NationStates Jolt Archive


Anti-Terrorism

Haroutioun
16-11-2005, 22:48
Anti-Terrorism Proposal is back. Take a look at it.

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Haroutioun

Description: The fight on terrorism is not any one nation's fight but a global one. It requires a global response. It is important to set up international standards in security to help battle this increasingly dangerous situation. Here are some of the changes I propose.

1. To secure airports.
a. Commercial hubs
b. General aviation airports
2. To cooperate with other UN nation's security protocols.
3. Shared use of intelligence gathering on terrorists.
4. International consent on military action.
a. Given the consent of the international community those countries the UN member nations will be required to support that military action
b. Look objectively at all intelligence that suggests need for military action
c. Compare intelligence with other intelligence agency to determine accuracy before presenting the the UN member nations
5. UN member nations help fund the global anti-terrorism effort
6. All nations work to prevent torture and ensure that prisoners are treated well.
7. In the event of a terrorist incident taking place that nation has the right to take action without the UN member nations.
a. However, it is the UN's responsibility to assemble immediately and offer as much assistance as they can.
The Lynx Alliance
16-11-2005, 22:54
besides the fact that we would never support a terrorist bill (one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter), you have left out any definition of terrorist, so the opposition could run a scare campain to oust the government, and in that the government could declare them to be terrorists. you need a definition first
Haroutioun
16-11-2005, 23:02
I figured I wouldn't have to define terrorism to anybody, but my view of terrorism is a person(s) who targets innocent people to push an agenda. Also, I am under the impression that you are reffering to the Bush Re-election campaign as the scare campaign. I myself am a Liberal and was against the way that Bush used terrorism to win the election however I do not think that that will apply under this proposal. However, I value your input and will look to make the neccesary changes.
The Lynx Alliance
16-11-2005, 23:13
OOC: i was really refering to the australian governments last campain, but anyway

IC: whilst it is a reasonable notion to leave definition up to individual countries, as it stands this is so open to abuse it isnt funny. as i stated before: one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. whilst it isnt exactly true in all cases, it is in quite a few (RL example: PLO). if you are going to propose an anti-terror bill, you need to define exactly what a terrorist is. as many countries as there are, thats how many different definitions of terrorist there are, which is the main reason i would never support this kind of proposal. but if you make the changes, you might get support from elsewhere
Pallatium
17-11-2005, 01:38
OOC: i was really refering to the australian governments last campain, but anyway

IC: whilst it is a reasonable notion to leave definition up to individual countries, as it stands this is so open to abuse it isnt funny. as i stated before: one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. whilst it isnt exactly true in all cases, it is in quite a few (RL example: PLO). if you are going to propose an anti-terror bill, you need to define exactly what a terrorist is. as many countries as there are, thats how many different definitions of terrorist there are, which is the main reason i would never support this kind of proposal. but if you make the changes, you might get support from elsewhere

Yeah - but if you force a definition of terrorist, it means EVERYONE has to abide by it. And there are groups in the world I would want to support and back, even if the rest of the world thinks they are terrorists.

Can you give me a definition of terrorism that doesn't cover Nelson Mandela (convicted terrorist), The French Resistance (all of them terrorists), the guys who threw the Boston Tea in to the ocean (probably terrorists) and Jesus (almost certinaly a terrorist), or at least can be read in a way that doesn't cover them?
The Lynx Alliance
17-11-2005, 06:09
Yeah - but if you force a definition of terrorist, it means EVERYONE has to abide by it. And there are groups in the world I would want to support and back, even if the rest of the world thinks they are terrorists.

Can you give me a definition of terrorism that doesn't cover Nelson Mandela (convicted terrorist), The French Resistance (all of them terrorists), the guys who threw the Boston Tea in to the ocean (probably terrorists) and Jesus (almost certinaly a terrorist), or at least can be read in a way that doesn't cover them?
and this is exactly the reason why anti terrorist bills dont pass
Unstable Former Nuns
17-11-2005, 09:12
How about removing the bit about military action and concentrating on intelligence exchange? Have the resolution require the release of all information where one nation finds evidence of an attack on a civilian target in another nation, in a manner where civilians are likely to be killed or injured (this would not include political acts such as damage to property, including government buildings, unless non-government civilians were likely to be killed as a result of the attack).
Habardia
17-11-2005, 09:39
This Bill is way too vague. Even if you defined "terrorist" (good luck with that) the actions taken by this resolution are non-existent. It is no more than empty legislation, an excuse to write law for the sake of writing it, even if it has no effect whatsoever.
Hirota
17-11-2005, 13:02
Can you give me a definition of terrorism that doesn't cover Nelson Mandela (convicted terrorist), The French Resistance (all of them terrorists), the guys who threw the Boston Tea in to the ocean (probably terrorists) and Jesus (almost certinaly a terrorist), or at least can be read in a way that doesn't cover them?

