NationStates Jolt Archive

We missed this one.

Civilian Casualty Records
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Unstable Former Nuns

Description:

The United Nations,

CONCERNED by the deaths of civilians in times of war,

PERSUADED that a proportion of these are avoidable,

CONFIDENT that the military can assist in preventing many of these unnecessary deaths,

DESIRING, therefore, to contribute a positive response to this problem;

The UN hereby calls on all member nations to maintain records of civilian casualties in times of war. It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.

Seems harmless enough. Unless anyone can point out any major objection, other than the fact that what it accomplishes is debatable, I'll happily vote for. Better yet, it's not a repeal.

Sounds commendable but pretty irrelevant. There are thousands of other things that the UN could call to monitor.

I would consider it a good clause in a more general resolution. As it stands, I will abstain.

Sounds commendable but pretty irrelevant. There are thousands of other things that the UN could call to monitor.

I would consider it a good clause in a more general resolution. As it stands, I will abstain.

Whenever the UN tries to do something big, it fucks up. This has one aim, which it accomplishes. No gaping loopholes, no grievous infringement of sovereignty, no gross cultural insensitivity. Just asks us to put a few notches on the bed post. That it is 'small' is not, to me, an objection.

Whenever the UN tries to do something big, it fucks up. This has one aim, which it accomplishes. No gaping loopholes, no grievous infringement of sovereignty, no gross cultural insensitivity. Just asks us to put a few notches on the bed post. That it is 'small' is not, to me, an objection.

Agreed on all counts. The people of Cluichstan have no problems with this proposal and plan to vote in favor of it when it reaches the floor.

OOC: Gruenberg gets extra sensitive when people pick on small things. :p

Virtually everything I would say in support of this proposal has already been said by Gruenberg.

The UN is, broadly speaking, an institution for improvement, however difficult that may be given the diversity of membership. Anything that can be achieved without appealing to some lowest-common-denominator must be a good thing, however small.

On the pragmatic, technical side, the proposal only just reached quorum after a fairly big telegram campaign, despite being pretty inoffensive. If it passes the vote, it will be something which can be built on, and then repealed later and replaced, if there's support for a stronger Bill.

It seems harmless enough...

On the pragmatic, technical side, the proposal only just reached quorum after a fairly big telegram campaign, despite being pretty inoffensive. If it passes the vote, it will be something which can be built on, and then repealed later and replaced, if there's support for a stronger Bill.

You are full of surprises. An author suggesting a repeal & replace during the campaign? Bad idea, if you ask me. ;)

'Mild' is about right. You have our support.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

The Ascetic Order will also support this resolution. The cataloguing of the dead is a fine way to organize a decidedly messy affair.

Poll added for people who like clicking things.

Poll added for people who like clicking things.

Clicked.

This is, in general, a good principle, and since it's only "calls upon", it wouldn't be a problem in situations where it's not very clear what casualties can be attributed to military action (for instance, from lasting radioactivity after the use of nuclear or radiological weaponry).

I'm in favour, unless someone persuades me otherwise.

While we aren't convinced that this proposal will actually be of significant value, we recognize the possibility that it may have some benefit. Since we see no drawbacks to it, Ausserland will be voting in its favor.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Seems pretty harmless to me. Our region will support it once it reaches the general assembly.

Reasonable and well written. No it's not a world changer, but not every resolution has to or should be. Wyldtree will vote in favor when the time comes.

is it just me or did this proposal come from absolutely nowhere?

getting back to the issue at hand I would like to ask how any nation is going to check the names of civilian dead after a nuclear attack.

I even wonder what the point of this this and even if it is practical. will this change the world for the better? I just don't see how it does.

The Empire will reserve judgement on this issue.

On one hand, it seems to do nothing.

On the other hand, it doesn't seem to do anything at all.

We'll abstain.

is it just me or did this proposal come from absolutely nowhere?

getting back to the issue at hand I would like to ask how any nation is going to check the names of civilian dead after a nuclear attack.
Well really this didn't say anything about keeping records of individuals specifically. I took it as more of a record of numbers to discourage excessive civilian casualties. The number of dead from a nuclear attack could be approximately figured by the population, etc. But the ship has pretty well sailed as far as preventing needless civilian deaths at that point anyways...

Lets take a look at this wee beastie....looks harmless enough...<pokes with long pointed stick>...no reaction,thats good!...hmmm<continues reading>...ah accomplishes jack shit....well that passes the harmless test. Well I got good news and not so bad news. The good news is that we find it harmless. The not so bad news is we will neither support or oppose it. However we are open for graft to change our minds.:p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

"In God we Trust...all others must pay cash!":D

Just to play a bit of a Devil's advocate, here is something to consider about this proposal:

Cataloguing civilian deaths, although admirable in the abstract, is hardly practical in real life. With the rise of Low intensity conflict, such as guerilla and urban warfare, not to mention terrorrism, it is increasingly difficult to categorize some people as "civilian" or "combatant." If a country is not inclined initially to minimize civilian casualties (regardless of this resolution), then all this resolution will do is allow them to confuse the numbers, and then try and claim a higher moral ground than they actually occupy, since they are "complying" with the resolution.

Additionally, by calling for this action, for which there is probably no realistic auditing mechanism, the UN would basically be putting out a resolution that should be expected to get ignored. As a rule, I think the UN should minimize the things it puts out that will get ignored, to keep countries from getting in the habit of ignoring the UN.

I have not really touched on the potential impact of this resolution on the fighting effectiveness of individual armed forces, but it is not unforseeable that there would be some undesirable effects in this area as well.


Overall, I would be inclined to vote against this resolution, although I would certainly enjoy a good debate on it, and have not completely made up my mind on it.

As others have stated our Empire has serious questions about the effect this resolution could have. Couldn’t such a resolution be misused to overstate the amount of causalities to tarnish the repudiation of a attacking nation? Would a outside agency be used to verify such results? How is it possible to tell the difference between a non uniformed combatant and a civilian in the heat of battle? This resolution seem do add nothing to the table, but can be seriously misused. His holy Emperor is disinclined to vote for such a act unless it is seriously retooled to answer such questions.

In view of what is happening in Iraq and U.S. refusal to accurately document or publish civilian casualties, this is an important resolution. I suspect most protagonists on the battlefield will choose to ignore the resolution, however.

Is this a final draft? I think it needs to be better worded.

Adrianstan

I suspect most protagonists on the battlefield will choose to ignore the resolution, however.Well, they don't really have a choice. Worst case, the Gnomes will publish.

Is this a final draft? I think it needs to be better worded.As it's in the queue for voting, it had better be the final draft...

The only thing that concerns me is that, in times of war, the manpower required to keep such records could be better used to, for example, fight...

I know how to make this resolution work. Amend the resolution as follows:
It shall be incumbent on any attacking nation to send packets with signed decelerations of war and self addressed stamped envelopes with reply cards. The reply cards asks if the member of the defending nation is a member of any key categories, the military, civilian, counter insurgent, government employ, pet owner, and invites comment on the war. One reply card is to be mailed before the war commences and the second must be mailed no less then thirty days after the cease of hostilities. All Postal workers are hereby granted full UN diplomatic immunity and are never an allowable military target.
On second thought maybe it would be simpler to fake the results.

The only thing that concerns me is that, in times of war, the manpower required to keep such records could be better used to, for example, fight...


You could always outsource the task to the gnomes, I suppose.

sounds like a good idea

how far reaching are you saying the causes can be, they set fire to a building in which a fireman died trying to save others? is that their fault? would he count as a civilian causualty caused by the enemy? ( that is but one example)

We regret to inform this assembly that we will be opposing this measure when it comes to vote. What the author fails to grasp is that sometimes civilian deaths are necessary. S/he opines that "a proportion of these [deaths] are avoidable" and these are "unnecessary deaths." We suppose the "proportion" of civilian deaths that are avoidable would be 100%, because nations could simply elect not to attack. Does that mean we should hold our fire and let the enemy go just because we fear civilians might be killed?

We also take umbrage at the assumption that civilian deaths are always unnecessary. On the contrary, civilian deaths are necessary, especially in modern-day warfare, where soldiers have a difficult time differentiating between unarmed civilians, armed civilians, armed combatants, unarmed combatants, whether civilians are terrorists or not, whether they are purposely serving as human shields for their terrorist friends, etc. One example: U.S. troops were vilified for being depicted on camera killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian in a mosque, but what most fail to realize is that that death was necessary. The troops had no idea whether the man was an insurgent, and whether he was simply faking death so that U.S. troops would approach him with their guard down and be either ambushed or blown up.

This proposal's mild effect and seeming "harmlessness" sways us not. We refuse to go along with a proposal that would commit the United Nations to a wholly simple-minded approach to war, with implications that civilians are always innocent, and their deaths always unnecessary.

Simply put, calculating civilian deaths is not important during wartime, and nations should not waste their time doing so (whether only "called upon" to do so or not) just to satisfy the whims of "peace" activists, "human rights" groups or UN fluffies.

*snip*
Simply put, calculating civilian deaths is not important during wartime, and nations should not waste their time doing so (whether only "called upon" to do so or not) just to satisfy the whims of "peace" activists, "human rights" groups or UN fluffies.

Upon further consideration, the people of Cluichstan completely agree with the representative of OMGTKK and will be voting against this proposal. We, too, are weary of all the fluff.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

This is our view.

CONCERNED by the deaths of civilians in times of war,

We agree, in as much as we are concerned about the following aspects:
i. the deaths of civilian suicide bombers, and their likely effect on our forces;
ii. the lack of them.

PERSUADED that a proportion of these are avoidable,

We again agree (albeit a very small 'proportion'). They are avoidable, though: some of them we just kill for fun.

