. it is not so much whether the ban is effective in execution of its literal declaration as much as it is imperative for the social and global standard to point to the preferred and civilized course of action.
this will inevitably be a struggle if the UN has to forcefully impose the law on those nations that openly defy the UN.

human psychology is too complex; although, it is at times easily manipulated. its complexity can be forgotten and emotion takes over. if the UN accepts the ban or at least lives the pretense of believing that there is no other way of thinking or truth other than the resolution's ideals and ideas, then they, the world, should come to believe that this is the only choice. perhaps the ban will work.

yes this ban is very vague. and it does beg a possible slippery slope philosophy of banning all warfare. but what is the nature of governments and global bodies such as this? is it not to achieve stability? is it not to strive for that perfect ideal of the utopia. i think that in the proper context, it is. but the dream of utopia is far to loftly for the current human population. one doubts that such a thing could ever exist in this world. but is it not the duty to make the vain struggle even if it is doomed to defeat? perhaps this ban will be the beginning of a fracture that will destroy this body and all the worlds nations. or, the opposite could happed. but most likely. nothing much shall come to pass that has not already been felt in the pained hearts of former leaders and peoples and young soldiers. I cannot say that i do not fear defeat. but there is a time for purgation of these violent tendencies. perhaps now is the time to lead the fight for that perfectly flawed ideal; perhaps them, in the aftermath, peoples can look back and appreciate the valour of a misguided, but well intentioned, UN.

i hope i havent made an idiot of myself. I just wanted to share my thoughts and feelings with the UN board.
afterall, the world is my home, and I love her dearly. trust we all do in some way.

We must applaud the speech by S C M L, but that is only because of entertainment. While it is a very heart-felt speech, it forgets one important aspect. This is not the world of our ancestors, where a silver tongue and threats of violence can cow even massive nations in most situations. This is a world of empires, of exterminations, and of tyrants. The modern surface of Earth is the exact same as it was when we abandoned the rest of humanity a full seven centuries ago, only now the old world powers are long forgotten. The United States, China, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and many others held that dream you speak of. And in the end, that dream destroyed them. They sough to accomplish it their own way, and in that way they squabbled and bickered and fought over which path was correct until, overzealous with their beliefs that they were right, world war came. It did not come once or twice, but three times. Billions of lives have been lost in futile efforts to achieve that dream. And, in spite of all of our hopes, the disease of violence is not the exception, but the rule, as even the most advanced cultures glorify themselves with it.

We do not like building weapons of war to defend ourselves with. We never have. But, in dealing with the reaches of outer space, we have found it just as necessary out there as it is on Earth. Only, in space, the UN's grasp isn't worth speaking of. And, worse, it does not change as time passes. The status quo does not accept alterations.

While we admire your dream, we cannot back it. Too much is the risk it presents. Even the perfect paradises of literature have militaries. To build Eden requires you fertilize the land with the blood of those who would prevent the construction, though you can at least prevent the spilling by use of proper defenses. We know that war will come to us. It is, as one movie villain of our ancestors used to say, innevitable. But, perhaps another saying of our ancestors is more appropriate for this, even if the beliefs behind it are one of the items that killed them.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

OOC:

Look, I appreciate what you're doing, but the fact remains that humanity isn't really capable of it. Hell, it was the idea of utopia that can be argued to have caused both World Wars. And, if the current trend of events continues, that idea may cause a third. There is a point to what I have said, and that point bears on why.

Yes, yes! I want chemical weapons to be banned! I want all people on the Earth to return to our roots! Let all nations to fight with swords and bows! Fanatic assasins will frighten all the Earth!

I would have to agree with DemonLordEnigma. Utopia is not possible when humans or other races, creatures, or beings with faults running the worlds and the universe. Its because of these faults that a Utopia will just be nothing more than a Pipe dream. Because of the vagueness of this resolution, even if it does passes. A nation will find a loophole, and it will spread that loophold to its friends and allies. Soon the loophold will reach the blackness of space, and the depth of caves, and when it does, this resolutions will be pointless and won't even be worth as toilet paper. While this resolution is a nice gesture, thats all it is. Its a gesture, it will provide a slipperly slope, and it will only provide a short term false sense of security. Once the loophole has been found, the resolution is worthless.

Unfortunately, multiple loopholes have been found, and we're already exploiting all of them in anticipation of this passing.

true.
i am somewhat antiquated.
then, why are we here discussing this? it would seem that even hope itself has been lost. and to hope, in this form, can also mean accepting an inevitability.
is the world already lost before the battle takes place?
is this why we play?
to find our doom in the first hours and die inside ourselves knowing only how to live in the fear of our demise? to live a life as dead. this is what i hear.

At this moment, Vastiva has found four loopholes, and is exploiting all of them.
As a result, when this is complete and the resolution passes - as it's 2:1 current ratio would seem to indicate - our actual chemical "weapon" store will be zero.

Our ability to destroy enemy positions and populations, however, will remain completely intact.

Remember, loopholes can take advantage of truly silly wording - such as in the bio-weapons resolution, the word "heinous". Alright, our shells are now painted pink with smiley faces all over them and labelled "medical supplies; immediate shipping required". They are not only no longer "heinous", but they are no longer "biological weapons" per se.

Any deaths are therefore recorded as "adverse reactions".

this is nihilism

this is nihilism

Thank you for the demonstration. Is it performance art? :rolleyes:

true.
i am somewhat antiquated.
then, why are we here discussing this? it would seem that even hope itself has been lost. and to hope, in this form, can also mean accepting an inevitability.

Hope has not been lost. Some of us still carve our little paradises. But, in the end, we know we will have to defend these paradises with weapons of massive power.

is the world already lost before the battle takes place?

The greatest teaching of Death is that there is no battle. You lose before you even think of trying. Accept the loss, try anyway, and hope to delay the final end is the foolishness of many. There is a way to accept that you have lost without pulling that foolishness.

is this why we play?
to find our doom in the first hours and die inside ourselves knowing only how to live in the fear of our demise? to live a life as dead. this is what i hear.

Or, you can accept it, ignore it, and continue along as if it doesn't matter. That is the best path.

I repeat...

To ALL nations OPPOSSED to this ban:

Begin IMMEDIATE telegraphing campaigns to alert delegates who have not voted, and even those who HAVE voted, to the well-documented problems with this resolution.

If you want to see this thing fail, then you need to do more than complain about it here.

Why wait? Since both of you are threatening to resign, I advise you beat the rush and leave now. Oh, and I won't mind taking over your offices.

I have a colony who will be replacing my nation's seat and will be voting at my command, so you will not lay claim to my beloved plasma television and my crucifix.

--Welsh
Ambassador to the UN from the Holy Empire of Sidestreamer

Vohteria votes for the current resolution and is sorely disappointed at the level of tension this resolution is getting. Vohteria remembers several resolutions to raise military funding that it opposed, yet we did not complain because of it. While this is broad, and, admittedly, poorly written; it is a good resolution nonetheless.

We also think that the definition of "chemical weapons" is relatively clear: objects whose primary weapons are chemicals.

Vohteria

Vohteria votes for the current resolution and is sorely disappointed at the level of tension this resolution is getting. Vohteria remembers several resolutions to raise military funding that it opposed, yet we did not complain because of it. While this is broad, and, admittedly, poorly written; it is a good resolution nonetheless.

"Broad and poorly written" negate any possibility of it being a good resolution. The value of a resolution is not measured by whether it's heart is in the right place, it is measured by what actual effect it will have. That depends on how it's written.

We also think that the definition of "chemical weapons" is relatively clear: objects whose primary weapons are chemicals.

Congratulations, you just relatively clearly advocated depriving law enforcement officials of incapacitating chemicals to restore order in violent situations. So we just shoot the protestors when they get out of hand now instead. :rolleyes:

The thing about chemical weapons is, if I want to use them I will, and I think everyone else should have the right to. We're all big boys; I think of this like the guns issue - the only people who would use them are the people who will ignore the ban

We also think that the definition of "chemical weapons" is relatively clear: objects whose primary weapons are chemicals.
Wait - so anything which can cause harm, and contains chemicals, is now a chemical weapon?
What about service stations - petrol sniffing is a serious problem in some communities, and there's the added risk of explosion. Are you now banning servos?
What about thermometres - they contain mercury or alcohol.
On the other hand, you could take a very narrow definition, and as such avoid having to do anything at all.

If you are going to go to the effort of attempting to ban a type of weapon, you need to be clear with what it is you are banning. This proposal cleartly fails in this respect. Enn cannot support.

i agree, no such motivation can sustain the production and use of chemical and/or biological weapons. research is a different theme but i would seriously consider banning the use on chemical products on form of biological life also for productive goals. :rolleyes:

See my thread- "An Alternative to 'Ban Chemical Weapons'." It's about my proposal, entitled, "Ban on Lethal Chemical Weapons," found on page six of the proposal list. You may find yourself agreeing with it; if you do, I'd ask you to approve it.

I'll vote for it.