Mine.
Gruenberg
17-11-2005, 13:04
I DO NOT LIKE THIS PROPOSAL. damn anti-shouting filter
Pallatium
17-11-2005, 14:24
Mine.

(ooc smirk) And the fact Jesus attacked the money changers (civilians) in order to try to push a religious ideal (his fathers) doesn't cause problems with your definition? (this should not be an excuse to start a religious war, so I apologise if anyone is offended)
Hirota
17-11-2005, 16:09
(ooc smirk) And the fact Jesus attacked the money changers (civilians) in order to try to push a religious ideal (his fathers) doesn't cause problems with your definition? (this should not be an excuse to start a religious war, so I apologise if anyone is offended)

I don't think one man hitting another because his divine dad disapproves is terrorism.

I'd imagine at the time the moneylenders thought he was just a little disturbed in the head.

"RIIIIGHT.....god says so does he? okay........NURSE!"
Pallatium
17-11-2005, 17:15
I don't think one man hitting another because his divine dad disapproves is terrorism.

I'd imagine at the time the moneylenders thought he was just a little disturbed in the head.

"RIIIIGHT.....god says so does he? okay........NURSE!"

(smirk) I was just saying - someone could say that he was using violence against civlians to forward a religious ideal. Which is what your definition was, I think.


DEFINES international terrorism as the use or threatened use of violence for the purpose of achieving political, religious or ideological goals by non-state actors using methods aimed at coercing or intimidating governments or societies by targeting primarily and deliberately the civilian population and designed to change the existing political, religious or ideological order.


Jesus was not from Jerusalem (and I have no idea if Bethlehem was in the same country or not, which might cause chaos), and it could be argued that since he was acting on behalf of someone who didn't even live on this plane of existence that it was definitely over national borders, he used violence to achieve a religious end and it was directed primarly and deliberately at civlians.

Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that is not a reason not to support your proposal (and wow I used way to many negatives there), I am just saying that in general if one defines terrorist, then someone will find an upstanding citizen who fits the definition (and yes - I am guessing most people think Jesus was an upstanding citizen) from a certain point of view (cue Star Wars ref-crime here)

Which is why I kind of like this proposal, because it doesn't tied the hands of the nations to blindly accept one person's definition. However I dislike it for a lot of other reasons, which I will get on to in the next post (I do)
Cluichstan
17-11-2005, 18:38
Yeah - but if you force a definition of terrorist, it means EVERYONE has to abide by it. And there are groups in the world I would want to support and back, even if the rest of the world thinks they are terrorists.

Can you give me a definition of terrorism that doesn't cover Nelson Mandela (convicted terrorist), The French Resistance (all of them terrorists), the guys who threw the Boston Tea in to the ocean (probably terrorists) and Jesus (almost certinaly a terrorist), or at least can be read in a way that doesn't cover them?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v335/JimRad-Mac/ns/Chechnya.jpg
The Lynx Alliance
17-11-2005, 23:20
I DO NOT LIKE THIS PROPOSAL. damn anti-shouting filter
quick and to the point.... i like it and agree
Homedogs
18-11-2005, 21:16
Wow, you guys are taking this way to seriously. It just a game, so no one have a heart attack. The bill wasn't that bad.
Idiot grease monkeys
18-11-2005, 21:23
Wow, you guys are taking this way to seriously. It just a game, so no one have a heart attack. The bill wasn't that bad.

Ha ha. My thoughts exactly. What a bunch of douche bags.
The Black New World
18-11-2005, 21:25
Wow, you guys are taking this way to seriously. It just a game, so no one have a heart attack. The bill wasn't that bad.
OOC: And the complaints and objections were part of the game…
Shazbotdom
18-11-2005, 21:29
OOC:
Here is the thing. Some nations call people who are fighting for equal rights "Terrorists" while they are really Freedom Fighters as was stated before. There is no clear cut definition of what a Terrorist is and you don't provide a definition so until that part is cleared up, I will not submit my approval for this.
The Lynx Alliance
18-11-2005, 23:58
OOC:
Here is the thing. Some nations call people who are fighting for equal rights "Terrorists" while they are really Freedom Fighters as was stated before. There is no clear cut definition of what a Terrorist is and you don't provide a definition so until that part is cleared up, I will not submit my approval for this.
OOC: here is a good real life example: the PLO. after being turffed out of their own country, and been practically ignored by other nations since, a group of palistinians formed the Palistinian Liberation Organisation in a bid to make nations pay attention, and finally get the resettlement that they had been promised. now whilst they were seen as terrorists to many people, they were seen more as freedom fighters to others. i admit, when i was younger and saw about their attacks on tv, not knowing what happened to start with, i thought they were bad, but when i grew up and found out all the info, then i could sympathise with them.
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 01:41
If you wish to argue that the PLO have a good reason for their cause, that may be one thing. I myself feel that Sharon is just as much a terrorist as any, however just because they may have a good reason doesn't make targetting innocent people justified.