CONFIDENT that the military can assist in preventing many of these unnecessary deaths,

Agreed. They 'can'. In our case, they 'won't'.

DESIRING, therefore, to contribute a positive response to this problem;

Meh.

The UN hereby calls on all member nations to maintain records of civilian casualties in times of war. It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.

We'll maintain records: scratches on the handles of sniper rifles should suffice in most cases. And thanks for the encouragement, but we won't be needing to do that.

So, yes, it's slight fluff, and might have some problems, but it's not bad enough for us to oppose it. We maintain our position FOR, although we do appreciate the concerns raised by Ambassador Riley, and fully understand states who choose to oppose.

Well, they don't really have a choice. Worst case, the Gnomes will publish.

Doesn't the "calls on" make this pretty much optional? The UN's only encouraging us to keep records.

Civilian Casualty Records
Category: Human Rights
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Unstable Former Nuns

Description:

The United Nations,

CONCERNED by the deaths of civilians in times of war,

PERSUADED that a proportion of these are avoidable,

Agreed.

CONFIDENT that the military can assist in preventing many of these unnecessary deaths,

It is certainly true that the military has the capacity to do so, but in order to best fulfill this assertion, we should continue to fight against illegal and barbarous weaponary, such as chemical weapons and nuclear ones, by banning or restricting their use and export of components, as well as cruel conventional weapons. Furthermore, we should lobby all organisations to sign up to an international code of conduct for military operations, with regards to civillians and other combattants, should this not already be in existence.

DESIRING, therefore, to contribute a positive response to this problem;

The UN hereby calls on all member nations to maintain records of civilian casualties in times of war. It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.

I would just like to speak out against those who view this as fluffy or wasteful. Civillians should never be victims of war and are entitled to a maximum of possible protection. As a part of this, records of the number of civillian deaths should be kept, so as to ensure that any conduct unbecoming of the armies involved in the war or conflict in question, should be given a basis upon which to reform the nature of their operations. Furthermore, this will enable those who have lost relatives or loved ones in war to be aware of the fate of those for whom they may seek or mourn. As a final note, we should bear in mind that these records could be useful for humanitarian agencies, by giving a better idea of the scale and types of problems affecting civillians affected by conflict.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

It is certainly true that the military has the capacity to do so, but in order to best fulfill this assertion, we should continue to fight against illegal and barbarous weaponary, such as chemical weapons and nuclear ones, by banning or restricting their use and export of components, as well as cruel conventional weapons. Furthermore, we should lobby all organisations to sign up to an international code of conduct for military operations, with regards to civillians and other combattants, should this not already be in existence.

Your statements are the only illegal thing here. Chemical weaponry is legal. Nuclear weaponry doubly so. Has it ever occurred to you that 'cruel' and 'barbarous' things are quite good? Non-UN members outnumber us 3 to 1. There are many hostile to the UN. The most powerful militaries in the world are not under UN control. Disarm and all your precious human rights proposals will be washed away in a tide of blood. There's bad news, too: constructive UN work will be destroyed. Disarmament is not an option.

I would just like to speak out against those who view this as fluffy or wasteful. Civillians should never be victims of war and are entitled to a maximum of possible protection. As a part of this, records of the number of civillian deaths should be kept, so as to ensure that any conduct unbecoming of the armies involved in the war or conflict in question, should be given a basis upon which to reform the nature of their operations. Furthermore, this will enable those who have lost relatives or loved ones in war to be aware of the fate of those for whom they may seek or mourn. As a final note, we should bear in mind that these records could be useful for humanitarian agencies, by giving a better idea of the scale and types of problems affecting civillians affected by conflict.

Civilians who spy on us? Who collaborate with the enemy? Who strap dynamite to themselves and step onto buses carrying our children? These people are 'entitled to a maximum of possible protection'? No. These fuckers are entitled only to die, painfully. This is why we will be keeping records: we wish to proudly proclaim the numbers of infidels we have slain. We will be shouting from every rooftop the names of every terrorist murderer we slay in honourable combat, because that - and not any amount disarmament, or dolphin protection, or 'education' or 'discussion' - will be the way to deter those who would violate our soils with their abhorrent trail of destruction.

Your statements are the only illegal thing here. Chemical weaponry is legal. Nuclear weaponry doubly so. Has it ever occurred to you that 'cruel' and 'barbarous' things are quite good? Non-UN members outnumber us 3 to 1. There are many hostile to the UN. The most powerful militaries in the world are not under UN control. Disarm and all your precious human rights proposals will be washed away in a tide of blood. There's bad news, too: constructive UN work will be destroyed. Disarmament is not an option.


Indeed, rather, we should be arming ourselves to the teeth.

I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but I'd like to ask a question about a topic that was mentioned in OMGTKK's comments.

Who defines "civilian?" When you've figured that out, here's my next question:

Why isn't this definition in the proposal?

I hate to be the bearer of more bad news, but I'd like to ask a question about a topic that was mentioned in OMGTKK's comments.

Who defines "civilian?" When you've figured that out, here's my next question:

Why isn't this definition in the proposal?

You define anything which is not defined in the proposal. (I don't believe the UN has ever formally defined a 'civilian', although it'd be worth checking some of the old stuff.) So, in this case, it's up to you.

You define anything which is not defined in the proposal. (I don't believe the UN has ever formally defined a 'civilian', although it'd be worth checking some of the old stuff.) So, in this case, it's up to you.
Only fuzzy animals are civilians by our standards. Death to all who oppose the might of the Bresnian Mountain Goat armies!

I can't believe this is a real UN topic. What the hell is this supposed to change anyway? Ignoring the fact that in reality documents can be easily changed and forged, how the hell are enemy civilian death records supposed to be kept anyway! In war the only difference between a civilian and a soldier is a gun.

Civilians who spy on us? Who collaborate with the enemy? Who strap dynamite to themselves and step onto buses carrying our children? These people are 'entitled to a maximum of possible protection'? No. These fuckers are entitled only to die, painfully. This is why we will be keeping records: we wish to proudly proclaim the numbers of infidels we have slain. We will be shouting from every rooftop the names of every terrorist murderer we slay in honourable combat, because that - and not any amount disarmament, or dolphin protection, or 'education' or 'discussion' - will be the way to deter those who would violate our soils with their abhorrent trail of destruction.
The fact that you would kill a man in cold blood sickens me, and keeping records of it would sicken the world. How many wars have been started to oust dictators like you?! (rhetorical) While killing civilians is bad, showing that you did it is stupid. Unless you want to be on trial in front on the UN like saddam you better rethink what youve said.

The fact that you would kill a man in cold blood sickens me, and keeping records of it would sicken the world. How many wars have been started to oust dictators like you?! (rhetorical) While killing civilians is bad, showing that you did it is stupid. Unless you want to be on trial in front on the UN like saddam you better rethink what youve said.

Um...no. The UN has never criminalised killing civilians. My Sultan has done nothing wrong.

Um...no. The UN has never criminalised killing civilians. My Sultan has done nothing wrong.You'd think they'd do that...

Isn't this sort of thing covered in one of those omnibus Human Rights jobbers? Or did everybody just assume nobody would randomly kill their citizens?

We also take umbrage at the assumption that civilian deaths are always unnecessary. On the contrary, civilian deaths are necessary, especially in modern-day warfare, where soldiers have a difficult time differentiating between unarmed civilians, armed civilians, armed combatants, unarmed combatants, whether civilians are terrorists or not, whether they are purposely serving as human shields for their terrorist friends, etc. One example: U.S. troops were vilified for being depicted on camera killing an unarmed Iraqi civilian in a mosque, but what most fail to realize is that that death was necessary. The troops had no idea whether the man was an insurgent, and whether he was simply faking death so that U.S. troops would approach him with their guard down and be either ambushed or blown up.


In my opinion, the example given above is fairly incorrect in describing civilian deaths as "necessary" for more modern day warfare. With the advent of guerilla/urban/terrorist warfare, it has made determining civilians from illegal combatants (defined as those who act as combatants while hiding under the pretext of being civilian) more difficult. I would agree that it has made these civilian deaths more unavoidable, but that does not mean they are necessary.

OOC: In RW, I know people who were in the unit with a soldier who was investigated for a claim similar to the last sentence in the above quote. He was not punished, based on recent trends of insurgents acting as incapacitated so they could get GI's close enough to blow up with a bomb. The soldier in question had lost a good friend earlier that week to the same tactic. He was not disciplined.

IC: I believe that efforts are necessary to minimize civilian casualties, but that this proposal does nothing to further the cause. Nucleardom will vote against this proposal if it comes to the General Assembly.

You'd think they'd do that...

Isn't this sort of thing covered in one of those omnibus Human Rights jobbers? Or did everybody just assume nobody would randomly kill their citizens?

Article 5 of UBR, I guess, but one might argue that shooting someone in the head is fairly quick, and so isn't really 'cruel'.

Wolfish doesn't cover it, insofar as it doesn't deal with non-prisoners.

Fair Trial, etc, probably means that one couldn't claim it was an execution, and extrajudicial killings are condemned (though not in my reading outlawed) under Freedom of Conscience.

And Civilian Rights Post-War only covers civilian rights post-war.

So, in my interpretation of UN law, there would be nothing to prevent someone killing civilians, providing it wasn't genocide, wasn't discriminatory (I know...), wasn't done with bio weapons/landmines, and so on. Besides, 'accidents' happen.

And, in any case, the UN hasn't defined a civilian (to my knowledge) so one could anyway designate them as enemy combatants.