BTW folks, sorry for the spelling errors.

use conventional weapons, not WMDs. conventional include :sniper: :gundge: (from UT 2004) and guerrilla fighters :mp5: :mp5: that way, people will live through wars to do this :fluffle:

darkquendo will be supporting voting for the ban to be implemented. they are a cowards way of fighting wars.

use conventional weapons, not WMDs. conventional include :sniper: :gundge: (from UT 2004) and guerrilla fighters :mp5: :mp5: that way, people will live through wars to do this :fluffle:OOC: Right. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Iraqi "insurgents" have managed to slaughter 12,000 of their own countrymen in two years, without ever using a single chemical arm. :rolleyes:

This resolution is totally unfair. We need a way to tell the UN to kiss off while still being a member, the real UN OOC has no power to enforce its resolutions.

<Dave Chappelle as Black Bush> You don't like it, sanction me with your army. Oh wait a minute, you aint got an army.

well it wont be fair cause i bet the main un leaders will keep weapons wat they like to :gundge: "keep the peace" :gundge: just to have advantages over us :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: like these :gundge: and it mite even affect small countries developemnt

Ok, lets say we do pass this resolution. What are we going to ban next? Are we going to ban guns, knives, sticks and stones? This resolution will only provide a slipperly slope of legal manurvering and even more constant battle in the UN. Also, this resolution is so vague, that as we see, countries are already finding loopholes. Neo River is still holding its position of Nay. However we would not be opposed to strict trade and usage guidlines, provided that the resolution is well written with clear guidelines and defenitions. I am happy to see that other countrys agree with mine. I hope that the UN will be able to see this resolution for what it is, a slipperly slope in banning weapons, and it will have little impact due to the poor writing and many loopholes.

We most STRONGLY urge all UN members to quicky vote AGAINST this resolution. If you have already voted 'yes' then log on and change your vote. The NEGATIVE economic impacts of this resolution far outweigh any moral feel-good statement you think you are making.

One governments advancement in research is anothers development of new weapons. The problem is NOT the technology in question but rather the application of the technology.

TNT was invented as an explosive. It could be either used for good in construction and mining OR converted for use as a weapon. Profits from the patent fund the Nobel Prizes.

Scythes were a field farming implement that also made handy meele weapons.

Trucks, cars, and tractors are important to commerce yet are easily put to use for war.

Interstate Highways were originally an improvement to allow rapid transport of war materials and troops cross country.

Far more developments from chemical research and development work towards the betterment of society than those which are perveted to evil.

Consider also: Pharmceuticals are chemical weapons used to attack and destroy living viruses and organisms. Strictly speaking, a ban on chemical weapon R & D would also severely hamper medical research.

Again: Vote NO on this proposal!

:gundge:

Respectfully, FreeBorg

Consider this: UN resolutions only apply to UN member nations.

The weapon bans imposed by the UN on members leave them increasingly more defenseless against the dastardly deeds of denizens of other nations where these restrictions don't apply. Why not send out messages to them saying, "We are UN members without weapons and we welcome all would-be conquerers"?

Consider this: UN resolutions only apply to UN member nations.

The weapon bans imposed by the UN on members leave them increasingly more defenseless against the dastardly deeds of denizens of other nations where these restrictions don't apply. Why not send out messages to them saying, "We are UN members without weapons and we welcome all would-be conquerers"?

Eh, even if the resolution did pass, it would be rendered ineffective soon, heck to alot of countries it already doesn't apply (UN Countries) because they found loopholes.

It is my personal belif that we should be able to use chemical weapons to fight the global threat that is terrorism :mp5: .That is why me and my people are voting N0 do not ban chemical weapons
:sniper:

There are too many bans and restrictions on U.N nations. There should be more laws that add things not ban them.

We should not ban chemical weapons, it gives us an advantage over other enemy nations. Instead we should impose a law that bans use of such weapons on fellow U.N nations.

If this law passes thel who knows what will be next. U.N nations should think about the econimical and warfare consequences (which most do) before acting all freinds of the earth.

All nations MUST vote against this reolution.

NO BANNING WEAPONS

FreeBorg is right! Banning weapons will put our economy down because chemical factories will close down throughout our nations. I'm the UN Delegate of United Rogue Nations, and I strongly disagree with the banning of weapons. I wish that we could come up with better proposals then this "ban this, ban that" sort of thing. It's driving me nuts :headbang: . When the dolphin act was passed, it damaged my nation's stats horribly, so now I think through the proposals more closly.

We should be banning the weapons, not the technology. I strongly dissagree with any biological or chemical weapons, but the benefits of having that sort of technology is too great to ignore (as freeborg pointed out). So maybe a new proposal should be made that is more specific in what we are banning?

The main advantage of chemical weapons is their availability. You do not need to mine uranium or some other highly radioactive metal to create them. This means that countries with the wrong natural resources for nuclear weapons can still have weapons of mass destruction at their disposal.
The advantage of weapons of mass destruction, as seen in the Cold War, was not so much their actual usage and effects, but the fear they struck in enemies, thus discouraging any direct military intervention. Without weapons of mass destruction, therefore, it is arguable that the Cold War would have ended in a very different fashion.
Therefore, weapons of mass destruction are a good idea as a deterrent. However these are not always available. Chemical weapons, however, are more readily available, with the prerequisite of having chemical laboratories in the country. This means no countries need be invaded to obtain uranium. Also, chemical weapons probably have a similar deterrent effect as nuclear weapons.
It is for this reason that we need to have chemical weapons available and that it is foolish to have them banned. If the resolution were passed, Oppressionsby would see itself forced to withdraw from the UN.

Up with chemical weapons!! :gundge:

The weapon bans imposed by the UN on members leave them increasingly more defenseless against the dastardly deeds of denizens of other nations where these restrictions don't apply. Why not send out messages to them saying, "We are UN members without weapons and we welcome all would-be conquerers"?You took the words right out of my mouth, Fergi. After this ban is passed, the bright blue "UN Member" button below our names on our homepages may as well amount to painting a giant red target on our backs. Or a "Kick Me; I'm Stupid" sign.

We earnestly tried to convince people to vote down this ban. We TG'd at least 30+ delegates with a combined 3,500 votes, but it appears this ban is going to pass anyway. Too many pansy-ass lefty-socialist types in this august body who squeal and wet themselves over the words "weapons ban." Too many delegates allowing their regional members to boss them around. Oh, well. We're gonna shake it off and go get drunk.

There are plenty of other ways to defend a country than with just chemical weapons. And chemical weapons are risky at best. They can be used for mass murder. Is that what the UN really wants? The blood of unneeded deaths on their hands? No. Traditional firearms are sufficient enough to defend the UN without overkill.

There are plenty of other ways to defend a country than with just chemical weapons. And chemical weapons are risky at best. They can be used for mass murder. Is that what the UN really wants? The blood of unneeded deaths on their hands? No. Traditional firearms are sufficient enough to defend the UN without overkill.

Are people just ignoring Neo River arguement of the Slipperly Slope? I mean if you ban Chemicals weapons, whats going to stop the UN from banning conviential weapons?

The UN would have to be insane to ban every type of physical defense we have. And such a proposal would never have the support to be passed. I fancy myself pacifist, and even I shudder at the thought of such a radical, dangerous idea. We can ban chemical and biological weapons because they are not needed. But beyond that, there is a line that I don't think will be crossed.

The UN would have to be insane to ban every type of physical defense we have. And such a proposal would never have the support to be passed. I fancy myself pacifist, and even I shudder at the thought of such a radical, dangerous idea. We can ban chemical and biological weapons because they are not needed. But beyond that, there is a line that I don't think will be crossed.

Yes we do need it, because Nations that are not under the UN can use them agaisnt us, and we will be screwed.

The UN is large so even if a few rogue nations decided to attack us, our size alone would be make it impossible for any attack to succeed, if we work together. Your argument, Neo, is the old eye for an eye one. And that is one way of thinking I do not agree with. Push comes to shove, and larger more effective weapons can turn any war into a much larger deal with death rates catastrophic. For both sides. Why not eliminate that now? With the UN without biological/chemical weapons, we would have to defend ourselves with care, not just blasting to oblivion or enemies. Our objectives would be to first destroy the oppositions bio/chem weapons. And victory, I assure you, is more than possible.The UN would be forcing all opposition to fight on the same level as us, and therefore, death tolls of wars could be lowered.

I do not see this agrument of "We have to have these weapons because others have them and could use them against us" as valid. There are other ways to get around using these weapons that are more precise and less wasteful. Yes, they involve more stategy and planning, but in the long run, the loss of life is worth it.

Without chemical weapons we would easily taken over by countries not in the u.n. it is unsafe not to have the best defences. i think we should vote against the ban and repeal the ban on biological weapons. :gundge:

While it may be true that this ban would force us to find another way to have an upperhand on an enemy, overall, this ban is a very good thing. Chemical and biological weapons simply are not a good thing. The mass destruction these weapons cause is horrifying. You must also look at the fact that these weapons more often than not cannot specifically target military personel only, often killing and injuring innocent civilians and the like.