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Haroutioun

Description: The fight on terrorism is not any one nation's fight but a global one. It requires a global response. It is important to set up international standards in security to help battle this increasingly dangerous situation. Here are some of the changes I propose.

1. To secure airports.
a. Commercial hubs
b. General aviation airports
2. To cooperate with other UN nation's security protocols.
3. Shared use of intelligence gathering on terrorists.
4. International consent on military action.
a. Given the consent of the international community those countries the UN member nations will be required to support that military action
b. Look objectively at all intelligence that suggests need for military action
c. Compare intelligence with other intelligence agency to determine accuracy before presenting the the UN member nations
5. UN member nations help fund the global anti-terrorism effort
6. All nations work to prevent torture and ensure that prisoners are treated well.
7. In the event of a terrorist incident taking place that nation has the right to take action without the UN member nations.
a. However, it is the UN's responsibility to assemble immediately and offer as much assistance as they can.

Also take a note of number 4, which says International consent on military action, in which the UN could determine whether these were terrorist actions. Furthermore, I was under the impression that the UN's job was to try to keep the peace, in which case it wouldn't matter whether they are considered terrorists or not, the point is that it is still a hostile action towards a UN nation.
SLI Sector
19-11-2005, 01:52
How about this? Set up a committe to decide who's a terrorist or not, in case there is a dispute between two organizations, each calling the other the terrorist! That way, no need for a defination. Let the gnomes/players find out for themselves.
Habardia
19-11-2005, 02:02
I still oppose this. Even with a committee for defining who's terrorist you will still run into the same problems.
Pallatium
19-11-2005, 02:04
If you wish to argue that the PLO have a good reason for their cause, that may be one thing. I myself feel that Sharon is just as much a terrorist as any, however just because they may have a good reason doesn't make targetting innocent people justified.


And I say that the vast majority of people who make statements like this live lives that have no real serious problems, and can not conceive of them ever being in a situation where they might find themselves doing it.

I live a pretty protected life as Queen, but having seen my country's past, and the situations that people can find themselves in, I say that sometimes you find yourself in a situation where you have no choice but to target innocent people.

Just saying.


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


Category: International Security
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Haroutioun

Description: The fight on terrorism is not any one nation's fight but a global one. It requires a global response. It is important to set up international standards in security to help battle this increasingly dangerous situation. Here are some of the changes I propose.


I don't believe that is true - why would domestic terrorism require international action?


1. To secure airports.
a. Commercial hubs
b. General aviation airports


How would you propose doing this, or is that up to us?


2. To cooperate with other UN nation's security protocols.


Well - that depends on waht the other Member Nations' proposals are. If they want to hold people for ever with out charge, I am not going to be co-operating with them, I am going to be doing everything I can to overturn them.


3. Shared use of intelligence gathering on terrorists.


Assuming the intelligence gathering falls under the various resolutions (Stop Privacy Intrusion etc), I have no real problem with this. Except that I would want to reserve the right not to provide information on people I don't believe are covered by this proposal.


4. International consent on military action.
a. Given the consent of the international community those countries the UN member nations will be required to support that military action


Who much of a consent? The UN contains thirty THOUSAND member nations - do they all have to agree? Further more do we all have to take part in the action? Cause Pallatium (as a rule) does not go to war unless it is in self-defence. And we are not attacking someone just because the UN says so.


b. Look objectively at all intelligence that suggests need for military action


Who looks?


c. Compare intelligence with other intelligence agency to determine accuracy before presenting the the UN member nations


Who is comparring? And do I still get to not share intelligence if I don't think that people are terrorists?


5. UN member nations help fund the global anti-terrorism effort


Erm - why should I do that??


6. All nations work to prevent torture and ensure that prisoners are treated well.


Already covered by previous resolutions - Prisoners of War and Habeus Corpus basically cover anyone who is taken prisoner by anyone. And End Barbaric Punishments pretty much covers torture and so forth.


7. In the event of a terrorist incident taking place that nation has the right to take action without the UN member nations.


What kind of action? And would this action have to be governed by all previous resolutions?


a. However, it is the UN's responsibility to assemble immediately and offer as much assistance as they can.


Why? What if I agree with the terrorist's actions? What if I think they are justified? Do I have to take action then?



Also take a note of number 4, which says International consent on military action, in which the UN could determine whether these were terrorist actions. Furthermore, I was under the impression that the UN's job was to try to keep the peace, in which case it wouldn't matter whether they are considered terrorists or not, the point is that it is still a hostile action towards a UN nation.

