NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings fellow UN Delegates,

I request that you please approve my UN Proposal "War on Terror".


War on Terror

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Allied Iraq

Description: Defining "Terrorist" as: any human being that commits acts of terrorism.
Defining "Terrorism" as: the unconventional use of violence for political gain with disregard for human life.
Defining the following as tactics of terrorism:
-Hijacking
-Assassination
-Car bombing
-Suicide bombing
-Kidnapping
-Bioterrorism
-Nuclear terrorism
-Cyber-terrorism

RECOGNIZING that terrorism is a serious problem that affects every nation in the world.

ACKNOWLEDGING that several smaller nations can not effectively fight terrorists on their own soil. These nation's governments are weakened by terrorist forces and a large population is held in fear of their well-being.

REGRETTING that many innocent civilians die each year due to terrorist attacks.

CONVINCED that these nations need UN help in combating terrorism.

DECLARES that:
-The UN fight terrorism by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work and diplomacy.

-The UN use the following anti-terrorism strategy:
---Denial of safe havens in which terrorists can train and equip members.
---Restriction of funding of terrorist organizations.
---Degradation of terrorist networks by capturing or killing intermediate leaders.
---Detention of suspected and known terrorists. See the section below for further details
---Getting information, through various techniques, such as interrogation, from captured terrorists of other members of their organization, training sites, methods, and funding.
---Expanding and improving efficiency of intelligence capabilities and foreign and domestic policing.

ALLOWS any group of member nations to form a "coalition of the willing" to invade (With UN approval) any country lead by a terrorist government and allow citizens to elect a new government.

REQUIRES that all UN member nations contribute to the "War on Terror" in some way, no matter how significant.

FINALLY DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of civilians world-wide are worth protecting from terrorists.



Note: Voting Ends: Sat Dec 24 2005

wow, this one is interesting. a not bad, well thought out attempt at this one. i am still against, however, on the basis that one country's terrorists can be seen as freedom fighters in another.

wow, this one is interesting. a not bad, well thought out attempt at this one. i am still against, however, on the basis that one country's terrorists can be seen as freedom fighters in another.

yea I knew that would the problem with this but I was hopeing the defintions I made in the beginning would set it straight...

yea I knew that would the problem with this but I was hopeing the defintions I made in the beginning would set it straight...
no offence mate, this one has been tried over and over again. you are probably the first one i have seen to put those definitions in, although others might have before i joined or during my absence

wow, this one is interesting. a not bad, well thought out attempt at this one. i am still against, however, on the basis that one country's terrorists can be seen as freedom fighters in another.

Oh, for the love of the Great Cluich...not this argument again... :rolleyes:

Oh, for the love of the Great Cluich...not this argument again... :rolleyes:
thats what i thought at first, just this is probably the best attempt i have seen in a while. doesnt change my position though

A terrorist is some one who uses terror against civilians
The methods you listed aren't directly linked to terrorism as it could be a non terrorist suicide bomber attacking solders that are just about to kill his mother
or terrorists using stealth bombers.

A terrorist is some one who uses terror against civilians
The methods you listed aren't directly linked to terrorism as it could be a non terrorist suicide bomber attacking solders that are just about to kill his mother
or terrorists using stealth bombers.
or governments assasinating an individual.....

hang on, did i just say that. please ignore that

move along peoples, there is nothing to see hereOH MY GAWD A DEAD BODY!

*hides while everyone is occupied*

One of the worst definitions of terrorism I ever saw (only beaten occasionally by certain leaders of the RL western world). And behold, an illegal UN army. I hope my strong opposition will not disappoint you.

One of the worst definitions of terrorism I ever saw (only beaten occasionally by certain leaders of the RL western world). And behold, an illegal UN army. I hope my strong opposition will not disappoint you.
illegal UN army? where? the way i see it, it allows nations to make coalition to fight it... unless you were refering to the UN approval part

DECLARES that:
-The UN fight terrorism by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work and diplomacy.

-The UN use the following anti-terrorism strategy:
---Denial of safe havens in which terrorists can train and equip members.
---Restriction of funding of terrorist organizations.
---Degradation of terrorist networks by capturing or killing intermediate leaders.
---Detention of suspected and known terrorists. See the section below for further details
---Getting information, through various techniques, such as interrogation, from captured terrorists of other members of their organization, training sites, methods, and funding.
---Expanding and improving efficiency of intelligence capabilities and foreign and domestic policing.
[Emphasis added]
All these points mandate the UN itself, rather than member nations. So it means the UN itself needs to have special forces, intelligence, police, and so on.

[Emphasis added]
All these points mandate the UN itself, rather than member nations. So it means the UN itself needs to have special forces, intelligence, police, and so on.
good point

Wow, I can still blow up an airplane and not be a terrorist as long as I'm not on it

War on Terror

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


Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Allied Iraq

As I said before, I would always be suspect of a proposal that has a strength of strong. If it needs to be that strong, one wonders what it does to become that strong - and too often, it's something illegal.

Description: Defining "Terrorist" as: any human being that commits acts of terrorism.

Well, that rules out Osama Bin Laden. He hasn't committed any acts, he just plans and funds them, leads a terrorist organization, trains new troops, and boils the blood of the American Government.

*Wonders how many American Presidents don't match those criteria....well - not including the last one

Defining "Terrorism" as: the unconventional use of violence for political gain with disregard for human life.

War in Iraq: Terrorism. Korean War: terrorism. World War II: Terrorism. Vietnam: Terrorism.

Shall I go on?