The whole idea of banning a certain class of weapons for national use is totally retarded. In effect, you're saying, "As you fight a war in which thousands will die, only kill people with non-chemical weapons."

Evidently people who die by a bullet are less dead than those killed by chemical weapons.

And lastly, why on earth would you want to deny powerful weapons that not only deter agression, but end it quickly? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

"Chemical and biological weapons simply are not a good thing. The mass destruction these weapons cause is horrifying. You must also look at the fact that these weapons more often than not cannot specifically target military personel only, often killing and injuring innocent civilians and the like."
None of this is true. They can be targeted just as well as any other large munition and the mass destruction they cause is no more than a nuclear device or carpet bombing.

Damned! Stop this plight. We shouldn't ban the bio weapons. And all of you know that even the weapons are banned avery nations will continue to produce them

I appeal to al UN members. Vote against this resolution. The bio weapons mustn't be banned. they are our protection against the terroristic nations. The bio researchs help to the people.

First off, banning chemical weapons is not going to weaken anyone's defenses. If any nation had chemical weapons as their best line of defense then that nation must clearly be stupider than it looks.

Secondly, chemical weapons should be banned not on the premise of technology or on the premise of civilian casualties, both of which are facades of the true reason to ban them: the sadism that goes into the weapons.

Think about it: the first well-known chemical weapon was mustard gas, used to slowly suffocate and burn the enemies when a bomb that would have quickly destroyed them would have had the same results.

Death is death, by bullet, plane, or train, they all end up inactive on the ground, so why then must the death be slow and ponderous. So they're your enemies, but won't they be just as dead if a bullet quickly pierces their spine instead of them suffering for hours, days, and even weeks before dying?

War is necessary, this is true, but war is only the means to an end. The end of a conflict, or the end of a diplomatic feud, bt whatever it is, there's no need to torture the mindless grunts that are in it.

We should rise above the sadism and ban chemical weaponry that has no purpose except to torture. Be a man (or woman), use a gun, like my smiley friends here. :mp5:

Oh, I like this one, don't you? Takes 'em down, and they never know what hit them. :sniper:

The whole idea of banning a certain class of weapons for national use is totally retarded. In effect, you're saying, "As you fight a war in which thousands will die, only kill people with non-chemical weapons."

Evidently people who die by a bullet are less dead than those killed by chemical weapons.

And lastly, why on earth would you want to deny powerful weapons that not only deter agression, but end it quickly? It makes absolutely no sense at all.
I'm not saying they are less dead. I'm saying that there are other ways to kill that don't include using a weapon which kills many people in a short amount of time. As to why that is bad, for everyone likes short wars, most of those people die unnecessarily. Why drop the bomb to end the war when they were ready to surrender anyway? Why kill off the whole army when you could simply hold back the front line so they would turn around and go home defeated instead of wiped out? The waste of life these weapons create is appalling.

And yes, I already know your response will be that that lost of life will be us if we don't have those weapons to defend ourselves with. Please refer to my last post, then.

And crazy I may be, but only because I'm breaking traditional thought.

There are plenty of other ways to defend a country than with just chemical weapons. And chemical weapons are risky at best. They can be used for mass murder. Is that what the UN really wants? The blood of unneeded deaths on their hands? No. Traditional firearms are sufficient enough to defend the UN without overkill.

A butter knife can be used for mass murder. We had to execute someone for that in the past.

If you were to ban everything that be used for mass murder, all that would be left of humans are decapitated and limbless corpses. While there are plenty of ways to defend a nation, chemical weapons are actually among the cleanest and most easily controlled. Nukes are very easy to control, but the radiation and severe poisoning of the land takes years or even centuries to clean up. While biological weapons are relatively clean, they have a slight problem of mutating and spreading uncontrollably. Even guns are dirty, due either to spent ammunition or, in the cases of more advanced weapons, the residue.

Really, if you think chemical weapons are bad, you haven't seen plasma weapons in action. Nor do you want to.

Pretty much, your arguement is already dealt with and easy to disprove again. While you are using those other capacities, I'll have already infected half your nation with a viral disease only my people can cure and killed the other half off with acidic gases. It's just that easy.

The UN would have to be insane to ban every type of physical defense we have. And such a proposal would never have the support to be passed. I fancy myself pacifist, and even I shudder at the thought of such a radical, dangerous idea. We can ban chemical and biological weapons because they are not needed. But beyond that, there is a line that I don't think will be crossed.

Such a proposal gets support every time it comes up, and the support increases with every one of these we pass. The UN is quickly moving towards "Death by Stupidity," and we plan to be among the executioners if that ever is necessary.

Chemical and biological weapons are more necessary than you think, as they can be discriminate killers. You can create a chemical weapon that only targets the weapons of the enemy, allowing their people to remain unharmed. You can create a chemical that even only kills people with certain conditions or only kills under the right condition, allowing for assassinations that could prevent wars. With biological weapons, it's even easier, as you can engineer a disease that gives everyone in the nation a mild cold, but rips apart the nervous system of a certain official in office. And, unlike nukes, in all of those you can engineer killswitches that can stop their effects before they have run their course. With a nuke, once it is used, you have to wait until all of the effects are completed before moving in to clean up.

The UN is large so even if a few rogue nations decided to attack us, our size alone would be make it impossible for any attack to succeed, if we work together.

That's your problem: You're not experienced enough to know the truth. The truth of what will happen is not that the UN will work together. The truth is that parts of the UN, specifically the parts with the biggest militaries, will turn on the rest. You'll have a civil war with the UN that made worse by the number of nations outside the UN who have militaries large enough to wipe out most UN nations joining in as well. In effect, people like you will be outnumbered, outgunned, and outmaneuvered as soon as the battle starts. Worse is that many of these attacks will come from orbit, forcing you to find some way to quickly defend against nations that have spent centuries developing their weapons. You cannot honestly expect to win this one.

Oh, and your delegate has likely been marked for assassination. It is an acceptable tactic.

Your argument, Neo, is the old eye for an eye one. And that is one way of thinking I do not agree with. Push comes to shove, and larger more effective weapons can turn any war into a much larger deal with death rates catastrophic. For both sides. Why not eliminate that now? With the UN without biological/chemical weapons, we would have to defend ourselves with care, not just blasting to oblivion or enemies. Our objectives would be to first destroy the oppositions bio/chem weapons. And victory, I assure you, is more than possible.The UN would be forcing all opposition to fight on the same level as us, and therefore, death tolls of wars could be lowered.

Just because the UN isn't using those weapons doesn't automatically mean other nations can't use them. Hell, if you are stupid enough to attack our nation, just because you are using modern weaponry won't stop us from bombing your nation from orbit. And with the amount of weaponry we have, we can shoot at you from orbit for a very, very long time before even having to consider deploying fighters.

You are right that death tolls will be lowered. After all, the nonmember nations won't be losing as many people once they have no worries of the UN being able to retaliate. Not losing as many people means more people to be in the invasion force once the majority of your military and populace are dead.

I do not see this agrument of "We have to have these weapons because others have them and could use them against us" as valid. There are other ways to get around using these weapons that are more precise and less wasteful. Yes, they involve more stategy and planning, but in the long run, the loss of life is worth it.

A little piece of wisdom: Your enemy having better precision doesn't mean a damn thing when you start dropping nukes on him. The same applies for any other weapon of mass destruction. And if you are stupid enough to shoot the weapons down, note that some nations use impact warheads. That means you shoot, they unleash their deadly cargo on you anyway. And, yes, we do use them as well.

I'm not saying they are less dead. I'm saying that there are other ways to kill that don't include using a weapon which kills many people in a short amount of time.

Yes. Those are ways that are best preserved for the torture chamber. In battle, they're not tactics. They're stupidity.

As to why that is bad, for everyone likes short wars, most of those people die unnecessarily.

The reason why people like short wars is because they kill less people in that time. Long, drawn-out wars result in more death, more horror, and most veterans of those wars being too mentally scared to allow into society.

Why drop the bomb to end the war when they were ready to surrender anyway?

Because they most likely were not ready to surrender until after we dropped the bomb.

Why kill off the whole army when you could simply hold back the front line so they would turn around and go home defeated instead of wiped out?

Ya know, our ancestors used this idea during their first world war. And you know what happened? They nearly exterminated an entire generation. What you are suggesting is an idea of warfare that is long, drawn out, and costs millions or billions of lives above and beyond what is necessary. If we nuke their front lines during the first ten minutes of battle, most likely the war ends there. Instead of millions or billions killed on both sides, we've probably only killed thousands of them and saved millions of our people. The saved lives are worth far more than your morality is.

The waste of life these weapons create is appalling.

The waste of life you advise is even more so. Do not call something we back appalling when you are backing something that is ten times worse.

And yes, I already know your response will be that that lost of life will be us if we don't have those weapons to defend ourselves with. Please refer to my last post, then.

I did. Your last post only revealed that your nation is likely to be annexed in the near future.