Yeah - but we might agree with the action. Although sometimes the UN speaks as one voice, that almost never happens. Generally, as a rule, the UN speaks with 30,000 voices. And not every single UN nation is at peace with every other UN nation.

So if Hyrule (who we despise with a passion) is attacked, why should I be forced to not only fund their defence, but actually send my people to die in their defence? To think I would do that, or even want to do that, is beyond belief.

So - to summerise - providing I have a choice in this - whether or not I go to war, whether or not I fund this action, whether or not I share intelligenceand so forth - then I don't really have any objections (apart from the fact I won't support it on principle cause I don't like anti-terrorism bills), but if all this is mandatory and I have no choice about going to war to defend people I find dispicable, then I really am not going to support it.
Intellect and the Arts
19-11-2005, 03:02
I have one English Major statement and one I-have-no-idea-what-to-categorize-it-as statement.

*ahem*

Even though it may be pointless to say this due to the fact that this proposal has already been submitted, *whips out and quickly dons stereotypic English Major garb* this document is so rife with grammatical errors that any attempt of mine to edit it would result in the consumption of an entire crate of red editing pencils! How you expect anyone to be able to adequately follow this is far beyond my comprehension. In this regard, I suggest vigorous use of a shredding machine and a full re-write. In other regard, however...

*quickly switches outfits to whatever stereotype befits what she's about to say* ...who is it, really, that defines a terrorist? If left to the victim, the act and actor are unquestionably of terrorist kin, but what of the actor? Does he or she not have a voice of their own and a mind just as free? How do they view their actions? Perhaps they see an act which is Just and Honorable. Perhaps they see an act required by Faith. Perhaps they, too, are a victim in that they knew not what they did beside the knowledge that they were led to believe such an act was needed. Perhaps they acted under duress and against their own will. Perhaps they did not even commit the act and are falsely accused, as in historic Salem*. Are they to be condemned for the sake of our beliefs when we may be just as easily condemned for the sake of theirs? Perhaps some neutral party may intercede, but then who shall choose them? Who will determine whether this party is doing the right thing? Certainly those in dispute with each other may come to consensus on a choice, but what then? How may justice truly be served when those overseeing the judges are the ones to be judged? Who are we to decide?



*reference to Salem Witch Trials of Salem, MA, during the pre-revolution days of the USA
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 09:01
I have one English Major statement and one I-have-no-idea-what-to-categorize-it-as statement.

*ahem*

Even though it may be pointless to say this due to the fact that this proposal has already been submitted, *whips out and quickly dons stereotypic English Major garb* this document is so rife with grammatical errors that any attempt of mine to edit it would result in the consumption of an entire crate of red editing pencils! How you expect anyone to be able to adequately follow this is far beyond my comprehension. In this regard, I suggest vigorous use of a shredding machine and a full re-write. In other regard, however...

*quickly switches outfits to whatever stereotype befits what she's about to say* ...who is it, really, that defines a terrorist? If left to the victim, the act and actor are unquestionably of terrorist kin, but what of the actor? Does he or she not have a voice of their own and a mind just as free? How do they view their actions? Perhaps they see an act which is Just and Honorable. Perhaps they see an act required by Faith. Perhaps they, too, are a victim in that they knew not what they did beside the knowledge that they were led to believe such an act was needed. Perhaps they acted under duress and against their own will. Perhaps they did not even commit the act and are falsely accused, as in historic Salem*. Are they to be condemned for the sake of our beliefs when we may be just as easily condemned for the sake of theirs? Perhaps some neutral party may intercede, but then who shall choose them? Who will determine whether this party is doing the right thing? Certainly those in dispute with each other may come to consensus on a choice, but what then? How may justice truly be served when those overseeing the judges are the ones to be judged? Who are we to decide?



*reference to Salem Witch Trials of Salem, MA, during the pre-revolution days of the USA

To be honest I wasn't all that concerned about my grammer, considering that this is just a game. And just because a person is attacked, that does not make the attacker neccesarily a terrorist.
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 09:07
And I say that the vast majority of people who make statements like this live lives that have no real serious problems, and can not conceive of them ever being in a situation where they might find themselves doing it.

I live a pretty protected life as Queen, but having seen my country's past, and the situations that people can find themselves in, I say that sometimes you find yourself in a situation where you have no choice but to target innocent people.

Just saying.



I don't believe that is true - why would domestic terrorism require international action?



How would you propose doing this, or is that up to us?



Well - that depends on waht the other Member Nations' proposals are. If they want to hold people for ever with out charge, I am not going to be co-operating with them, I am going to be doing everything I can to overturn them.



Assuming the intelligence gathering falls under the various resolutions (Stop Privacy Intrusion etc), I have no real problem with this. Except that I would want to reserve the right not to provide information on people I don't believe are covered by this proposal.