Does anyone know why Wolfish does not cover the definition of combatant vs. non-combatant? That would be something extremely germane to discussions about POWs as there are traditionally categories of people that should not be able to be taken as POWs - this is somewhat tied up with the non/combatant definitions.

Just curious if there was a consious decision to leave out a definition or not.

I will support this particular bill. However, I fail to see how the accuracy of such casualty reports could be verified. Surely the U.N. does not have the manpower to do so.

The Legislation-Changing, Proposal-Eating Little Freaks of The UN Gnomes is a massive, economically powerful nation, remarkable for its barren, inhospitable landscape. Its hard-nosed, hard-working, intelligent population of 2.276 billionI'd say they've got the manpower. Or, gnomepower, as the case may be.

This may have been asked already, but I didn't see it,

Is the country responsible for keeping track of the deaths of all of its citizens, all civilian casulties in its own country, or any civilian casulties inflicted by its own military?

In my opinion, the example given above is fairly incorrect in describing civilian deaths as "necessary" for more modern day warfare. With the advent of guerilla/urban/terrorist warfare, it has made determining civilians from illegal combatants (defined as those who act as combatants while hiding under the pretext of being civilian) more difficult. I would agree that it has made these civilian deaths more unavoidable, but that does not mean they are necessary.

OOC: In RW, I know people who were in the unit with a soldier who was investigated for a claim similar to the last sentence in the above quote. He was not punished, based on recent trends of insurgents acting as incapacitated so they could get GI's close enough to blow up with a bomb. The soldier in question had lost a good friend earlier that week to the same tactic. He was not disciplined.

IC: I believe that efforts are necessary to minimize civilian casualties, but that this proposal does nothing to further the cause. Nucleardom will vote against this proposal if it comes to the General Assembly.

OOC: on the issues of civilian casualties and civillian deaths in combat I tend to think about the American Civil War. Sometimes the quickest and most effective way to end a conflict is to deliberately make war on the civilian population. During the Seiges of Vicksburg, Atlanta, and Petersburg/Richmond undoubtly civillians died of starvation(IC:would those deaths be considered in this resolution)OCC: Civillians were also injured and killed in the shelling of those cities(especially Atlanta which was a legitimate war-target as a supply/communication/railway center). It was General Sherman making war on these civillians which made it easier for General Grant to finally break the seige of Petersburg. Also in Kansas and Missouri, partisan bands(AKA Bandits) from both the Union and Rebels made war on civillians.

IC: on more careful consideration, especially sense we really dislike additonal beaurcracy, The Palentine will be voting against this resolution.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

"Madam, you cannot define war in harsher terms than mine. War is cruelty. You cannot refine it. And the crueler it is the sooner it will be over."
-General William Tecumpseh Sherman

Your statements are the only illegal thing here. Chemical weaponry is legal. Nuclear weaponry doubly so. Has it ever occurred to you that 'cruel' and 'barbarous' things are quite good? Non-UN members outnumber us 3 to 1. There are many hostile to the UN. The most powerful militaries in the world are not under UN control. Disarm and all your precious human rights proposals will be washed away in a tide of blood. There's bad news, too: constructive UN work will be destroyed. Disarmament is not an option

"Illegal now" does not equal "illegal in future", I would be more than happy to draft an anti-chemical weapons treaty should the honourable delegate wish to see one. Equally, I do not think that there is any moral or military superiority gained by re-armament. All that will happen is that the non-U.N. nations will view us as a greater military threat and build up even mightier arsenals to use against us. Equally, they will be more ruthless towards a more powerful (or perceived so) rival.

Civilians who spy on us? Who collaborate with the enemy? Who strap dynamite to themselves and step onto buses carrying our children? These people are 'entitled to a maximum of possible protection'? No. These fuckers are entitled only to die, painfully. This is why we will be keeping records: we wish to proudly proclaim the numbers of infidels we have slain. We will be shouting from every rooftop the names of every terrorist murderer we slay in honourable combat, because that - and not any amount disarmament, or dolphin protection, or 'education' or 'discussion' - will be the way to deter those who would violate our soils with their abhorrent trail of destruction.

Oh please, don't use the emotive and spurious "what about the terrorists" argument, it's really ludicrous. These people aren't civillians, they're combattants in the first place and secondly, might I point out that there exist many civillian criminals who engage in violent acts, but that doesn't mean we view it as right to torture or treat them as sub-human, because most nations appreciate that they are being hypocritical in donig so.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

"Illegal now" does not equal "illegal in future", I would be more than happy to draft an anti-chemical weapons treaty should the honourable delegate wish to see one. Equally, I do not think that there is any moral or military superiority gained by re-armament. All that will happen is that the non-U.N. nations will view us as a greater military threat and build up even mightier arsenals to use against us. Equally, they will be more ruthless towards a more powerful (or perceived so) rival.

I'm not going to get into a disarmament debate, for a number of reasons. However, I state that it is not Gruenberger policy to violate international law. Through your claims that nuclear weapons are 'illegal', it becomes clear this is not the case for Compadria. As such, we are sceptical of your ability to lecture us on the efficacy on international agreements, when such scant regard is shown for them.

Oh please, don't use the emotive and spurious "what about the terrorists" argument, it's really ludicrous. These people aren't civillians, they're combattants in the first place and secondly, might I point out that there exist many civillian criminals who engage in violent acts, but that doesn't mean we view it as right to torture or treat them as sub-human, because most nations appreciate that they are being hypocritical in donig so.

It may not come us a surprise to you when we note that Gruenberg is not 'most nations'.

Those who engage in violent acts deserve retribution. The only shame about executing a serial killer is that we can kill them but once; not enough recompense in blood, some argue, for the lives they have taken. We do view it as a right to treat as sub-humans those who have demonstrated their own perception of others as sub-human, and who have acted in a sub-human fashion. UN prohibitions on torture cost lives. And the point about terrorism is neither ludicrous, nor spurious; that it is, however, emotive, is highly right, as we recognise an emotional response to the deaths of our innocent children as a proper, human reaction. There is no clear delineation between those who perpetrate terrorist acts, those who endorse them through speech, those who harbour suspects or preach hatred; thus, the only logical step is to kill them all.

Those who engage in violent acts deserve retribution. The only shame about executing a serial killer is that we can kill them but once; not enough recompense in blood, some argue, for the lives they have taken. We do view it as a right to treat as sub-humans those who have demonstrated their own perception of others as sub-human, and who have acted in a sub-human fashion. UN prohibitions on torture cost lives. And the point about terrorism is neither ludicrous, nor spurious; that it is, however, emotive, is highly right, as we recognise an emotional response to the deaths of our innocent children as a proper, human reaction. There is no clear delineation between those who perpetrate terrorist acts, those who endorse them through speech, those who harbour suspects or preach hatred; thus, the only logical step is to kill them all.We stand in awe and in total agreement with the excellent psychotic Mr. Bausch. That said, we are happy to see that Mr. Otterby has returned to these halls; we were worried he would be fired.

It appears to us that some of our distinguished colleagues are wandering off into a Never-Never-Land of irrelevancy, debating disarmament, capital punishment, terrorism, and the like. May we respectfully point out that this proposal addresses none of these issues. It simply requires the maintenance of certain records.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

I'd say they've got the manpower. Or, gnomepower, as the case may be.Ahem. (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/KennyUN1.jpg)

Those who engage in violent acts deserve retribution. The only shame about executing a serial killer is that we can kill them but once; not enough recompense in blood, some argue, for the lives they have taken. We do view it as a right to treat as sub-humans those who have demonstrated their own perception of others as sub-human, and who have acted in a sub-human fashion. UN prohibitions on torture cost lives. And the point about terrorism is neither ludicrous, nor spurious; that it is, however, emotive, is highly right, as we recognise an emotional response to the deaths of our innocent children as a proper, human reaction. There is no clear delineation between those who perpetrate terrorist acts, those who endorse them through speech, those who harbour suspects or preach hatred; thus, the only logical step is to kill them all.

I'm very uneasy about this eye-for-an-eye business, it strikes me that to kill someone for an act of violence is to committ an act of great hypocrisy, for what will the violence have shown other than the fact that we are as capable of dispensing death as the murderer. Torture furthermore, is not only abbohrrent, but innefective, as many victims have pointed out, beyond a certain stage, the victim will say anything to obtain relief, which is severly counter-productive to the point of the interrogation. I am slightly alarmed that the otherwise cool-headed delegate of Gruenberg would say such things and we hope that the message of moderation we are trying to preach helps him understand our view better.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

P.S. Thanks to Omigodtheykilledkenny for his kind welcome back. I was forced to sit in a naughty chair for a fortnight, but other than that no serious punishment was enacted (though and "Otterby Scream" music single has been released in Compadria).

i think this bill has good-intentions at heart, and if it reduces casulties in times of war, it could never be a bad thing!

the people of the Republic of Pie Rats will vote FOR this bill

Ahem. (http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a118/teddygrahams113/KennyUN1.jpg)
Interesting. Equally interesting was the huge order for very small kevlar vests that I recently received.

Unrelated, I'm sure.

Interesting. Equally interesting was the huge order for very small kevlar vests that I recently received.

Unrelated, I'm sure.

Thadbroxton Kornweasel III, Thain of the Short and Nasty Colony of The Gnomish Warbands, stomps in smoking a smelly Cheroot and holding a ferocious War-Ferret. He looks around and says,

"And did you get some Kevlar supporters and cups to protect your "Boys" from our fierce War-Ferret's fangs, Fanboy!"

i think this bill has good-intentions at heart, and if it reduces casulties in times of war, it could never be a bad thing!

the people of the Republic of Pie Rats will vote FOR this bill


Yes, and it has been said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. I don't see anything in the bill that reduces civillian casualties...just counts them.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Reposted from elsewhere: Oh, and another thing that's wrong with the UN: the endless stickying of queued proposals, which only distracts from the official topic (you know, the one that's actually being voted on), unnecessarily buries the rules and user-guide stickies, and further confuses and disorients those who may be new to this forum.
I hadn't considered that, but you're right. I stuck some queued resolutions around the holidays because I wasn't sure who would be here to change them, and it suddenly became habit.