And crazy I may be, but only because I'm breaking traditional thought.

If you equal tradition with logic, then yes.

Hm.

So basically all those against this ban wish for each nation to wipe each other off the face of the planet? Excuse me for wishing this to not be so and to start moving in a direction away from genocide.

I'd like to congradulate DemonLord on a very good counter argument, though.

In war, though, if you only target the largest threats (bio/chem weapons and those troops immediatly indangering your own) the war will be quick and less messy.

We should rise above the sadism and ban chemical weaponry that has no purpose except to torture. Be a man (or woman), use a gun, like my smiley friends here.

I agree full heartedly. And though this comment doesn't offer any real argument, I like it just the same.

People will find it hard to believe that maybe the smaller less advanced weapon in war might be able to have the uper hand. After all, these bio/chem weapons are useless unless people are there to use them. And if the UN can take them over in war... that is why I said the UN would be forcing opposition to fight on the same level.

Hm.

So basically all those against this ban wish for each nation to wipe each other off the face of the planet? Excuse me for wishing this to not be so and to start moving in a direction away from genocide.

Actually, many of us have the weapons as deterrants. My own nation keeps a stockpile of both (and we are not violating any resolutions in doing so) to discourage people from invading us. Plus, the weapons are useful for disposing of the Lesahnro.

In war, though, if you only target the largest threats (bio/chem weapons and those troops immediatly indangering your own) the war will be quick and less messy.

Not necessarily. The objective of war is to either eliminate your enemy's fighting ability or to horrify them so much that they no longer wish to fight. If killing the soldiers is not working, you have to start considering other options. Plus, most items necessary to the war machine contain civilians anyway.

Wars may be quick or less messy, but quick wars are never less messy and less messy wars are never quick. If you define "messy" as the environmental damage resulting from the weapons.

I agree full heartedly. And though this comment doesn't offer any real argument, I like it just the same.

The comment is also untrue. You can make chemical or biological weapons that do not cause pain as they kill.

People will find it hard to believe that maybe the smaller less advanced weapon in war might be able to have the uper hand.

In our case, it's practically impossible for less advanced weapons to win. We've made sure of that.

After all, these bio/chem weapons are useless unless people are there to use them. And if the UN can take them over in war... that is why I said the UN would be forcing opposition to fight on the same level.

Wrong. Chemical weapons are not useless without people. A chemical weapon can be easily manufactured to target machinery as well. In fact, certain biological weapons can be made to target nonliving matter as well. Nothing like defeating a nation because a bacteria ate all of their gunpowder.

Good lord, Demon. I can't keep up with you, I'm new to the forums and havn't yet mastered how to argue. May I offer a final statement and then back out of this debate?

Biological and chemical weapons were created to kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible. So instead of having these... the UN will own troops, guns, vehicals, etc. When incountering opposition with these named superior weapons, we have several things they dont: Agility, precision, and no dependency on these weapons. I believe the last is our greatest asset. For in war, all that needs to be accomplished would be to then capture the "superior" weapons and the enemy will be groveling at our feet. Of couse they could nuke us before we get to them, but we could also capture these weapons before they could use them. It's war, all outcomes are possiblities. And frankly, the possibility of entire nations dissapearing from this stupid back and forth "kill them all!!!" attitude is the possibility I wish to avoid.

Good lord, Demon. I can't keep up with you, I'm new to the forums and havn't yet mastered how to argue. May I offer a final statement and then back out of this debate?

Heh. I've managed to learn a lot about arguing fast. After awhile, you get used to it.

Biological and chemical weapons were created to kill as many people as possible in as short of time as possible.

Ironically, partially true. Chemical weapons were first invented to kill insects, not people, while biological weapons were invented by nature to do that. In fact, chemical weapons are also a natural invention. Some of the earliest chemical weapons utilized natural gases.

So instead of having these... the UN will own troops, guns, vehicals, etc. When incountering opposition with these named superior weapons, we have several things they dont: Agility, precision, and no dependency on these weapons. I believe the last is our greatest asset.

Great. So the enemy uses scouts or satellites, sees you comming, and simply nukes the entire area. Your precision goes up in a puff of smoke, as with most of your soldiers.

For in war, all that needs to be accomplished would be to then capture the "superior" weapons and the enemy will be groveling at our feet.

Except that you will be unable to use them, due to UN law, making your threats worthless. The enemy will know this, attack anyway, and no matter the outcome they win in some fashion. It's either you use the weapons, violating UN law, or they retake the weapons.

Of couse they could nuke us before we get to them, but we could also capture these weapons before they could use them.

They will nuke you before you reach them. Most nations have satellites in space anymore, and some of us have entire fleets as well.

It's war, all outcomes are possiblities. And frankly, the possibility of entire nations dissapearing from this stupid back and forth "kill them all!!!" attitude is the possibility I wish to avoid.

As opposed to nations disappearing under your strategy and the resulting annexations?

I applaud your argument and stubbornness and though I still don't agree... you've probably converted many by it. Now I have a life other than running my nation to return to (heh heh). Good luck!

Demon 1, Circled 0

-The freely elected leader of Circled Hell, Kathleen.

I wish you luck and hope to meet you on the field of battle again. That was one I was actually interested in, and it was getting difficult to make points.

What the hell is going on in NS. :confused: WE SHOULDN'T BAN BIOLOGICOL WEAPONS! What if i wanted to nuke someone, and if this passes, theyrd be no point anymore! Kill we must! :mp5: :sniper:

"Broad and poorly written" negate any possibility of it being a good resolution. The value of a resolution is not measured by whether it's heart is in the right place, it is measured by what actual effect it will have. That depends on how it's written.



Congratulations, you just relatively clearly advocated depriving law enforcement officials of incapacitating chemicals to restore order in violent situations. So we just shoot the protestors when they get out of hand now instead. :rolleyes:

Vohteria knows precisely what effect this resolution will have: the exact same effect that any other Global Disarmament resolution at Significant level will do.

That aside, Vohteria wishes to point out that the resolution states: "RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence." To Vohteria, this allows CURRENT weapons to be used and maintained, but no new ones built (this is part of the poorly wriiten portion mentioned).

To clarify also what would be covered. "Chemical weapons" would NOT include many of the devices used by the police (i.e. stun guns, tazers, pellet bag guns) As they do not use chemicals as a weapon.

Furthermore, there is a qestion of whether or not tear gas or other crowd supression devices would be included as a chemical weapon since a weapon is defined as: "An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword." --Dictionary.com

Since the "chemical weapons" used by the police are not technically being used in combat, they may not be included. This is only an idea Vohteria wishes to bring up...

Vohteria notes the shortfalls of the resolution, but still believes this to be a resolution worthy of the U.N's time. It points to the "Protection of Dolphins Act" as a resolution that was less worthy of the U.N.'s time (while still a good resolution) than this one is. If we disposed of resolutions purely by what is inside of them, many would be repealed as frivolous. You obviously must take into account "if its heart is in the right place" if you are to do anything to further disscussion of these issues.

Concluding, Vohteria believes this resolution deserves to be passed, and further resolutions should be proposed furthering the effects of this one. It also urges its fellow U.N. Members to remember this: "It's only a game."

Vohteria

If we disposed of resolutions purely by what is inside of them, many would be repealed as frivolous.

Reformentia is flabbergasted that Vohteria appears to think that rejecting resolutions based on their content rather than their appearance at first glance is undesirable behaviour... or that it would somehow be unfortunate to repeal as frivolous resolutions that are frivolous.

Im am totaly against this proposal, Cybertoria uses its chemical weapons to defend its borders!

That aside, Vohteria wishes to point out that the resolution states: "RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence." To Vohteria, this allows CURRENT weapons to be used and maintained, but no new ones built (this is part of the poorly wriiten portion mentioned).

While we appreciate the effort the Vohteria delegate goes to try to prove a point, we must remind them that the wording doesn't just support that, but also supports many others.

In particular, the words "currently in existance" matter. The reason why is because these words automatically restrict the effects of the resolution to the moment it is passed. Any chemical weapons produced after that point are not affected, as they did not exist when the resolution was passed. The reason why this is supported is because the author made the mistake of making two separate clauses as one, effectively combining the two in both effects and limitations. We cannot sell any chemical weapons that existed when the resolution was passed, but we can sell any that come to exist afterwards.

So, really, this resolution doesn't do what is advertised.

if this resolution passed then only rouge non-UN nations would have chemical weapons which would give us a signicant disadvantage in wars

That is another reason why I am against this proposal!

Chemical weapons are dangerous and unecessaryly cruel. Do you really need to make your enemy die a slow and painful death.

yo people know nothing of history nuclear weapons aved america and now you want to ban them. you all make me sick you ****ers. keep the neuclear weapons.