Who much of a consent? The UN contains thirty THOUSAND member nations - do they all have to agree? Further more do we all have to take part in the action? Cause Pallatium (as a rule) does not go to war unless it is in self-defence. And we are not attacking someone just because the UN says so.



Who looks?



Who is comparring? And do I still get to not share intelligence if I don't think that people are terrorists?



Erm - why should I do that??



Already covered by previous resolutions - Prisoners of War and Habeus Corpus basically cover anyone who is taken prisoner by anyone. And End Barbaric Punishments pretty much covers torture and so forth.



What kind of action? And would this action have to be governed by all previous resolutions?



Why? What if I agree with the terrorist's actions? What if I think they are justified? Do I have to take action then?




Yeah - but we might agree with the action. Although sometimes the UN speaks as one voice, that almost never happens. Generally, as a rule, the UN speaks with 30,000 voices. And not every single UN nation is at peace with every other UN nation.

So if Hyrule (who we despise with a passion) is attacked, why should I be forced to not only fund their defence, but actually send my people to die in their defence? To think I would do that, or even want to do that, is beyond belief.

So - to summerise - providing I have a choice in this - whether or not I go to war, whether or not I fund this action, whether or not I share intelligenceand so forth - then I don't really have any objections (apart from the fact I won't support it on principle cause I don't like anti-terrorism bills), but if all this is mandatory and I have no choice about going to war to defend people I find dispicable, then I really am not going to support it.

Again, there some reasons terrorists in the real world have given that I agree with, but I would never support the type of action of say, hijacking a civilian aircraft, and ramming into a civilian building with the obvious intention is killing innocent people. Same, as I would oppose the US targetting innocent people. You can support their reasons, but there is a fine line behind supporting their reasons and supporting their actions. Supporting their actions make you a terrorist sympathizer. For instance, I agree with many Arab's disapproval of Israel, and much of our foreign policy in the Middle East, but I would never even consider supporting how they deal with this issues.
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 09:11
I saw the argument that the UN tends to disagree on most issues. So why should you be forced to abide by the rulings of the majority? I will answer your question with a question. Why are you in the UN if you do not wish to abide by the UN rulings in the first place? Every ruling in this game forces everyone to abide by them. Even people who voted it down. How would this proposal differ any from any other in that sense?
Habardia
19-11-2005, 09:32
I saw the argument that the UN tends to disagree on most issues. So why should you be forced to abide by the rulings of the majority? I will answer your question with a question. Why are you in the UN if you do not wish to abide by the UN rulings in the first place? Every ruling in this game forces everyone to abide by them. Even people who voted it down. How would this proposal differ any from any other in that sense?
IC We like abiding by UN rulings, which is why we try and stop proposals we dont like from getting passed. This happens to be one of them.
OOC Oh and about your other point, about this being just a game, well it is. But Im getting kinda tired of hearing people use that as an excuse to be lazy. This is an RP game, and that means the whole experience. We like proposals to look nice and professional, adds to the experience.
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 10:08
IC We like abiding by UN rulings, which is why we try and stop proposals we dont like from getting passed. This happens to be one of them.
OOC Oh and about your other point, about this being just a game, well it is. But Im getting kinda tired of hearing people use that as an excuse to be lazy. This is an RP game, and that means the whole experience. We like proposals to look nice and professional, adds to the experience.

Ok fair enough. I understand that this is suppose to be realistic. But then if it is to be realistic, there has to be a better argument than, "I don't like this bill because I like some of the things these terrorists stand for." That wouldn't hold up in real life, therefore it shouldn't here. I reiterate, as I admit my wording in my past posts may have not been entirely clear, but its not the motive but the action taken, that defines "terrorism" from "freedom fighter".

Anyway, I am sick of talking about this. Quite frankly, I put this up to get input on how I could better the proposal and I think I got all the information I need. Thank you for your inputs.
Pallatium
19-11-2005, 16:02
Again, there some reasons terrorists in the real world have given that I agree with, but I would never support the type of action of say, hijacking a civilian aircraft, and ramming into a civilian building with the obvious intention is killing innocent people. Same, as I would oppose the US targetting innocent people. You can support their reasons, but there is a fine line behind supporting their reasons and supporting their actions. Supporting their actions make you a terrorist sympathizer. For instance, I agree with many Arab's disapproval of Israel, and much of our foreign policy in the Middle East, but I would never even consider supporting how they deal with this issues.

Just out of curiousity - do you intend to respond to any of my other points, or just the first one? Cause all the others were about your proposal and it's serious flaws, not just the "what is a terrorist" question.
Pallatium
19-11-2005, 16:05
I saw the argument that the UN tends to disagree on most issues. So why should you be forced to abide by the rulings of the majority? I will answer your question with a question. Why are you in the UN if you do not wish to abide by the UN rulings in the first place? Every ruling in this game forces everyone to abide by them. Even people who voted it down. How would this proposal differ any from any other in that sense?