BTW: Define Conventional

Defining the following as tactics of terrorism:
-Hijacking
-Assassination
-Car bombing
-Suicide bombing
-Kidnapping
-Bioterrorism
-Nuclear terrorism
-Cyber-terrorism

Ok, define "Cyber-terrorism" - without using terrorism. Or nuclear and bioterrorism. It's always a bad sign when you make a definition based upon itself. Oh wait, didn't you just define terrorism above?

RECOGNIZING that terrorism is a serious problem that affects every nation in the world.

No, we aren't affected by terrorism. We're plagued by Freedom Fighters, rebels, insurgents, armed political operatives, both domestic and foreign, but not terrorists

ACKNOWLEDGING that several smaller nations can not effectively fight terrorists on their own soil. These nation's governments are weakened by terrorist forces and a large population is held in fear of their well-being.

Because, of course, they can't find any allies to help them put down the terrorists

REGRETTING that many innocent civilians die each year due to terrorist attacks.

I would change that to NOTING or REMINDING. Regretting suggests that this resolution is creating the thing to regret - even though the context of the sentence is not that case, it is the first word that people look at.

CONVINCED that these nations need UN help in combating terrorism.

Because the UN doesn't have to worry about thousands of nations trying to declare war on it on a daily basis when it doesn't even have its own army.

DECLARES that:
-The UN fight terrorism by the use of special forces, intelligence, police work and diplomacy.

Illegal: Metagaming. The UN does not and cannot have any of those forces.

-The UN use the following anti-terrorism strategy:

Because there exists a strategy works 100% of the time no matter what the scenario is.

---Denial of safe havens in which terrorists can train and equip members.

Because the Non-UN nations won't allow those people in either - so as long as they aren't in our nations - which consist of 1/4 of the world's nations - we're fine!

---Restriction of funding of terrorist organizations.

Ditto

---Degradation of terrorist networks by capturing or killing intermediate leaders.

Degradation? Sure, it gets the point across, but wow it just doesn't look in place. I think you might want to look for a different word. Personally, I would use "Dismantling"

---Detention of suspected and known terrorists. See the section below for further details

Where? We have no prisons

---Getting information, through various techniques, such as interrogation, from captured terrorists of other members of their organization, training sites, methods, and funding.

How are "training sites, methods, and funding" techniques of gathering intel? I think the word you're looking for is "analysing"

---Expanding and improving efficiency of intelligence capabilities and foreign and domestic policing.

Ok, if this is the UN you're referring to, the concept of "foreign and domestic policing" is a bit messed. If you're not talking about the UN, that sentence grammatically makes no sense

ALLOWS any group of member nations to form a "coalition of the willing" to invade (With UN approval) any country lead by a terrorist government and allow citizens to elect a new government.

Because the UN can grant approval? We can't even get the majority to vote on a resolution, how the heck are we going to grant approval?

REQUIRES that all UN member nations contribute to the "War on Terror" in some way, no matter how significant.

Sure, I will start by trying to find out what terrorist organizations want to destabilize my government (mostly done, though continually working on it), finding out why they want to destroy my government, and see what problems may have caused this frustration from them. If I feel it can be remedied, I will take action. If I feel it can't, I'll look to the Armed Republic of Angel Fire to work on suppressing the group.

FINALLY DECLARES that the rights and freedoms of civilians world-wide are worth protecting from terrorists.[/QUOTE]

Because the UN can grant approval? We can't even get the majority to vote on a resolution, how the heck are we going to grant approval?
sif they are going to wait fot the approval in the first place. they are going to go ahead no matter what.

Greetings fellow UN Delegates,

I request that you please approve my UN Proposal "War on Terror".

Note: Voting Ends: Sat Dec 24 2005

It's not a bad proposal, has a few issues with it which would need to be looked at.

This remains me Cluichstan, we need to get our proposal going again.

It's not a bad proposal, has a few issues with it which would need to be looked at.

This remains me Cluichstan, we need to get our proposal going again.


OOC: Indeed, but I've been very bogged down with work, preparing to take time off over the holidays. I'll fire up the proposal engine again right after Christmas, though, since after Friday, I'm off until 2006. :D

Splendid!
__________________
Ambassador Hirosami Kildarno
The Supremely Democratic States of Hirota (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/13563/page=display_nation/nation=hirota) "A posse ad esse"
http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/NSO-member.PNG (http://s11.invisionfree.com/NatSovOrg/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/uma-member.PNGhttp://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/unog-member.PNG (http://s6.invisionfree.com/UN_Old_Guard/index.php?act=idx)http://home.ripway.com/2005-12/534911/WIKI-member.PNG (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Hirota)http://img491.imageshack.us/img491/9381/englandsig4lc.jpg (http://s3.invisionfree.com/England/index.php?act=idx)
Economy Tracker (http://nstracker.retrogade.com/index.php?nation=Hirota)
Economic Left/Right: -5.00 | Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.33
Lazy Linking for Idiots (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9918435&postcount=1)

One persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter.

For a real life exampleAl-Qaeda are classed by the majority terrorists, but call themselves freedom fighters along with those that believe there cause. I prefer to think of them as a group trying to distance itself from western views destroying it's culture usng extremely violent weapons.

In NS what if I chucked a large piece of potassium or francium into a lake or river at one of your major towns? Would I be a terrorist for killing countless people? Or would I be a freedom fighter expressing my utter disgust at a violent oppressing nation which has raped my homeland and left us to sink in the bureacracy to follow?

I'm going to be a rather venemous opposer of this proposal.