The nation of Kyitsu has chosen to vote against the ban on chemical weapons. If we have them dosen't guaranty that we're going to use them, unless in dire circumstances.

yo people know nothing of history nuclear weapons aved america and now you want to ban them. you all make me sick you ****ers. keep the neuclear weapons.
Actually, the resolution in question is about chemical weapons not nuclear weapons.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I take it by the losing margin that all of these strongly opinionated nations who are voting against the resolution have done little to end this one with the much needed and virtually necessary telegraphing campaign. Has anyone bothered to begin authoring an appeal to this dreadful resolution? Remembering that we need a -strong- argument for repeal, which specifically lists the problems with the wording on this resolution, I hope that someone with a strong grasp of the subject has at least done that much.

But I am fairly certain no one has really taken the time to do either and the boldly opinionated populace who despise this resolution only care about whining that it will be passed. Then they will go on to whine about how it was passed and how dreadfully stupid they believe the NS UN is.

I long for the days when civic-minded nations were active in their beliefs, and were willing to take it beyond the bitchfest session that this argument has become. Then again, this is the NS UN we are talking about. Perhaps it never really existed. But I do know that the ENPA was had a strong vocal opposition, but only managed to be defeated by the equally agressive telegraphing campaign.

Perhaps I am hoping too much to believe that there are enough member nations to constitute an intellegent group here.

1. Chemical Weapons discourage war for fears of increased casualties.
2. Chemical Weapons save lives on the winning side of a war because less time fighting is needed to win.

Human lives vs. A false sense of security. You decide.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

Smilies really discredit your point. Trust me on this one.

I take it by the losing margin that all of these strongly opinionated nations who are voting against the resolution have done little to end this one with the much needed and virtually necessary telegraphing campaign. Has anyone bothered to begin authoring an appeal to this dreadful resolution? Remembering that we need a -strong- argument for repeal, which specifically lists the problems with the wording on this resolution, I hope that someone with a strong grasp of the subject has at least done that much.

I've sent 28 telegrams already. I've been mostly targetting the smaller regions, the ones with only a handful of votes that make up the majority of all votes. The losing margin isn't being changed by it.

Let it pass. It doesn't remove our chemical weapons program.

But I am fairly certain no one has really taken the time to do either and the boldly opinionated populace who despise this resolution only care about whining that it will be passed. Then they will go on to whine about how it was passed and how dreadfully stupid they believe the NS UN is.

That is why I pretty much drop it once the vote is over and try encouraging others to do the same. You can't win every battle.

I long for the days when civic-minded nations were active in their beliefs, and were willing to take it beyond the bitchfest session that this argument has become. Then again, this is the NS UN we are talking about. Perhaps it never really existed. But I do know that the ENPA was had a strong vocal opposition, but only managed to be defeated by the equally agressive telegraphing campaign.

Whine whine whine whine whine. For as much bitching about people not telegramming as you do in that post, how much TGing have you done? Point is, you're too late. Battle's over, votes are not likely to be changed now, and this will pass. If you wanted to have any effect with your comments, you should have whined about it days ago.

Perhaps I am hoping too much to believe that there are enough member nations to constitute an intellegent group here.

And maybe, before you actively flamebait the entire forum, you should bother paying attention for a few resolutions to figure out how things operate and who's doing what. It will save you from commiting stupid acts.

My Most Esteemed Colleagues:

I’m writing you to ask for a reversal to your vote for Ban Chemical Weapons because it is a poorly drafted bill, which does not allow for nations to stock and use non-lethal gear such as tear gas or pepper spray. Non-lethal chemical weapons can be used to quash riotous assemblies without inflicting a lethal means to disperse it.

Consider that a better-written bill can further the spirit of Ban Chemical Weapons and save even more lives.

Thank you all for your consideration.

Dear Tsukame

Tell me,are teargas and mace spray chemical weapons?Or are they merely policing tools :rolleyes: I belive that the proposal is very finly drafted and too the point...everyone should vote FOR and not AGAINST :rolleyes: its but the only choice for the future...and nuclear and bio-weapon ban dosent mean microwave ovens and aspirin:D

I take it by the losing margin that all of these strongly opinionated nations who are voting against the resolution have done little to end this one with the much needed and virtually necessary telegraphing campaign. Has anyone bothered to begin authoring an appeal to this dreadful resolution? Remembering that we need a -strong- argument for repeal, which specifically lists the problems with the wording on this resolution, I hope that someone with a strong grasp of the subject has at least done that much.

But I am fairly certain no one has really taken the time to do either and the boldly opinionated populace who despise this resolution only care about whining that it will be passed. Then they will go on to whine about how it was passed and how dreadfully stupid they believe the NS UN is.


It's the tragedy of the forums. People focus so much on "winning" on the forums (which is impossible because 'argument victory' is decided entirely by the audience, which will never unanimously agree) they forget that only perhaps 0.1% of the nations in the game ever visit here, and that fewer than half of those will read the argument and become convinced of them. It almost makes helping new players with a proposal a waste of time--because one knows that the proposal, however good or bad, will be submitted with no telegram campaign accompanying it. I've actually seen very few nations willing to commit to a telegram campaign (for or against a proposal) nowadays: new or old. It's as if they forgot the capitalist nature of the game (you know, that you have to sell your own proposal and no one else will do it for you).

It reminds me of The Global Library discussion, the first one. At one point Great Agnostica had denounced the resolution for its problems, the rest of the forum was all “porcupined-out” (they headbanged and groused about the proposal a lot) and the margin was getting closer than ever. I told Great Agnostica that the only way for him to make his words a reality (undo-ing what he had done) is to let people know that he'd said them, to perform a telegram campaign. But, neither him nor any other headbanging poster on the forum decided it worthwhile. They refused to “put their money where their mouth is”.

Even though I don’t necessarily disagree with the resolution, I could attempt to rustle up a semi-decent repeal text, if you like. I’ve been spending a lot of time investigating the rhetorical structure of Global Disarmament resolutions recently (because I’ve been preparing this (http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=168) for the UNA), and I feel that now, more than ever, I have a grasp of what convinces the UN to ban a pass a resolution like this. I just figured I’d offer to write a text. As I’m not really committed to a repeal, so I wouldn’t be willing to produce an entire telegram campaign for it (at least, not the 300-500 needed I usually invest for one of my own proposals), but I’d be willing to do some telegramming, and I’d be willing to write some drafts of repeals.


I long for the days when civic-minded nations were active in their beliefs, and were willing to take it beyond the bitchfest session that this argument has become. Then again, this is the NS UN we are talking about. Perhaps it never really existed. But I do know that the ENPA was had a strong vocal opposition, but only managed to be defeated by the equally agressive telegraphing campaign.


Actually, it may just be a sign of the times. The region of Texas has very kindly provided the UNA with a large set of data of UN membership over several years. That data shows the growth of UN population to its maximum each year around April or May, and its decline over the summer to a minimum in September or so. I've long felt the best stretch UN forum I was ever a part of was the forum between August-September and December January. Perhaps the quality of the forum is related to a smaller UN size, and thus fewer uncommitted nations. I'm not sure, and I don't mean to condemn whole swatches of periods or resolutions, but I do think that the UN population has some effect on UN and UN forum quality. Perhaps if we wait for the fall, we can renew 'the golden age' we both remember (since I, too, long for it).

I recall, actually, the UN Reduced Arms Proposal (was that the name?). I remember the work put in by you and all the others on the forum then (aw, the October forum...that was discussion) to create solid, realistic standards for reducing arms. I was so disappointed when it never got to quorum (not to say that I agreed with it 100%, but any proposal with so much of a player's blood, sweat, and tears in it, I like to see reach quorum). But anyway, perhaps its time is this next September-October. I'm going to be re-drafting, and replacing my Nuclear Terrorism Act (I was never happy with how much I had to cut out of it, and I've had a few new ideas since it was written), and the UN population will be reduced to the devoted players. It'll be "just" like old times ;).

Anyway, I'm glad to see that you've started posting in the UN forum, again. And, actually, I'm glad for the censure. We need it. I see in your sig that you're part of some sort of sovereignty group? Is that right? I've never heard of that one before. The only sovereignty group I've seen (as I'm a member) is the NSO (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx) (National Sovereignty Organization). Perhaps, if you wanted to, you could drop by. It's not exactly "hecka active", but it seems to be working, nonetheless :)

As the sole leader of my country, it is my right to manufacture and store chemical weapons. I have never once threatened any nation with them. The use of my chemical weapons are limited strictly to controlling the public. My economy depends on the manufacture of weapons, and this resoloution will put us back in the stone ages. And if you don;t give a shit about that then you all can go screw yourselves for beign selfish bastards who only give a fu** about their own skins. So now you can;t touch this, I am hereby effectivly resigning from the un because I am tired of this kinda crap.

Votes For: 9,809

Votes Against: 7,029

This one is close. I want to urge all nations to vote AGAINST this current resolution. I'm not sure why anyone would want to vote for it. I know that it sounds good in principle to get rid of all weapons, but are you not aware that this resolution is only imposed on nations that are members of the United Nations??? What are you going to do when a NON-UN Member nation that has chemical weapons attacks your country and you are left with nothing but sticks and stones to defend yourselves??? Why give all of your national sovereignty away to the United Nations?