I'm reversing that now. We'll still do the QUEUED [Official Topic] thing, but we'll wait to stick until it actually hits the floor.

On behalf of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, I'm casting our nation's support behind this resolution.

It is extremely straightforward and its goals are consistent with many of the principals we feel are important in international cooperation.

It appears to us that some of our distinguished colleagues are wandering off into a Never-Never-Land of irrelevancy, debating disarmament, capital punishment, terrorism, and the like. May we respectfully point out that this proposal addresses none of these issues. It simply requires the maintenance of certain records.

While I agree most of the discussion is irrelevant for the topic, I actually commend the colleagues who found something to discuss during the plenary vote of an irrelevant, boring, and inconsequent resolution, which seems designed to pass without serious debate, and to divert this assembly from more relevant issues.

Aware of the irrelevance of our vote, Fonzoland decide to cast it against, purely on irrelevant whim.

I cannot see how this bill will improve the situation, especially since the it provides no solution for the central problem, civilian casulaties, and since putting this bill into practice will be next to impossible. All it will do is cost countries money, or only be loosely enforced. I am sorry to say that though the intentions of this bill I cannot support it.

How can my nation preform the necessary ethnic cleansing of our enemies during war time with this law? If this is passed then The Armed Republic of Anubis Sokar will have to object. WITH FORCE IF NEEDED

How can my nation preform the necessary ethnic cleansing of our enemies during war time with this law? If this is passed then The Armed Republic of Anubis Sokar will have to object. WITH FORCE IF NEEDED

Ethnic cleansing? Sounds to me like you'd be in breach of The Eon Convention (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=82).

(In any case, this doesn't stop you killing civilians. Just means you have to record it, somewhere.)

(In any case, this doesn't stop you killing civilians. Just means you have to record it, somewhere.)

Thank you. That is precisely all this does.

I urge everyone who is planning to vote for on the basis of "meh, why not" to change their vote to against. Come on, it will be fun!

Hello,

On behalf of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, I'd like to speak out on behalf of this resolution. It has been stated that this resolution will not directly save lives, and while that is true, the UN has a standing rule that prevents nations from creating a standing UN army. It has been the tradition of the UN to promote peace and cooperation, as evidenced by many of its resolutions.

However, collecting data on civilian causalities is still of us to individual member nations and non-governmental organizations such as the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) and its affilated organizations such as the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz. Information relating to causalities will enable us to better advocate for the humane treatment of civilians and wounded and also for us to better allocate our resources to address the needs of survivors. Furthermore, the information mandated by this resolution may enable NGOs to secure additional funding to prevent such conflicts through negotiations and the like prior to the loss of life.

It is often said that prevention is the best medicine, and information is vital to building political support to seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts. With that in mind, I've urged my government to support this resolution, and can assure you that my organization rarely gets involved in UN affairs, though finds this resolution worthy of our political support.

Danke,
Jean-Christophe Dunant

Gentlebeings, let me use this first appearence in this esteemed body to give a full throated support of this resolution in dear hopes that it will spawn yet stronger measures in the future. My only point of contention with this measure is that it does not go far enough to protect the civilian populations that are caught in the middle of armed conflict. But it is a good start. It is hard to know how to solve a problem until you know the extent of the problem and this bill will at least give us more data on the issue. Thank you for your time.

Ambassador of the United Socialist States of Equal Distributionists
"For the Good of All"

Thank you. That is precisely all this does.

I urge everyone who is planning to vote for on the basis of "meh, why not" to change their vote to against. Come on, it will be fun!

The point is: you want it to do something more. I really, really don't.

OOC: Mikitivity, sorry about the poll. I hope it's still useful - it's meant to be Yes, No, Abstain.

The point is: you want it to do something more. I really, really don't.

OOC: Mikitivity, sorry about the poll. I hope it's still useful - it's meant to be Yes, No, Abstain.

OOC: Oh it is fine. :) I was teasing Fris when I claimed it was Gruenbergfied! The only thing worse of course would be if Kenny got his hands on it ... as the options he might include on a poll boggle the mind!!! The game should be fun!

The point is: you want it to do something more. I really, really don't.

Yes, I had understood that. You used similar reasoning elsewhere. ;)

And honestly, I don't give a damn if this passes or not. But it is really, really useless. My vote for the most relevant post of the thread goes to Planu (even though he blatantly ignores the warfare law of motion):

I know how to make this resolution work. Amend the resolution as follows:
It shall be incumbent on any attacking nation to send packets with signed decelerations of war and self addressed stamped envelopes with reply cards. The reply cards asks if the member of the defending nation is a member of any key categories, the military, civilian, counter insurgent, government employ, pet owner, and invites comment on the war. One reply card is to be mailed before the war commences and the second must be mailed no less then thirty days after the cease of hostilities. All Postal workers are hereby granted full UN diplomatic immunity and are never an allowable military target.
On second thought maybe it would be simpler to fake the results.

There are two distinct problems with this resolution. It violates a Nation's right to privacy, and could compromise a Nation's security.

1) The number of casualties a Nation sustains in any type of conflict is that Nation's own business. There is no reason that all Nation's should know the amount of casualties another Nation sustained. If a Nation, however, wishes to publish the number of casualties it sustained it is that Nation's choice to do so. The argument that I am trying to make is that this resolution is a violation of a Nation's privacy, and the privacy of a Nation's citizens. If the United Nations is striving to preserve Freedom and civil rights in the world it will not allow this resolution to pass.

2) By forcing a Nation to publish the number of causualties it sustained could possibly compromise clandestine operations. In turn a Nation's security could be compromised. Clandestine operations are to be kept absolutely secret so that a Nation can be sure that enemy Nations do not have any evidence to suspect them. Also the fruits of a clandestine operation are often sensitive to a Nation's security and the security of the world, especially Free and Friendly Nations. By forcing a Nation to publish the number of casualties it sustained could cause war or other violent conflicts to break out between Nations across the world.

Grand Master Paquin will voting against this resolution in order to preserve Freedom and civil rights, specifically those concerned with one's right to privacy, and to protect the security of all Nations in turn protecting the security of the world.

Hello,

On behalf of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz, I'd like to speak out on behalf of this resolution. It has been stated that this resolution will not directly save lives, and while that is true, the UN has a standing rule that prevents nations from creating a standing UN army. It has been the tradition of the UN to promote peace and cooperation, as evidenced by many of its resolutions.

However, collecting data on civilian causalities is still of us to individual member nations and non-governmental organizations such as the International Red Cross Organization (IRCO) and its affilated organizations such as the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz. Information relating to causalities will enable us to better advocate for the humane treatment of civilians and wounded and also for us to better allocate our resources to address the needs of survivors. Furthermore, the information mandated by this resolution may enable NGOs to secure additional funding to prevent such conflicts through negotiations and the like prior to the loss of life.

It is often said that prevention is the best medicine, and information is vital to building political support to seeking peaceful solutions to conflicts. With that in mind, I've urged my government to support this resolution, and can assure you that my organization rarely gets involved in UN affairs, though finds this resolution worthy of our political support.

Danke,
Jean-Christophe Dunant
Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero didn't know what to think about this resolution.
But It seems he had been somehow convinced by Mikitivity Rote Kreuz's Jean-Christophe Dunant and will therefore vote for.

Ps: if someone can help me there, thanks a lot:
Is the meaning of "call on" equivalent to "urge" or to "mandate"

Buon Giorno,

I will happily support this because the only thing it mandates is the record keeping of casualty numbers. While it may "encourage" Nations to use the gathered data in order to secure less casualties it does not make that law. My nation will use the data to secure lives because meaningless death is well, meaningless, but for those United Nation members who don't care either way there is no reason to vote against it.

Hopefully it will pass.

Ps: if someone can help me there, thanks a lot:
Is the meaning of "call on" equivalent to "urge" or to "mandate"

OOC: CALLS ON is probably closer in meaning to URGES, while MANDATES is a bit stronger in meaning. If my boss were to URGE or CALL ON me to do something, I'd take it as a suggestion, but if he were to MANDATE he is basically giving me an order.

For the purposes of the game, the differences in the strength of those words is less important, *except* if you are roleplaying. Stronger words are usually used for things you feel are important. :)

OOC: I believe "call on" is not compulsory.

OOC: CALLS ON is probably closer in meaning to URGES, while MANDATES is a bit stronger in meaning. If my boss were to URGE or CALL ON me to do something, I'd take it as a suggestion, but if he were to MANDATE he is basically giving me an order.

For the purposes of the game, the differences in the strength of those words is less important, *except* if you are roleplaying. Stronger words are usually used for things you feel are important. :)

OOC: I believe "call on" is not compulsory.

Mik, Gruen, thanks for your answers

This looks to be a good first step and it is simple but smart, which is always a good thing.

The Holy Republic of Sheogorath and Azura will be voting for the thingy.

Additionally, by calling for this action, for which there is probably no realistic auditing mechanism, the UN would basically be putting out a resolution that should be expected to get ignored. As a rule, I think the UN should minimize the things it puts out that will get ignored, to keep countries from getting in the habit of ignoring the UN.

Agreed. Although it seems harmless enough, there also seems to be no point in it. And a piece of paper with no point is just another piece of paper. The Empire of Aurora Light is Against.