I am all for rule of law by majority - and a big supporter of the UN.

But you are asking me to send my people off to WAR on the basis of rule of the majority, even if I think the majority is wrong.

Fighting for something you believe in is an admirable trait, and to be willing to give up your life for the cause is equally admirable. But if my people are sent to fight against someone I support just because the majority says so, then - well it's just wrong.

That is why I was questioning whether or not I should be forced to go to war under this proposal.
Pallatium
19-11-2005, 16:09
but its not the motive but the action taken, that defines "terrorism" from "freedom fighter".


Actually - its the perspective of the person who is saying the words that defines the words themselves, but that's another matter.


Ok fair enough. I understand that this is suppose to be realistic. But then if it is to be realistic, there has to be a better argument than, "I don't like this bill because I like some of the things these terrorists stand for." That wouldn't hold up in real life, therefore it shouldn't here.


And that's not the reason I don't like this bill. The reason I don't like it is that all it takes is (ish) 15,001 nations to say "this country is full of terrorists" and EVERY NATION in the UN would be required to go to war with them and so forth (if I understand correctly). Even if it is a nation we are allied with, we would be required to take military action against them. Which is just totally unacceptable.
Haroutioun
19-11-2005, 20:04
I am all for rule of law by majority - and a big supporter of the UN.

But you are asking me to send my people off to WAR on the basis of rule of the majority, even if I think the majority is wrong.

Fighting for something you believe in is an admirable trait, and to be willing to give up your life for the cause is equally admirable. But if my people are sent to fight against someone I support just because the majority says so, then - well it's just wrong.

That is why I was questioning whether or not I should be forced to go to war under this proposal.

That sounded pretty contradictory. "I am all for rule of law by majority - and a big supporter of the UN. But you are asking me to send my people off to WAR on the basis of rule of the majority even if I think the majority is wrong." So then you don't support majority vote. Perhaps there should be only one person making the decisions to go to war. If you refuse to abide by the rulings of the majority just because you think that they are wrong, there would be no way that the majority principle could ever work. As being apart of the UN, it is your responsibility to accept the possibility that you may be forced to do something you do not always agree with.
Pallatium
19-11-2005, 20:59
That sounded pretty contradictory. "I am all for rule of law by majority - and a big supporter of the UN. But you are asking me to send my people off to WAR on the basis of rule of the majority even if I think the majority is wrong." So then you don't support majority vote. Perhaps there should be only one person making the decisions to go to war. If you refuse to abide by the rulings of the majority just because you think that they are wrong, there would be no way that the majority principle could ever work. As being apart of the UN, it is your responsibility to accept the possibility that you may be forced to do something you do not always agree with.

And if the majority were to pass a law that says you have to beat the shit out of your kids every night, and despite the fact you voted against it, it still passed, would you willingly beat the shit out of your kids every night?
Habardia
19-11-2005, 23:41
Majority vote is great, in my opinion, but only for so many issues. Granting civil rights, ok. Protection of a group, fine. But I draw the line when it becomes about the majority telling my nation how to deal with those who are a danger to society. That is why I vote against every DP, terrorist, or criminal proposal I see.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 00:30
And if the majority were to pass a law that says you have to beat the shit out of your kids every night, and despite the fact you voted against it, it still passed, would you willingly beat the shit out of your kids every night?

I have heard a lot of complaints about my proposal. And though most of them are atleast controversially reasonable issues, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard anybody say. First off, if the form of government you are in are making majority votes over mandatory beat of your kids, you should be thinking very seriously whether you want to be a part of that government. And second of all, I don't think that my proposal is in anyway as extreme as a law forcing you to beat your kids. That is just a huge exaggeration.
Pallatium
20-11-2005, 00:37
I have heard a lot of complaints about my proposal. And though most of them are atleast controversially reasonable issues, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard anybody say.


I have no judge of whether that's true or not.


First off, if the form of government you are in are making majority votes over mandatory beat of your kids, you should be thinking very seriously whether you want to be a part of that government. And second of all, I don't think that my proposal is in anyway as extreme as a law forcing you to beat your kids.


No. Your proposal requires this :-


a. Given the consent of the international community those countries the UN member nations will be required to support that military action


So while you are not asking me to beat the shit out of my kids, you are asking me to go to war with another country.

You do know what war entails? Lots of people dying in horrible ways. Misery, lots of people losing their parents/kids etc.

And yet you are happy to enforce that on me by majority rule, just because you say so.

That is just a huge exaggeration.