Again, I urge all nations to vote against this resolution today, as it is the last day of voting.

Nearly 17,000 votes have been issued on this. That makes this resolution as being among the top ones when it comes to voter turnout. And, in looking at it, the obvious failure of the telegram strategy comes to mind. The telegrams were focused at regions with 20 or more members, while the majority that voted have less than ten.

At this point, voting is pretty much over. Few nations are going to change their votes in time, the resolution will pass, and the repeal attempts will start. Time to move on to the next proposal or resolution of worthy discussion.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang:

I take it by the losing margin that all of these strongly opinionated nations who are voting against the resolution have done little to end this one with the much needed and virtually necessary telegraphing campaign. Has anyone bothered to begin authoring an appeal to this dreadful resolution? Remembering that we need a -strong- argument for repeal, which specifically lists the problems with the wording on this resolution, I hope that someone with a strong grasp of the subject has at least done that much.

But I am fairly certain no one has really taken the time to do either and the boldly opinionated populace who despise this resolution only care about whining that it will be passed. Then they will go on to whine about how it was passed and how dreadfully stupid they believe the NS UN is.

I long for the days when civic-minded nations were active in their beliefs, and were willing to take it beyond the bitchfest session that this argument has become. Then again, this is the NS UN we are talking about. Perhaps it never really existed. But I do know that the ENPA was had a strong vocal opposition, but only managed to be defeated by the equally agressive telegraphing campaign.

Perhaps I am hoping too much to believe that there are enough member nations to constitute an intellegent group here.So is this a yes on the proposal? A no? A maybe? Anything pertinent to add on the question at hand? Guess not.

If you actually bothered to read the thread, you would've noticed that several of us have already committed to TG'ing to get this proposal rejected. Of course, you probably won't read any responses you get, as you seem to have dropped by just to tell us what idiots you think we all are -- in effect, to whine about all the whining. VERY constructive. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the words are "telegram" and "repeal," not "telegraph" and "appeal."

If you actually bothered to read the thread, you would've noticed that several of us have already committed to TG'ing to get this proposal rejected. Of course, you probably won't read any responses you get, as you seem to have dropped by just to tell us what idiots you think we all are -- in effect, to whine about all the whining. VERY constructive.

Have you telegrammed? Committing to a telegram campaign, and actually performing one are two different things. And telegramming against a resolution such as this would have had to be fairly expansive, that is to say it wouldn't have so much as a smidgeon of an effect if telegram sent weren't in the triple digits. I feel Whited Fields is justified in disapproving of the imbalance between the forum's bark and its bite.

And asking someone to read the thread (which at this point is over 20, fifteen-post pages long) as if they were somehow beneath those who have been part of the discussion for a while is pretty condescending. And condescension isn't constructive either.

:headbang: :mad: :gundge: :mp5: If the U.N. wants to ban chemical weapons, they should create other weapons of mass destruction.

Chemical Weapons shouldnt be banned! :gundge:

Yes, I TG'ed other nations in the time I had to commit to such things. I sent somewhere near 100 of them.

I did say something in the forum, several times, including my position on the matter. I have never invited any nation to read the forum for the argument against proposals. Instead, I offered a neat summation of the major arguments against it and then told the candidates that they could TG me for more information OR see the forum.

This is the first time I have used smilies in a long time, but considering that I posted something regarding TGs several times and no one bothered to answer my question, I felt like I was banging my head against the wall. Hence, a visual demonstration. Perhaps next time a digital image pic of the same action will suit your tastes more?

I wont apologize for any derogatory statements I made. I am getting sick of coming here and watching people argue well under the forums but doing little to actually change the problem. That is the unfortunate nature that I have seen here. Noting that most members just threaten to leave the UN, as if we really cared about such things, you would see that I have never threatened such trivialities. And while I am not as active as I once was, I am also not oblivious to what occurs here.

Yes, I TG'ed other nations in the time I had to commit to such things. I sent somewhere near 100 of them.

Which, IIRC, you chose to send to the minority of regions, those with 20 or more votes. While an admirable strategy, it is ultimately flawed in that they do not hold the power.

I did say something in the forum, several times, including my position on the matter. I have never invited any nation to read the forum for the argument against proposals. Instead, I offered a neat summation of the major arguments against it and then told the candidates that they could TG me for more information OR see the forum.

In which case, they likely cared about neither. Am I right in my guess that not even half of those you TGed bothered to inquire about information?

This is the first time I have used smilies in a long time, but considering that I posted something regarding TGs several times and no one bothered to answer my question, I felt like I was banging my head against the wall. Hence, a visual demonstration. Perhaps next time a digital image pic of the same action will suit your tastes more?

The reason why your posts were ignored is mainly because I did not feel the need to answer. I keep a large portion of my work within the UN in the shadows. That's part of why I have never authored a proposal while I have this nation.

Images of you banging your head against the wall only serve to detract from your point. It turns an attempt at seriousness into a farce.

I wont apologize for any derogatory statements I made. I am getting sick of coming here and watching people argue well under the forums but doing little to actually change the problem. That is the unfortunate nature that I have seen here. Noting that most members just threaten to leave the UN, as if we really cared about such things, you would see that I have never threatened such trivialities. And while I am not as active as I once was, I am also not oblivious to what occurs here.

You see me asking for an apology? Please. All you did was use a few words and make a fool of yourself. There is no need to apologize for that.

And as for here: We all get tired of the crap people put out. There are people who threaten to leave the UN every time there is a proposal, and some of them do so only to return to the UN and try again the next time around. Top it all off, we have people who leave the forum simply because they dislike what others have said and would rather be childish than deal with it in a mature manner. Hell, I'm willing to bet your post alone drove away a few of them because they were "attacked by those meanies in the UN." People need to grow a little skin and realize that not everyone is going to be a card-carrying member of Candyland.

The UN has many problems, but all in all whining about it doesn't solve them. Did my statement above actually solve any of the problems it brings up? No. The problems of the UN continue no matter how hard you talk about it. If you want to do something about it, you'll have to go on the offensive and attack people directly. As much as some may not like it, it takes an asshole to get things done.

Last UN Decision

The resolution Ban Chemical Weapons was passed 10,006 votes to 7,109, and implemented in all UN member nations.

My plan to have police officers subdue Jaywalkers with Nerve Gas is out. Oh well, it would have been unreasonable anyway. Now that we can no longer fight off the hordes with chemical weapons, we shall have to resort to massively increasing our stockpile of Enhanced Radiation Weapons and accelerate work on the orbital death rays. It will be far more expensive, but also more impressive.

A big downside of this is that the hordes are poor and can easily acquire these illegal weapons, especially on the newly created international black market as various dictators dispose of their weapons by selling them. Great. So, we are now stepping up production on gas masks, neoprene outfits and protective tents. I hear that construction of hermetically seal domiciles is up thanks to the mindless news blitz, so maybe people will care less if we pollute more.

We may have to launch a preemptive strike now in order to avoid having them take advantage of our newly non-toxic state.

The reason why your posts were ignored is mainly because I did not feel the need to answer. I keep a large portion of my work within the UN in the shadows. That's part of why I have never authored a proposal while I have this nation.

And yet you feel ever so inclined to tear into anyone's argument with tenacity and ferocity at a moment's notice when they offer something you deem ignorant or downright stupid.

You see me asking for an apology? Please. All you did was use a few words and make a fool of yourself. There is no need to apologize for that.

And as for here: We all get tired of the crap people put out. There are people who threaten to leave the UN every time there is a proposal, and some of them do so only to return to the UN and try again the next time around. Top it all off, we have people who leave the forum simply because they dislike what others have said and would rather be childish than deal with it in a mature manner. Hell, I'm willing to bet your post alone drove away a few of them because they were "attacked by those meanies in the UN." People need to grow a little skin and realize that not everyone is going to be a card-carrying member of Candyland.

The UN has many problems, but all in all whining about it doesn't solve them. Did my statement above actually solve any of the problems it brings up? No. The problems of the UN continue no matter how hard you talk about it. If you want to do something about it, you'll have to go on the offensive and attack people directly. As much as some may not like it, it takes an asshole to get things done.

And yet, the very people who have offered more than a simple whining about a subject are the very ones who you decimate with your 'rapier wit' sometimes.

Yes, I was an asshole to people. Yes, I suppose my statement bordered on, if not crossed completely over to, flamebaiting. And yet rather than applauding me for being an asshole, as you seem to think is necessary sometimes, you spend your time tearing into my post bit-by-bit. The truth of the matter is, for as strong as a debater as you are, your efforts beyond that are questionable at best, and downright non-existant at worst.

I would love to see you do more than shadow work, but I doubt you will ever stick your neck out far enough to be more than a very loud and obnoxious bark. You -should- be authoring proposals. Anyone can argue for or against someone else's work. Try making one of your own. Try penning something that is as effective as necessary and yet is also appealing enough to the masses to get passed the drafting stage. Push one of your original thoughts through the delegate voting process.