Ausserland has voted in favor of this resolution. While it, in itself, won't reduce unintended civilian casualties in war, the data collected could be of significant value to nations endeavoring to do so.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

After discussion with my region, I have decided I will likely oppose this resolution. My region has brought forth several concerns regarding it, the most significant I bring forth to the UN:

1) There is no requirement to make this information available to either the public or the UN. It only asks that they collect this information. We feel it is not much to ask for at least some clause making it so this data is filed with the Gnomes for all nations to know.

2) Obviously, there is concern about manpower and resources (mainly monetary) to do this, but we feel that relying upon other nations to maintain their own records without any method of verification leads to hopeless issues of abuse. This is not, necessarily, a vote changer in-of-itself, but it is something to consider.

A View from the Outside, from the Divine Right Mercenary-Military State of Kison:

As a military state with a Defense force in the top 100 in the world, I can suggest that this mandate to keep civilian casualty records is mostly a matter of showing whom to place the blame on for civilian deaths. It will do little than to give the UN evidence to use against nations that are careless with their militaries and bring harm to civilians.

Note: it says, "it further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations..." meaning there's nothing in place to suggest how anyone has to reduce casualities... they just have to count them.

As a so-called "rogue state," and a military-minded one at that, I can say quite certainly that the kind of pointless exercising and paperwork that such a bill would bring are highly favorable to the enemies of the UN. If I were an enemy of the UN, which I'm not (thankfully) I would gladly continue a brutal massacre, taking full advantage of this requirement, while a UN nation tried to avoid as many civilian casualities as possible in order to just look good. Hell, I might even mix civilians in on the battlefield just to slow them down and make them hesitate to fire on us.... all for the sake of not acculmulating a high civilian body count.

All in all, it is a terrible idea. It would give the enemies of the UN an advantage. War is war. People get hurt. We deal with it and move on. That's not to say you should make civilian areas targets (we certainly favor military installations)... but in the battle between our reputations and our lives, we favor our lives any day of the week.

Just a humble opinion from your friendly military crackpot.
Have a nice day.

- Supreme Commander Wei Winterwake
Spokesperson for the Throne, and Leader of Kison's Special Forces Division

Keeping civilian records, no, it's not the kind of world-beating thing you joined the UN to vote on. But not all resolutions have to be huge things. Whatever administrative body you may have, each and every day you're deciding on things like, say, whether to increase the grain tax. Not exactly a declaration of war, but it has to be looked at sometime or else it's going to start to screw with your economy. So don't worry about the scope of the bill.

As for the bill. Great Plains supports it, realizing that it will cost money and manpower that would otherwise be placed into the military itself. We consider that to be a good thing- less money and manpower means less actual fighting and killing, which will inevitably mean less civilian casualties in the first place.

-Terry Stratton
Great Plains Ambassador

CONCERNED by the deaths of civilians in times of war,
There is a reason they call it war.

CONCERNED by the deaths of civilians in times of war,
The military is formed out of the general population. It makes good sense to demorlize people and destroy the ability for the enemy to rebuild their military by eliminating their resources.

CONFIDENT that the military can assist in preventing many of these unnecessary deaths,
I'm confident the military is supposed to win wars by any means including killing.


DESIRING, therefore, to contribute a positive response to this problem;
If the problem is how war is fought eliminate the war before it starts.

The UN hereby calls on all member nations to maintain records of civilian casualties in times of war. It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.
Those wearing a uniform are less innocent than the politicians and regular civilians in the war? The government leaders should be the main target during war. If government leaders are serious about stopping civilian casualties they should resolve the issue causing war without war or accept what war is and quit trying to limit the ability of nations to defend themselves.

I'm opposed to this but I'll have to see how our region decides to vote before voting.
coldrisk
Scafaces Delegate

It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.

I take it we don't have to improve our military? I vote agaisnt this. theres no point. all it is a suggestion and a waste of resourses.

Do you guys know why we have wars?

If we don't have wars the earth will become over populated. (as it is alread)
We run out of resorses faster.

War is not bad at all. i encourage it myself. don't limit nations. (we kill deer to keep the population down whats so different about humans?)

This UN proposal will not work, even with proper funding and support from member nations. During war time, keeping track of civilian casualties is very difficult to achieve accurately except through great expense. If members of foreign (non UN) nations are attacking UN nations, they will have a greater advantage of not calculating there civilian deaths. Also, it is the opposing country that causes civilian casualties, not the home country (for the most part not dealing with terrorists or freedom fighters). It would be necessary to limit all nations of endangering the civilian population during war, which is nearly impossible to accomplish. The only way for this proposal to work is if an outside nation 'vollunteers' time and money to count civilian casualties. War demands that anything need to be done to win (within regulations and banned weapons) and threatening the government through the civilian population is a tactic used by many nations throughout the years.

The Compulsory Inoffensiveness of Cladorica officialy votes against this proposal.

OOC: Oh it is fine. :) I was teasing Fris when I claimed it was Gruenbergfied! The only thing worse of course would be if Kenny got his hands on it ... as the options he might include on a poll boggle the mind!!! The game should be fun!

OOC: If Kenny had gotten his grubby little paws on it, I'd be afraid it'd include another "Screw this! I'm having phone sex with Cluichstan!" option. :eek:

It seems to have positive intentions, but I fail to see how keeping a record of civilian casualities can help reduce them. I mean, whats done is done right? The fact that you have a list of names afterward doesn't change that. Nor does knowing the exact identity or number of civilian victims (as opposed to casualty estimations) help prevent future ones. I think the crux of this issue is "use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons" --- lets look at an example shall we? We know that say, 1342 civilians died at the battle of X( we know their names and professions as well). So when planning the battle of Y, we're going to....what? Try to keep the fighting out of populated areas? Not use weapons of mass destruction over urban areas? I mean,these are things that should be done ANYWAY and having this little list isn't going to make these ideas better its just common sense if you want to keep from killing innocent people. I think this resolution fails to identify how exactly this information will be used, whether or not privacy will be violated, and how exactly it is going to help prevent further loss of life.

I can see a potential mis-use though, if we're talking about non-military personell who assist with the act of war -- scientists, medical staff, etc not just people killed in the crossfire. Lets say all UN nations have these detailed records, and the enemy finds a way to access them. They now know the names of people killed and could use that information to form a better strategy by knowing, for example, that the lead scientist or strategian on project ______ has been killed and therefore would plan their attack to take advantage of the discountinuation or delay of said project? Of course, without this legislation certain nations could try and keep that information quiet in the interest of national security. I know this is an extreme case and highly unlikely, but I'm just trying to think of possible repurcussions for this legislation. As many have said, it is 'mild' and seemingly harmless, so lets just go ahead and pass it ....but since in all honesty I don't see how in any way it is going to help things, why take the chance that it is going to hurt things?


So all in all, I think that keeping a record of those who fall in times of war - both civilian and military - is the right and honorable thing to do. But I do not think this issue addresses that.

Sounds commendable but pretty irrelevant. There are thousands of other things that the UN could call to monitor.

I would consider it a good clause in a more general resolution. As it stands, I will abstain.

Just what the World needs an unfunded mandate from the UN that will ultimately serve no purpose except to have a list. When a country is at war they are at war and are not purposley trying to harm civilians. Having a list will not prevent civilians from being harmed. Perhaps a resolution more towards the "Not targeting of civilians by UN Nations" is in order.

It seems to have positive intentions, but I fail to see how keeping a record of civilian casualities can help reduce them. I mean, whats done is done right? The fact that you have a list of names afterward doesn't change that. Nor does knowing the exact identity or number of civilian victims (as opposed to casualty estimations) help prevent future ones. I think the crux of this issue is "use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons" --- lets look at an example shall we? We know that say, 1342 civilians died at the battle of X( we know their names and professions as well). So when planning the battle of Y, we're going to....what?

Hello,

I'd like to echo the earlier statement from Jean-Christophe Dunant, the Secretary-General of the Mikitivity Rote Kreuz -- a non-governmental organization based in my nation. Dunant pointed out that NGOs and third party governments could use the data collected by the UN to help put political pressure to prevent or end conflicts.

Let's say that an imaginary nation called the Glorious States of America claimed that an oil-rich dictatorship called Iraqi Cookie Factory had weapons of mass destruction and went to war with Iraqi Cookie Factory against protests from my nation. If the Glorious States of America claimed that the war was justified and that only 1,000 civilians had been killed, but UN records indicated that 100,000 civilians had been killed, this might change international pressure on GSA.

International pressure isn't important only in preventing or ending wars, but it also is a key component in rebuilding nations. If a death toll is staggering, most third parties would assert that the obligation of an agressor state is larger.

As members of the United Nations, having assurances that other members will largely respect the sovereignty of other nations while still having the ability to go to war (both rights are protected by our "Rights and Duties" resolution from two years ago), the chances of political disagreements escalating into more serious matters decreases.

Though this resolution has been described as a "human rights" motion, there clearly are benefits here towards international peace and security as well.

-Howie T. Katzman, Confederated City States of Mikitivity

I would like to share an example from Compadrian history. In 1924, a violent revolution broke out in Compadria, with the aim of ousting the Royal Family from power and bringing a democratic government into power. A civil war ensued and many thousands died during the conflict. The casualty records of the Compadrian Medical and Humanitarian Society during this period enabled thousands of families to learn of the fate of their loved ones and equally, many war criminals to be tried after the Civil War had concluded. For very personal reasons therefore, Compadria supports this proposal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I feel that I must say this much. If every nation is supposed to know how many civilians die, how are we (or they) going to know if they are accurate? Might one nation not just decimate the actual figure and report only a small percentage of their casualties? Ah, but wait, they won't report anything, it is just for their records, right? Then who is going to hold them to it? Certainly not the UN, because they can tell the UN "we don't have to report to you". And what if someone does keep accurate records, makes them public (since they really aren't at war - nothing to hide) and it shows the same number as those nations who are at war (but fake their information). What unwanted ramifications will this have?