No it wasn't. Your proposal is way, way, way more violent.
Habardia
20-11-2005, 00:38
I have heard a lot of complaints about my proposal. And though most of them are atleast controversially reasonable issues, that is the most idiotic thing I have ever heard anybody say. First off, if the form of government you are in are making majority votes over mandatory beat of your kids, you should be thinking very seriously whether you want to be a part of that government. And second of all, I don't think that my proposal is in anyway as extreme as a law forcing you to beat your kids. That is just a huge exaggeration.
Idiotic....that borders on flaming I'd say. But besides that, I don't see the comparison being that far-fetched, in that both regulations ask the country to conduct a behaviour which it believes is not justified. Just as beating your kids is considered wrong in most nations, I would argue so is forcing people to go to war or persecute a group against their will.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 01:48
I have no judge of whether that's true or not.



No. Your proposal requires this :-



So while you are not asking me to beat the shit out of my kids, you are asking me to go to war with another country.

You do know what war entails? Lots of people dying in horrible ways. Misery, lots of people losing their parents/kids etc.

And yet you are happy to enforce that on me by majority rule, just because you say so.



No it wasn't. Your proposal is way, way, way more violent.

Ha ha ha. "You do know what war entails? Lots of people dying in horrible ways. Misery, lots of peopole losing their parents/kids etc." What do you think happens when there is a terrorist attack. Perhaps you think if we mind our own business, they will just stop bothering us. I am a liberal and even I am not as naive to believe that. Apparently you do. And yes, it is idiotic to compare terrorist retaliation to beating your kids.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 01:50
Oh yeah, and if you where to be forced to follow a proposal by MAJORITY vote, it wouldn't be because ONLY I said so. Enough said.
SLI Sector
20-11-2005, 02:12
Those UN Nations that reallay wish to sponser terrorism will find loopholes around it.

So there is really no point to a resolution on terrorism.
Pallatium
20-11-2005, 02:19
Ha ha ha. "You do know what war entails? Lots of people dying in horrible ways. Misery, lots of peopole losing their parents/kids etc." What do you think happens when there is a terrorist attack. Perhaps you think if we mind our own business, they will just stop bothering us. I am a liberal and even I am not as naive to believe that. Apparently you do. And yes, it is idiotic to compare terrorist retaliation to beating your kids.

Ok - I know that terrorist attacks are bad things. (ooc - I have been in the middle of one, and things far worse. have you?)

(And - indirectly - you are saying that wars are as bad as terrorist attacks, yet you justify one and not the other. So why do you frown on people justifying terrorism?)

And I get that terrorists will attack people.

But your proposal doesn't mention terrorist attacks - it mentions preventing them. And it mentions military action to prevent them.

In the past I was allied with a nation named TilEnca. We went back years and years and years. TilEnca is pretty much the only nation I would have gone to war to defend if they were attacked.

Now suppose someone comes up with evidence that TilEnca is a hotbed of terrorism. They haven't blown anyone up, but the evidence suggests they might be about to. And 15,001 (the majority) of UN Nations agree.

This proposal would REQUIRE me to go to war with my longest and strongest ally. A nation that has saved my nation over and over again. A nation to which I owe my existence.


Your proposal doesn't mention terrorist attacks - it just says we have to combat terrorism.

I know what a terrorist attack is, and I also know what war is. And I am not willing to go in to either just because the majority of people in the UN think I should.
Intellect and the Arts
20-11-2005, 03:18
To be honest I wasn't all that concerned about my grammer, considering that this is just a game.

Ah, but you are concerned about whether or not your proposal is accepted and becomes a resolution, and those who are capable of granting this are concerned about being able to understand what they are reading. Such comprehension requires that the document being read has been written using proper grammer. Therefore, since that about which you have expressed concern requires a concern for grammar, it is a concern you really ought to adopt. Unless you want your proposal to die. In which case, g0 ahedd nd spelh ow you wannt .

And just because a person is attacked, that does not make the attacker neccesarily a terrorist.

Ok. By that logic, just because each individual person who perished in the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 was attacked, that does not make the people who hijacked the airplanes used in the attack necessarily terrorists. I'm sure the families of those lost would agree with you, seeing as how you use such logic.
Intellect and the Arts
20-11-2005, 03:21
And to those of you who may be wondering: Yes, I just played the "devil's advocate" card.

Which reminds me... I should go to the card forum and request someone make one of those...



And kudo points to everyone who realized that he was basically repeating the point I was trying to make when he said "just because a person is attacked, that does not make the attacker necessarily a terrorist".
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 09:29
Ok - I know that terrorist attacks are bad things. (ooc - I have been in the middle of one, and things far worse. have you?)

(And - indirectly - you are saying that wars are as bad as terrorist attacks, yet you justify one and not the other. So why do you frown on people justifying terrorism?)

And I get that terrorists will attack people.