When you can do that, your opinion of me and my jackass manner will be considered worth more than the paper with which I wipe my ass. As it stands now, you are a dreadfully loud dog and little more.

And yet you feel ever so inclined to tear into anyone's argument with tenacity and ferocity at a moment's notice when they offer something you deem ignorant or downright stupid.

I also openly admit to being an asshole. Actually, to be honest, I don't target everyone. You have no idea how much I wanted to tear into people on this thread on too many occasions.

Here's a question: How many people do you think actually read this forum? And when they do, what is the first thing they think I do here? I rely heavily on the idea that people in general are stupid and quick to let that overwhelm themselves. That's part of why it surprises them when I help, as I was hoping to do with this resolution before it reached quorum.

And yet, the very people who have offered more than a simple whining about a subject are the very ones who you decimate with your 'rapier wit' sometimes.

Did you bother to notice when I bothered to attack you? I pretty much left you alone during the thread until that one post. Up until that post, you were trying your best to help. With that post, your goals of trying to get people to campaign were immediately dashed, for the same reason as to why a repeal of this resolution won't pass within the first month. As much as you can get the average person to admit that people in general are stupid, you can't spur them into action if they feel they are the targets themselves. You don't see me trying to spur people into action, do you?

Yes, I was an asshole to people. Yes, I suppose my statement bordered on, if not crossed completely over to, flamebaiting. And yet rather than applauding me for being an asshole, as you seem to think is necessary sometimes, you spend your time tearing into my post bit-by-bit.

It's also necessary, in some contexts, to shoot your best friend in the head. That doesn't mean it is something that should be applauded. I believe somethings like that are necessary, but I also keep in mind what will and will not work in certain situations. Keep in mind that not all parts of being an asshole involve being the stereotype.

The truth of the matter is, for as strong as a debater as you are, your efforts beyond that are questionable at best, and downright non-existant at worst.

Then appearances are as they should be.

I would love to see you do more than shadow work, but I doubt you will ever stick your neck out far enough to be more than a very loud and obnoxious bark. You -should- be authoring proposals. Anyone can argue for or against someone else's work. Try making one of your own. Try penning something that is as effective as necessary and yet is also appealing enough to the masses to get passed the drafting stage. Push one of your original thoughts through the delegate voting process.

What you suggest is more dangerous than you know. Do not ask me to explain further. You won't get anywhere, and if you're persistant enough you'll either get flamed or given a series of purposefully comfusing statements that appear to say something while actually saying nothing at all.

When you can do that, your opinion of me and my jackass manner will be considered worth more than the paper with which I wipe my ass. As it stands now, you are a dreadfully loud dog and little more.

I would watch my tongue when it comes to phrases like those.

Being able to submit and pass proposals isn't anything really worthy of respect. Really, anyone can get it done if they know their audience. It takes overly simple strategies in order to find one the delegates will support, find an advertising campaign that will appeal to the idiot factor, make sure it's not worded bad enough to get mod attention or turn away voters, then submit and advertise. It's actually quite similar to how what clothes are in fashion is determined every year. You're selling a product, nothing more, and all it takes is the right pitch, and that isn't even really that complicated when you add in the idea the majority of the UN will simply follow the sheep factor. Hell, your typical used car salesman could probably pass twenty or thirty proposals through the UN.

What I'm concerned with is an area seriously lacking: Editting. I go through the proposals posted on here, compare them to the rules, and then use my knowledge of how to exploit and how to decieve people to search every last aspect of a proposal for ways to get around it. In some cases, I choose simply to focus on a simple aspect of it rather than the entire thing. In this case, using a simple dictionary and my own knowledge of English allows me to exploit loopholes the author wasn't aware existed and my ability to write allows me to sell the flaws to others. It's a simple case of turning basic marketting strategies around and using them against a proposal. It's actually less complicated than it sounds.

You want to see examples of my work? Take a look at the three resolutions dealing with a global library, specifically the technology portions of each (two resolutions, one repeal).

Oh well, Chemical Weapons that existed before the ban was in place are banned.... fortunately, we only have chemical agents from that period, and are rapidly producing more of them.

I still believe that it takes more to create and push a proposal through than it does to tear one apart. I realize you follow the rule that people are stupid. It's evident in your every post. But you are so typically and stereotypically male that it's sad.

Which is ironic in that my sex and gender are both the opposite of the stereotype. I don't really care about conventions anymore, as I've seen the damage they do to people.

What does it take to create a successful proposal? Not much. Take the dolphins proposal. All it did was regurgitate some propaganda about dolphins that's older than I am, repackage it, and sell it to the people. The only real thought involved was in the summary. And this resolution stinks of certain propaganda about chemical weapons that's been around since the Second World War. The amount of effort that goes into most of the passed resolutions is amazingly little. It's merely plugging words into a format, nothing more. Hell, my own joke draft about weapons of planetary destruction didn't take that much thought.

I believe that if you want people to act more intellegently, then you stop treating them as if they are incapable of doing so. Sure, the average American even has trouble with the English language, and our pathetic excuse for the media and press consistently dumb-down everything that they offer. For that matter, so does our entertainment division as well. But reducing the intellegence of any matter will not make people smarter.

Depends on how you define intelligence. Sadly, I've given up on the ideals of civilization. They don't work on a species that has yet to achieve it. What I've found is that, amazingly, intelligence begins to get to the foreground when you strip away the dressings, as in those cases intelligence is forced to either show itself or reveal itself for a fraud. Sadly, the pack mentality works too well for it to be just a random guess.

And your comment regarding about knowing when to be an asshole doesnt stand the test either. You border on cruel with your arguments quite often from what I have seen. Your criticism is bitingly ferocious and you offer more negative commentation than positive.

Yes, I do. It's merely a facade, a mask, one of the many guises I wear in order to keep up the pretense of what people expect. It's just like how I play the fool for the ESUS and the other roles I play. There are a few places where I relax, but this isn't one of them. All I'm doing is playing the game.

As for when to be an asshole: I have my own role to play, and I am comming more and more to were I can play it with ease. But I also know how the game is played. For example, with my post attacking you, do you know how many flames that possibly prevented? The potential results of your post were the cases of you getting a few mild agreements not resulting in anything substantial while at the same time getting heavily flamed by others. Most people have stopped reading now. Instead, this conversation has been guided in a safe direction that removes the possibility of people flaming due to most of them being too lazy to go back and read the previous posts. Now, it mostly appears to be a conversation between two people about actions you committed that people don't care about and actions I have committed that people will agree with you on. In this, I have taken the classic female role and, instead of using brute strength to force the results I want, have instead manipulated the results of the conversation into an alley that is more acceptable to all involved. If we continue along this vein, eventually all people will see is you justly accosting me and my defenses against that.

There is another old edict that says you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. And while I dont want to attract every filthy insect around to me, I do want to encourage people to give enough of a damn to put the effort into drafting better proposals. You wont get that with your brand of criticism too often.

No, but I make a convenient bad girl who states what she will without remorse. In that, it allows me the freedom of directing a conversation the way I want it to go and, on occasion, moving people I wish to keep around out of the darker part of the spotlight.

Yes, any used-car salesman could produce proposals. But the question is, would we really like what we are buying? I seriously wonder. I know -I- dont buy a car because the salesman made it look the prettiest. Therefore, I am going to expect that others RISE to my example and become fully aware of an issue before voting for one. There are a number of resolutions that I did not place a ballot for, simply because I was not aware of the circumstances leading to their proposal to understand what I was voting for. When I had time to investigate the matter, I would. But for a while, there were several proposals that I did not have the time to invest in, so I left my voice silent and my vote to myself. We could go on consistently posting things in the forums about better proposal writing, but it wont get us anywhere. Its obvious the people who need it most are not reading them.

In that, you are right. It is a perplexing problem I have worked long and hard on. Unfortunately, the results are pretty much predictable. People will give plenty of excuses as to why they refuse to visit this forum, but in most cases they are false. It's really a case of the majority not giving a damn about this forum, but at the same time not wanting to admit it. In the end, the only way we can undo that is to put on a show that attracts people. In other words, to get people to look through deception, we must first attract them with it.

What alternatives does that lead? I can't answer that. If I had all the answers, as you -seem- to think you do, then we wouldnt be going around and around of this pointless merry-go-round and getting nothing substantial done.

Actually, we're getting more done than you think. But it is not really enough.

The only reason I appear to think I have all the answers, and often appear so right, is simple. I utilize certain strategies common in dealing with a variety of species that also work very well on humans. If you wish to know more, TG me.

I certainly have some suggestions, but now I fear to mention them. Why? Because you have managed to silence me in the manner that is most important... you silenced my drive to help out of fear that I will be criticized for those ideas or ridiculed because I care enough to give them.

Here's something you need to realize: This isn't personal. I post like this for quite a few people, and in the end I could as likely end up on your side as against you. So far, you've been identifying a lot of the problems. The main problem is that you have been going about it the wrong way. If you wish to get people's attention on a topic, start out as early as possible and be as noticeable as possible. Make extremely long posts people have to scroll by in order to get to the rest. Half of the time, they stop and read a bit out of curiousity or at least remember you for having the ability to post it. And, whatever you do, don't give up until you have been disproven beyond the shadow of a doubt or simply cannot win the arguement.