In conclusion, although I am all for reducing civilian casualites, this plan does not have the necesary enforcement or agency to succede. I fear too many nations have voted for it because "hey, we're saving innocent lives" when they fail to realize that this desired goal will not be achieved, but many disadvantages and problems will come instead. Thus, I have, and always will vote against proposals that will backfire.
:gundge:

Let's say that an imaginary nation called the Glorious States of America claimed that an oil-rich dictatorship called Iraqi Cookie Factory had weapons of mass destruction and went to war with Iraqi Cookie Factory against protests from my nation. If the Glorious States of America claimed that the war was justified and that only 1,000 civilians had been killed, but UN records indicated that 100,000 civilians had been killed, this might change international pressure on GSA.

International pressure isn't important only in preventing or ending wars, but it also is a key component in rebuilding nations. If a death toll is staggering, most third parties would assert that the obligation of an agressor state is larger.Hmm. Might we respond with a hypothetical of our own?

Let's say the imaginary nation called ... ohh ... let's call it "The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny (www.nationstates.net/omigodtheykilledkenny)" claimed that a tropical paradise overflowing with hot native chicks called "Tiki Taki (www.nationstates.net/tiki_taki)" had weapons of mass destruction and invaded -- and the only weapons they found were the natives' spears? (We've used this example countless times before, so please excuse us if you've heard this before.)

Anyway, the Federal Republic claimed the invasion was justified (and it was! :mad:), and besides, only a few people died -- but the nonprofit organization Kennyites for Communis--Erm, We Mean, "Peace" (KfC-EWM"P") sponsored a study that made the preposterous finding that 500,000 people perished. [OOC: Not unlike the equally preposterous finding of Lancet, using ridiculous methodology, that 100,000 people died in Iraq, despite hospital records to the contrary.] Never mind that Tiki Taki only has maybe 9,000 people on it, and that it turned out the entire invasion required only a few brigades to strom the beaches, so the nuclear-armed carrier units that were deployed to the region were entirely unnecessary and a waste of time, money and resources -- KfC-EWM"P" stood firmly by its claims.

Would this resolution result in international organizations stepping up their efforts to undermine our troops in time of war? The answer undoubtedly is yes. And despite the fact that the resolution only "calls upon" member states (as opposed to UN gnomes) to calculate civilian losses (meaning corrupt regimes, assuming they even bother to calculate casualty rates, could fix the numbers however they pleased), this mandate would surely hamper our noble efforts to combat terrorism and arrest the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. [Glares accusingly at the HOCEK Nuncio.]

We regret that the Mikitivitian Red Cross is starting to sound like a typical communist "anti-war" organization by arguing for the calculation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, "preventing or ending war" is not always a good thing. Mankind may be relatively good, but it is sinful, and war is sometimes necessary to address pure evil that may emerge within it. The United Nations must not make itself a enabler of misguided "peace" activists determined, out of hatred for their own country, to undermine a just conflict.

~Jack Riley

While its intentions are good, there is no guideline or standard in the policy that would force compliance on member nations, or to keep casualty reporting honest and objective.

We applaud the writers and supporters of this resolution for their passion for peace and concern of general welfare of civilians in times of war, however, we would also hate to see this resolution fail in its mission because of poor execution.

It should also be stated that during war there are many civilians involved that lend power to the war machine - either directly or indirectly (contractors, factory workers, etc.). I, as a leader, am concerned over the abundance of civilians lost in war, but feel that these non-combatants should be treated as non-civilians. There is no provision in this resolution that details what a civilian is - other than a person not holding a military rank as I assume this resolution defines.

While a valiant attempt at progress in spirit, it is somewhat half-hearted in its wording. I look forward to its repeal and future replacement with a better-structured resolution.

The Socialist States of Nobelshire abstain voting on this issue.

Would this resolution result in international organizations stepping up their efforts to undermine our troops in time of war? The answer undoubtedly is yes. And despite the fact that the resolution only "calls upon" member states (as opposed to UN gnomes) to calculate civilian losses (meaning corrupt regimes, assuming they even bother to calculate casualty rates, could fix the numbers however they pleased), this mandate would surely hamper our noble efforts to combat terrorism and arrest the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. [Glares accusingly at the HOCEK Nuncio.]

We regret that the Mikitivitian Red Cross is starting to sound like a typical communist "anti-war" organization by arguing for the calculation of civilian casualties. With all due respect, "preventing or ending war" is not always a good thing. Mankind may be relatively good, but it is sinful, and war is sometimes necessary to address pure evil that may emerge within it. The United Nations must not make itself a enabler of misguided "peace" activists determined, out of hatred for their own country, to undermine a just conflict.

~Jack Riley

Ambassador Riley,

Capitalists often oppose war too. This has nothing to do with communism, but the simple fact that corpses earn less and spend less than living people. Afterall, it was several years ago that our UN Secretariat, citing their no "silly proposals" rule, put the kibosh on a proposal that would haved granted the walking dead (zombies) similar rights to living beings. Though given the fact that zombies prefer brains to the wonders of Spice Melange, it honestly was a proposal my government was weary about.

I personally think our focus shouldn't be on the necessity of war, but rather on your earlier point: will collecting data on civilian casualities be useful to the international community? Anything coming from a government is subject to what you and I might both agree is "creative" accounting. However, I think that even data from parties in a conflict is useful ... if for no other reason other than to compare their data versus other third party information in order to better assess what is really going on.

In short, I'm not worried about a government putting out bad data, as there are usually other ways of checking that data. Let's say that the Glorious States of America downplay their causality numbers for their invasion of Iraqi Cookie Factory ... usually other nations will have ways of verifying those numbers, and any falsified data coming from the GSA or the Iraqi Cookie Factory might sway international opinion one way or another.

This resolution calls upon nations to keep our eyes open, which is something the people of Mikitivity are happy to do.

-Howie T. Katzman

As a nation whose top government priority is Defense and whose major industry is Arms Manufacturing, we are puzzled by the opposition to this resolution. It is merely requesting that records be kept of civilian casualties and that those records be used "to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life". This is something that the Yeldan military does anyway. Civilian casualties are often unavoidable, sometimes they are even intentional. This doesn't mean that one should not keep track of them and try to understand why the unintentional ones occured. But then, we like to collect data and civilian casualties (and how to reduce them) is one of those things that we would naturally be interested in.

Mankind may be relatively good, but it is sinful,
Sinful?

I really wonder what this will actually do.

It just seems to have been written for the sake of it and the Kirisuban Empire is against junk resolutions.

Its better not to pass it now therefore saving time debating time for a more worthy proposal.

vote against if want to make your disapproval of junk resolutions heard.

Ambassador Kaigan Miromuta

Well, I'm still new, and i'm not a member of the UN (yet), but my opinion on the matter is that Civilian Casulty records are the buisness of the goverment of whatever nation. Casulty records should not be published unless the governing body decides to.

:mp5:

The Most Serene Republic of Polypeptide is fairly new to the whole UN thing, but we're fairly eager to jump into the heat of things.

Im concerned that while the resolution is well-intentioned, placing civilian-casualty-recording responsibilities in the hands of the very states which would theoretically be killing these civilians in the first place is very counter-productive. One would assume that a state which reports many hundreds of thousands of deaths would be condemned by the international community, hence there aren't any real incentives for truthful reporting.

I look forward to another resolution placing international reporting powers in the hands of an international body.

The Most Serene Republic of Polypeptide votes against this resolution.

W00t :-)

Sinful?
Yeah...

...I'm really not sure about that, and the argument that would likely ensue from a response from me qualifying his statement would be better waged in a forum dedicated to philosophy/theology...

Anyway, the Federal Republic claimed the invasion was justified[...] and besides, only a few people died -- but the nonprofit organization Kennyites for Communis--Erm, We Mean, "Peace" (KfC-EWM"P") sponsored a study that made the preposterous finding that 500,000 people perished.Political commentary (that I agree with) aside, this is a serious concern with this kind of Resolution. Setting aside internal "creative accounting", this is also a way to give interested third parties a truncheon to use.

Pretending that the Hack was in the UN for a moment (*snrk*), nothing would stop up from putting out an "official" number count saying that only 15 civilians died (thanks for the check and the photos, Kenny). Or, conversly, we could say that thousands and thousands died (that'll teach you to withhold the pictures...). Multiply this over several thousand nations, and you'll find these numbers to be, at best, worthless; at worst, they'll be used to smear or glorify a nation that doesn't deserve it.

The Principality of Kapnachi intends fully to voice its support for this measure.

It seems to have positive intentions, but I fail to see how keeping a record of civilian casualities can help reduce them. I mean, whats done is done right? The fact that you have a list of names afterward doesn't change that.

Kanpachi would like to disagree particularly with this statement, asserting that internationally and domestically, support for a war between any two nations would be soured by an escalating count of civillian deaths.

An official count of civillian casualties would, in effect, do a small part to reduce support for any war in which civillians are in particular danger.

This is not to say that a war cannot be justified, but at the very least it will do some small part to encourage a timely resolution to conflict.

Any reasonable measure that would reduce the potential loss of life during a war is deserving of some consideration. Kanpachi urges those who take this proposal as less than serious to please give the matter some extra thought.

Perhaps this has been mentioned before, and if that is true, do please bear with me as I rehash it.