But your proposal doesn't mention terrorist attacks - it mentions preventing them. And it mentions military action to prevent them.

In the past I was allied with a nation named TilEnca. We went back years and years and years. TilEnca is pretty much the only nation I would have gone to war to defend if they were attacked.

Now suppose someone comes up with evidence that TilEnca is a hotbed of terrorism. They haven't blown anyone up, but the evidence suggests they might be about to. And 15,001 (the majority) of UN Nations agree.

This proposal would REQUIRE me to go to war with my longest and strongest ally. A nation that has saved my nation over and over again. A nation to which I owe my existence.


Your proposal doesn't mention terrorist attacks - it just says we have to combat terrorism.

I know what a terrorist attack is, and I also know what war is. And I am not willing to go in to either just because the majority of people in the UN think I should.

Actually my proposal does mention terrorist attacks and not just preventing them. In fact, of all the things that I have heard people dislike about the bill, none of them had anything to do with prevention, but the response to it. Also, though you probably wouldn't believe me, I have been a witness to a terrorist attack on more than one account. I was born in Beirut Lebanon in 1984, and the convent that I was at was bombed several times. When I returned at the age of 16, me and my family had to leave because of terrorist attacking residential areas. I am Armenian (hence Haroutioun) born in Lebanon, and came to the States at about 5 months old. My adoptive parents had to be rerouted to Greece because as they were coming, the airport was bombed several times over by Hizbollah. And it is because of terrorism that I never knew my biological parents. So yes, I have been in the middle of terrorist attacks.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 09:34
Ah, but you are concerned about whether or not your proposal is accepted and becomes a resolution, and those who are capable of granting this are concerned about being able to understand what they are reading. Such comprehension requires that the document being read has been written using proper grammer. Therefore, since that about which you have expressed concern requires a concern for grammar, it is a concern you really ought to adopt. Unless you want your proposal to die. In which case, g0 ahedd nd spelh ow you wannt .



Ok. By that logic, just because each individual person who perished in the collapse of the WTC on 9/11 was attacked, that does not make the people who hijacked the airplanes used in the attack necessarily terrorists. I'm sure the families of those lost would agree with you, seeing as how you use such logic.

Touche on the first point but what the hell are you talking about on the second? "And just because a person is attacked, that does not make the attacker neccesarily a terrorist." That statement never excluded the posibility that they could be terrorists. As I said before and apparently have to repeat, it is not what reasons they have but how they handle them that defines a person(s) as terrorist.
Pallatium
20-11-2005, 17:54
Actually my proposal does mention terrorist attacks and not just preventing them. In fact, of all the things that I have heard people dislike about the bill, none of them had anything to do with prevention, but the response to it. Also, though you probably wouldn't believe me, I have been a witness to a terrorist attack on more than one account. I was born in Beirut Lebanon in 1984, and the convent that I was at was bombed several times. When I returned at the age of 16, me and my family had to leave because of terrorist attacking residential areas. I am Armenian (hence Haroutioun) born in Lebanon, and came to the States at about 5 months old. My adoptive parents had to be rerouted to Greece because as they were coming, the airport was bombed several times over by Hizbollah. And it is because of terrorism that I never knew my biological parents. So yes, I have been in the middle of terrorist attacks.

(ooc Why would I not believe you? And my apologies for suggesting otherwise if that was something you took offence at)


See - my problem with the resolution is that it does mention attack, but it does not specifically state that the war on another nation has to wait for an attack to take place.

Consequently nations could use your proposal to justify going to war with a nation on a "pre-emptive" basis. Which is entirely unacceptable.

Further more there is this :-


Article 5 § War in the World of NationStates is defined as a consensual act between two or more NationStates. Any and all NationStates may, at their discretion, respond to declarations of war on NationStates who wish to avoid war. The recommended method is a barrage of I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons.


This would imply the UN can not go to war with a nation unless the nation consents to it as well. Whether or not that has any impact on the legality of your proposal I don't know, but I just thought I would mention it.


Anyway - I kind of more or less like the idea of your proposal. But I don't like the UN forcing nations to go to war against their will. It's wrong and immoral, and even if this proposal didn't mention terrorism (for example a proposal that required Member States to go to war because someone was killing dolphins) I would still think it's wrong an immoral.

If you can find a way to deal with preventing terrorism that doesn't require going to war, then I will be happy to look at it. But it's the war part I have the biggest issue with.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 20:31
Well, thank you for your input. I will definetly be doing some revisions before I resubmit it, and I will probably stick to prevention such as intelligence sharing and such.
Haroutioun
20-11-2005, 20:31
I will definetly be doing some revisions before I resubmit it, and I will probably stick to prevention such as intelligence sharing and such since it seems apparent that people aren't a fan of this proposal. But I appreciate your input.