That is what your loud bark does to others. You should've been intellegent enough to realize that my last statement was an attempt to counter the low-esteem you've already managed to create in me by your actions.

I knew it, looked at my goal, and assessed the risks. You are not the type that will be permanently affected by this and who will bounce back. This way, we've refocused the conversation thread to be against me, resulting in heat being taken off of you. It did require targetting you, in order to get a strike-back and self-defense reply, and the rest happened as necessary to guide the conversation. Now, take what time you need to rebuild your self-esteem. And, remember, I can take the heat of what will result. You do, after all, have sympathy on your side now, while I am still the cold-blooded bastard. In the end, you come out as the good guy.

I suppose that makes me typically and stereotypically female.

Nope. The behavior is typically male, specifically when a beta is facing an alpha or when a male is trespassing in another's territory and not wishing a fight. If you were a beta, I doubt you would have lasted this long on this forum. We're pretty good at chasing off the betas, gammas, and omegas. Basically, you just felt overwhelmed, a natural reaction, and the natural emotional reactions took over, which happens to everyone.

Here's a piece of advice to help you: Take everything science has said about humans lacking instincts and burn it. It is complete and utter bullshit based more on pride and ignorance than on actual science or fact. Humans are actually one of the more primal species on the planet, as they have their full set of instincts intact in spite of centuries of domestication. No other domesticated species can claim that. What you have to realize is that most people, blinded by pride and ignorance, have no clue that they have these instincts, or even how many of their actions actually result from them. There is nothing you can do about the instincts to remove them, but you can come to control them and even use them to your advantage.

Basically, don't let your emotions get the best of you. Hell, I take several breaks while writing some posts in order to calm down. Plus, I have other outlets I use for the emotions. And, sometimes, I simply delay a post to calm down a bit. It doesn't make what is said less cruel or hurtful, but it does prevent you from being overly hurt by it. And with how the internet is, it's pretty much a requirement to have.

Oh, White Fields, I must apologize to you for hurting your feelings with my posts. It is the least I owe you.

No harm means no apology, but there was harm in this case.

"I called an emergency meeting of the Cabinet this morning after discovering that the Ban on Chemical Weapons has been brought into effect.
We agreed unanimously that the UN has become a terrorising, global corporation only interested in greed, wealth and its insatiable lust for power. The 'real' UN is simply a collection of superstates clustered together in a coalition, they are the ones who pull the strings by ordering smaller states to vote for or against a Bill depending on the coalition's view.
In essence, the UN is corrupt. And for the good of our people, the Empire of Egotistical Evilness cannot let our nation be continually disarmed and leaving us open to attack from terrorist groups.
Therefore, we are leaving the United Nations, effective immediately."

-Emperor Eduardo of Egosticial Evilness

DLE, you are my new hero. I love people that defy their stereotypes. Although I have to agree with some of the other posters that you can be a real asshole. Still, at least you're an asshole with good arguments. It's nice to see a few people here don't just resort to the Monty Python school of argument ("This isn't a proper argument"... "Yes it is"... etc. ad nauseam).

I don't think Chemical weapons are a godd Idea becasue war is bad enough, Chemical weapons just promote warfare, wats the use in war? I think chemical weapons should be banned..

Shrine of the Altogether's Conference Room: Emperor Maximus IV, distraught by the passing of the Chemical Weapons Ban and the unexpected disadvantage placed upon the Holy Empire in its war against the Divine Reich of Tocrowkia, assembled an emergency meeting with UN Ambassador Welsh and Archbishop Ambicus to propose a post-ban plan:

Maximus IV: So it happened.
Welsh: I'm afraid so. They're hopeless. It's ran by a bunch of homoerotic socialists. Tocrowkia has a stockpile of yellowcake yet we cannot respond in kind any longer.
Maximus IV: .... Get me Armarillo.

phone dials

(Gov. Armarillo of The Colony of The Sidestream): I have been expecting a call from you, Emperor.
Maximus IV: I am going to ask a favor from you....
....
....
....

________________

Three Hours Later: Shrine of the Altogether - Press Room

Maximus IV: It is with great regret that we must withdraw from the United Nations, but with the current chemical weapons ban, we will be in grave danger against Tocrowkia if we do not negate this unnecessary, unfair and troublesome restriction. We need every weapon obtainable in our arsenel and cannot be forced to shed it by an external body without a vision.

I don't think Chemical weapons are a godd Idea becasue war is bad enough, Chemical weapons just promote warfare, wats the use in war? I think chemical weapons should be banned..

I think you're a punch-drunk idiot!

Welsh
Former UN Ambassador

I don't think Chemical weapons are a godd Idea becasue war is bad enough, Chemical weapons just promote warfare, wats the use in war? I think chemical weapons should be banned..

Actually, I think chemical weapons do the exact opposite. chemical weapons are a dangerous weapon, and no nations wants to use them or go against them in a equal battle. Nations fear going against this because many of their citizens will be killed very quickly, causeing their population to go down, and leaving them more likely to be taken over by another country. Also, nations would fear having their homeland atacked, and having innocent people die on their soil. Just look at the Cold War. The Americans and the Russians were so afraid to attack eachother because so many people in both nations would die in an instant. Chemical weapons make people afraid of going against them, making nations less likely to go to war.

Why are we still discussing this? The UN screwed itself, let's move on.

Actually, I think chemical weapons do the exact opposite. chemical weapons are a dangerous weapon, and no nations wants to use them or go against them in a equal battle. Nations fear going against this because many of their citizens will be killed very quickly, causeing their population to go down, and leaving them more likely to be taken over by another country.

I sort of agree. I mean, my recollection seems to point toward civilians as the main group of people at danger of gassing or other chemical weaponry. I understand that modern soldiers often have plenty of defenses against most chemical weapons.

But my main dig against the resolution is tear gas and other chemical weapons which have non-lethal effects and can be used in policing actions. This resolution would seem to get rid of them (if, that is, we accept the RL generic definition of "chemical weapons"). There could be an argument for it banning of mace under as well.

You are correct. The resolution does in fact ban the production and sale (but not the purchase or use) of:
Tear gas


Mace


Pepper spray


Smoke generators and smoke ordinance
The United States of Allemande have developed and deployed a crowd-control system based on the emission of short bursts of microwave energy (http://economist.com/science/tq/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3423036) (inflicting incapacitating pain to the target, much like a taser - only here it's an area effect) to overcome the need for tear gas. The military still retains stockpiles of chemical smoke (for use in generators) as well as smoke ordinance, and will use them if need be in wartime. We will purchase additional stocks as needed from overseas buyers under the temporary interpretation that "trafficking" only refers to sale (purchase is "soliciting"), but when the courts finally rule on this point we may find ourselves in trouble.

Of greater concern is the ban on mace and pepper spray. The police can use tasers and such for defence, but we tend to restrict access to such weapons to law-enforcement organisations. Because crime is and has always been a problem in Allemande (we have no prisons), the populace have grown accustomed to using mace and pepper spray in self-defence. We have, however, been forced to take them off the market, and this has led to a dramatic increase in applications for concealed weapons' licenses.

Not, on the whole, a desirable effect.

You are correct. The resolution does in fact ban the production and sale (but not the purchase or use) of:
Tear gas


Mace


Pepper spray


Smoke generators and smoke ordinance


-snip-

Of greater concern is the ban on mace and pepper spray. The police can use tasers and such for defence, but we tend to restrict access to such weapons to law-enforcement organisations. Because crime is and has always been a problem in Allemande (we have no prisons), the populace have grown accustomed to using mace and pepper spray in self-defence. We have, however, been forced to take them off the market, and this has led to a dramatic increase in applications for concealed weapons' licenses.


Then that's the platform for the the repeal: that it's anti-self protection, and anti-law enforcement. Just roughly, I imagine a text would appear something like this:UNDERSTANDING the sentiment against weapons which can cause large-scale destruction present in "Ban on Chemical Weapons",

NOTING the precedent of the UN to allow citizens in member nations a reasonable level of self-protection, as well as the precedent for member nations to encourage the preservation of order and lawfullness within their boundaries,

RECOGNIZING tear gas and smoke ordnance as chemical weapons used by some nations to justly enforce the law and preserve order--and are also affected by this banned,

RECOGNIZING mace and pepper sprays, which are paramount chemical weapons in defending innocent civilians from deadly criminals (especially in cases of armed robbery and, often, rape), that are banned by this resolution,

REALIZING "Ban on Chemical Weapons" makes no differentiation between dangerous war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical weapons,

GRIEVING the loss to police enforcement and persons in urban areas (especially women in urban areas) of these vital chemical tools of order and self-protection:

REPEALS "Ban on Chemical Weapons".

This should be revised; I suggest mid-July (13th or 20th?) as submission date. I'd be willing to help in the telegramming.