I voted against this bill for the following reasons.

a) It puts an unecessary strain on the intellegence and armed forces of a country! Soldiers are needed on the front-lines or policing newly taken areas, not going off and counting the dead. And also, military intellegence is needed in much more critical places. It is a blatant waste to have multi-million dollar spy planes and satillites being wasted to check how many are dead in a building!

Assume this scenario. A known lieutenant of the enemy is hiding out in a building. You do not know if civilians are present or not, but this man must be killed. You call in a ranged strike on the building, instantly blowing a large hole in the top of the building and decimating the first five stories. But now you need to deploy ground troops or expend recon things to check if there were any civilians in it before enemies would potentially tamper with that fact.

So, fellow members, I encourage you to vote no on this resolution!

I am sickened by this ridiculous resolution. Of what use would such records be? Do your societies keep records of every little scrap of meat? It is no wonder your economies are so feeble. You will see the fatal error of your "free" and "moral" ways soon enough. And then you will say to yourselves, "What fools we are!" whereupon you will engage in the following activities: Weeping, wailing, gnashing of teeth, rending of clothing, and wearing of sackcloth and ashes. That's what awaits you if you don't change your ways now!

Vote no now!

Sincerely,
The Chaos Turtle
Infallible Overlord of Mephistopia

Political commentary (that I agree with) aside, this is a serious concern with this kind of Resolution. Setting aside internal "creative accounting", this is also a way to give interested third parties a truncheon to use.

Pretending that the Hack was in the UN for a moment (*snrk*), nothing would stop up from putting out an "official" number count saying that only 15 civilians died (thanks for the check and the photos, Kenny). Or, conversly, we could say that thousands and thousands died (that'll teach you to withhold the pictures...). Multiply this over several thousand nations, and you'll find these numbers to be, at best, worthless; at worst, they'll be used to smear or glorify a nation that doesn't deserve it.

Well, that can be done whether the proposal is passed or not. In fact, it is often done in RL, without any resolution urging bodycounts. My favourite argument is still total, pristine, unadulterated irrelevance.

This proposition achieves absolutely nothing, and thus is not worth voting for. If it really had a purpose, or was worded better, then I might consider voting for it. But since its not, I cannot

You expect my military to waste time on counting the bodies of civilians, remember this is a war situation, civilians should either get out or risk being killed.

Do endorse 100% quote.

Resolutioms, rules, restrictions, prohibitions, monitoring, must have a purpose.
The proposition as it is worded only suggest "counting". Not enough.ç


This proposition achieves absolutely nothing, and thus is not worth voting for. If it really had a purpose, or was worded better, then I might consider voting for it. But since its not, I cannot

Sinful?We are certain even non-Abrahamics know what sin means. :rolleyes:

Having considered the various arguments raised here, the government of St Edmund is changing its vote on this proposal from 'abstain' to 'AGAINST'.

Yeah, nothing wrong with record keeping n and of itself

Sinful?

OCC: As Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.:)

IC: Human-kind without moral absolutes of right and wrong are a selfish,and nasty being. Even Agnostics recognized that. Benjamin Franklin, was not convinced that God existed, yet he belived in going to Church because it promoted the good morality, and character he thought was needed in a nation.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

OCC: sorry if I offended anyone, I get a little Philosophic sometimes in my dotage.:)

The Republic of Vectoral rejects this proposal on the basis of the following fact.

Socialist and other despotic shit-holes lie on a regular basis.

Untrusty nations would bend the figures to help them in any war effort, and they would use their enemies figures in their propaganda.

The Republic of Vectoral rejects this proposal on the basis of the following fact.

Socialist and other despotic shit-holes lie on a regular basis.

Untrusty nations would bend the figures to help them in any war effort, and they would use their enemies figures in their propaganda.


Untrustworthy?!!! *whistles innocently*:p
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

PS: As the Esteemed Groucho Marx said, "I don't have any problem with lying...as long as it gets me somewhere." BTW I'm not a socialist I'm a proud evil conservative.:p

The view of Greater Seattle is simple:

This resolution has no teeth, makes no mention of what is to be done with the recorded information (publish? broadcast? print on coins and bills?), and fails to even consider the organizations already well invested in reporting civilian casualties. The press/broadcast journalists, the armies themselves, humanitarian organizations (Red Cross, CARE, WHO, Doctors Without Borders), human rights organizations (Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch) and political organizations. More often than not, the figures generated by these groups differ greatly for reasons likely technical, logistical and ideological (and other adjectives as well).

In short, the information we'd be "called on" to tally is already being counted by several organizations -- you merely need to decide whose slant to accept when looking at the numbers. This resolution is a good idea, but unless some kind of reconciliation of the data already being gathered gets added to it and some mention of how to display the data is made, it's a load of hot air in an already bloated body of legislation. We vote no.

Jubal Harshaw, Magister, Intangelon
UN Delegate for Greater Seattle

The Republic of Vectoral rejects this proposal on the basis of the following fact.

Socialist and other despotic shit-holes lie on a regular basis.

Hey now, my socialist country is a giant paradise working for the interests of its people and is far from being despotic. If this resolution were to pass Polypeptide would take great care in making the most accurate reports possible. This number would probably be "0".

The Republic of Vectoral rejects this proposal on the basis of the following fact.

Socialist and other despotic shit-holes lie on a regular basis.

Untrusty nations would bend the figures to help them in any war effort, and they would use their enemies figures in their propaganda.

If they are blatantly exaggerating their figures then this would be clear to an outsider, simply because of its disproportionality. Furthermore, providing the figures does not entail that they be accepted, it means that they are published and can be used as a reference in any future report on civillian casualties, after cross-referencing to deduce their accuracy.

May the blesings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I really do not agree with this proposal at all. I am stornly against it.

The reason being is that in times of war, an army has a lot of other things to worry about than how many civilians accidently got killed in last nights bombing run. I would be mrore concerned with how many of our own airmen were KIA/MIA in last nights bombing run and with organizing serach&rescue operations while not losing twice as many men looking for those who went down.

This proposal is just plain silly. If two nations can work together to count their dead after a war then good for them. But just think, an army wasting its time going through a seemingly abandoned city, trying to count the dead is a prime target for enemy guerilla tactics. Enacting some half-witted legislation such as this will only choke up commanders' war-rooms with needless and cumbersome bueracracy which they have to adhere to.

Please, for the sake of unnessecary allied casualties, do not, seriously DO NOT vote for this proposal. VOTE AGAINST and hopefully those of you with minds clear enough to understand my point, CHANGE YOUR VOTE, and VOTE AGAINST.


----UN Representative of The Republic of Groznyj.

We are certain even non-Abrahamics know what sin means. :rolleyes:
OCC: As Paul wrote to the Church in Rome, "we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
OOC: I was raised in the bible belt, so obviously I know what Kenny was talking about. The Yeldan ambassador though, while he would have a vague understanding of the concept of "sin", probably would have been confused by it's appearance in a political discussion.
IC: Human-kind without moral absolutes of right and wrong are a selfish,and nasty being. Even Agnostics recognized that. Benjamin Franklin, was not convinced that God existed, yet he belived in going to Church because it promoted the good morality, and character he thought was needed in a nation.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
IC: Yeldans are not religious people, so we are curious as to why these superstitions should be injected into a political topic.

OCC: sorry if I offended anyone, I get a little Philosophic sometimes in my dotage.
No offence taken. Would you care for some Fine Yeldan Whiskey™?

I really do not agree with this proposal at all. I am stornly against it.

The reason being is that in times of war, an army has a lot of other things to worry about than how many civilians accidently got killed in last nights bombing run. I would be mrore concerned with how many of our own airmen were KIA/MIA in last nights bombing run and with organizing serach&rescue operations while not losing twice as many men looking for those who went down.

I would make the point to the honourable delegate that the civillians who died were not active participants in the conflict, nor were they responsible for any of the deaths of servicemen or women during the hypothetical bombing raid. Your own soldiers volunteer or are enlisted to fight for their country on such occasions and are aware or should be aware of the risks involved. Equating the two therefore, is unfair and unjust.

This proposal is just plain silly. If two nations can work together to count their dead after a war then good for them. But just think, an army wasting its time going through a seemingly abandoned city, trying to count the dead is a prime target for enemy guerilla tactics. Enacting some half-witted legislation such as this will only choke up commanders' war-rooms with needless and cumbersome bueracracy which they have to adhere to.

The armies of conquest have a duty to ensure they do not cause excessive suffering to the civillians caught up in the conflict and that they ensure that they are adaquately care for, not in terms of provisions, but in terms of safety and general welfare. That is why the counting of the dead, with its valuable societal function, is so important and should be required.

Please, for the sake of unnessecary allied casualties, do not, seriously DO NOT vote for this proposal. VOTE AGAINST and hopefully those of you with minds clear enough to understand my point, CHANGE YOUR VOTE, and VOTE AGAINST.


----UN Representative of The Republic of Groznyj.

I would urge delegaete to require such measures as the collection of civillian casualty records. For the benefit of the dispossessed and innocent in wartime.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This measure has no means of enforcement. No means by which to verify that the reported numbers would be accurate. This is merely a suggestion of how a country should conduct itself in a time of war, not a resolution. I urge a negative vote. Should you believe in this cause, write a resolution that has some backbone.

This measure has no means of enforcement. No means by which to verify that the reported numbers would be accurate. This is merely a suggestion of how a country should conduct itself in a time of war, not a resolution. I urge a negative vote. Should you believe in this cause, write a resolution that has some backbone.

Seeing that the nuns who sponsored this resolution are absent for the UN floor debate, the ambassador from Mikitivity again rises to the floor and addresses the UN:

Fellow ambassadors, since this resolution's proponents aren't available at the moment (though my office has been in contact with them), I wanted to again speak up in favour of this resolution. How often do we find ourselves talking about issues related to "sovereignty" and "self-rule" when a resolution reaches the UN floor? I believe that if we were to audit the official UN transcripts that the answer would be frequently.

With that in mind, nations that often argue in favour of "national sovereignty" should take note of the fact this resolution doesn't create an official UN program nor does it force UN inspectors into nations to actually be consistent with the typical arguments presented by sovereigntists.

As to the effectiveness of a voluntary program, all UN resolutions are voluntary for two important reasons: (1) nations can come and go from these halls as they please, and (2) the exact means by which any of our government's chooses to implement UN resolutions is ultimately left in the hands of our domestic law makers. I remain confident that there will be enough information collected through third parties (such as neutral nations like my own) that we can double check any creative accounting or doctoring of records, and there are ways to deal with those sorts of governments.

-Howie T. Katzman

My fellow ambassador to Compadria, I honestly do not believe that you have understood the depth of my point.


I would make the point to the honourable delegate that the civillians who died were not active participants in the conflict, nor were they responsible for any of the deaths of servicemen or women during the hypothetical bombing raid. Your own soldiers volunteer or are enlisted to fight for their country on such occasions and are aware or should be aware of the risks involved. Equating the two therefore, is unfair and unjust.

>>I do not dissagree with you on the account that civilian cassualties are completely wrong and a nation at war should do what it must to aver from such tragedies. Your are correct. But what you don't touch on is how something like this can be mishandled and/or used against the attacking nation. I'll give an example follwing the next quote:

This proposal is just plain silly. If two nations can work together to count their dead after a war then good for them. But just think, an army wasting its time going through a seemingly abandoned city, trying to count the dead is a prime target for enemy guerilla tactics. Enacting some half-witted legislation such as this will only choke up commanders' war-rooms with needless and cumbersome bueracracy which they have to adhere to.

The armies of conquest have a duty to ensure they do not cause excessive suffering to the civillians caught up in the conflict and that they ensure that they are adaquately care for, not in terms of provisions, but in terms of safety and general welfare. That is why the counting of the dead, with its valuable societal function, is so important and should be required.

>> Imagine ambassador if you will, that the city of Durroga (made up) has come under seige by Attacker. Attacker bombs infrastructure, utilities, and suspected war command structures. Defender decides to feign a retreat of the city, ordering all inhabitants to flee to neighboring cities. Defender then arms a small nuclear device in the heart of the city. Attacker decides to leave a substantial portion of his men in the city to count the dead in accordance with UN laws. While searching the city, Defender remotely detonates the warhead and a number of Attacker's troops die, UNNESSECARILLY.

^This hypothetical scenario could also be imagined with snipers and boobietraps instead of a nuclear warhead.

>>Civilian cassualties in war a part of war itself and rarily if ever will they not exist. Also it seems that you have failed to realize, ambassador, that not all wars are one-sided. Some wars are between nations of equal strength and size. One cannot pause to smell the roses...or in this case, count the dead, just after barely capturing a city or advancing a couple miles.

>>And how, pray tell, are we supposed to count the casualties of a shore bombardment, or a plane crash in a city? Their is no time to stop and count in war. What do you expect the enemy to do, welcome us into their cherished port city showing us all the dead bodies for us to count, and then throwing flowers at our feet as we leave to deliver the report? Honestly, I get the feeling that non-militeristic and/or pacifistic utopian nations (the kind that do not know what war is all about) are the ones who are voting for this resolution.


>>If anything, this resolution should be ammended to include specifically who and how are going to count the bodies. Third party organizations do very well at collecting information UNBIASDLY (sp?) and are not as subject to bending figures like a cassualty count as it rises through buerocratic levels to reach the media.

->I hope that you and anyone else wil see the common sense in my post and change your vote.


Abdul Kadyrov-
-UN Ambassador of The Republic of Groznyj

The Republic of Arverni will vote "NO" on this resolution.

This is nothing more than a useless resolution, and encourages deceipt by member nations at war if it is adopted.

Civilian casualties are all but impossible to compute during a time of war - and any reported statistics would be highly suspect.

Who's doing the reporting? Is the attacking nation supposed to keep track of the enemy civilians it accidentally kills? Or is the attacked nation supposed be tracking and reporting it's own?

If it's the former - there is no way the attacker can gain an accurate count. If it's the latter - the attacked has every reason to inflate the numbers to draw sympathy to his side.

We're all for reducing casualties, if that were the only requirement in this proposal - the Republic of Arverni would stand fastly behind this resolution and vote "Yes"! However, with the reporting requirement included in the proposal as written - we must sadly vote "No".

This body shouldn't trivialize itself through the endorsement of weak, do-nothing resolutions. This is nothing more than a "feel good" resolution.

>> Imagine ambassador if you will, that the city of Durroga (made up) has come under seige by Attacker. Attacker bombs infrastructure, utilities, and suspected war command structures. Defender decides to feign a retreat of the city, ordering all inhabitants to flee to neighboring cities. Defender then arms a small nuclear device in the heart of the city. Attacker decides to leave a substantial portion of his men in the city to count the dead in accordance with UN laws. While searching the city, Defender remotely detonates the warhead and a number of Attacker's troops die, UNNESSECARILLY.

^This hypothetical scenario could also be imagined with snipers and boobietraps instead of a nuclear warhead.

I feel that you have somewhat, in turn, mis-understood my logic. I intended to point out that as members of the military, they are already in harms way on a reasonable regular basis, therefore their lives cannot be considered, regrettably, on the same level as ordinary citizens. I wish to note that the exact relevant text:

The UN hereby calls on all member nations to maintain records of civilian casualties in times of war. It further encourages them to use this data to improve the conduct of military operations, gathering of intelligence, and use of weapons, for the purpose of reducing loss of innocent life.

It does not have to be the attacking nation that does this, nor for that matter are they required to immediately count the dead, it could be done when the combat area is more secure.

>>Civilian cassualties in war a part of war itself and rarily if ever will they not exist. Also it seems that you have failed to realize, ambassador, that not all wars are one-sided. Some wars are between nations of equal strength and size. One cannot pause to smell the roses...or in this case, count the dead, just after barely capturing a city or advancing a couple miles.

Why not assign rear-echelon troops to do the work, or simply provide for humanitarian organisations to do the work for you and provide the relevant data?

>>And how, pray tell, are we supposed to count the casualties of a shore bombardment, or a plane crash in a city? Their is no time to stop and count in war. What do you expect the enemy to do, welcome us into their cherished port city showing us all the dead bodies for us to count, and then throwing flowers at our feet as we leave to deliver the report? Honestly, I get the feeling that non-militeristic and/or pacifistic utopian nations (the kind that do not know what war is all about) are the ones who are voting for this resolution.

No, we vote for it because we recognise the evil of war and the importance of ensuring accurate records of civillian loss are kept. Would you rather that their families remain unable to know of their fate, or that genocide or illegal military tactics be concealed? I feel your scenarios are too exceptional to warrant consideration as the norm and thus respectfully differ with your analysis.

>>If anything, this resolution should be ammended to include specifically who and how are going to count the bodies. Third party organizations do very well at collecting information UNBIASDLY (sp?) and are not as subject to bending figures like a cassualty count as it rises through buerocratic levels to reach the media.

->I hope that you and anyone else wil see the common sense in my post and change your vote.

Nothing prevents you from using third-party organisations. I wish to note that my vote in favour remains in place.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Ambassador,

Thank you for clariffying that third party orginizations are a part of this resolution. In this case my country already has a policy at assisting these neutral orginizations at their job.

However we will still remain against this resolution on the grounds that it is poorly defined and embarrasingly vague.

Abdul Kadyrov-
-UN Ambassador of The Republic of Groznyj

No offence taken. Would you care for some Fine Yeldan Whiskey™?


Thanks, I'm running low on Wild Turkey(TM).:D

This still remains an impotent resolution.

If my nation is attacked and civilians killed - our attacker will report one casualty number (a low one) while I will report another. This is the case now without this resolution and it remains the case even after the resolution is passed. There is NO change brought about by this resolution.

So why is this august body even considering it? Is this an exercise to make ourselves "feel good" about our ourselves?

Let's take this resolution back to committee so it can be reworked so that it DOES SOMETHING! I don't think I've ever seen a weaker proposal than this one. I challenge any of my esteemed friends in this body to present ONE SINGLE change that this resolution would effect.

There is none! :headbang:

Ambassador,

Thank you for clariffying that third party orginizations are a part of this resolution. In this case my country already has a policy at assisting these neutral orginizations at their job.

However we will still remain against this resolution on the grounds that it is poorly defined and embarrasingly vague.

Abdul Kadyrov-
-UN Ambassador of The Republic of Groznyj

I respect your judgment Ambassador and express our thanks in return for your gracious thank you concerning our clarification of the point about third-party groups.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

This isnt a matter of national sovereignty. It is simply a matter of this resolution having nothing to it but a vaugue suggestion of what should be done. Do I think that reducing causualties in war is a good idea? Yes, I do, but war is war and people die. A larger country would have a larger civillian count due to its size, not the war practices of the other nation. Lets say nation X has a population of 250 million, and nation Y has 15 million. Both countries suffer a civillian loss of 2.4 million. Who suffered more? Who sustained the greater loss? This resolution does nothing to protect the civillians on the ground, since the counts can only be used to highlight problems after they occurr. Hospitals, Daycare centers, Schools etc are places that civillians would be. A resolution that has more specific language would make more of a difference.

:headbang:

Capitalists often oppose war too. This has nothing to do with communism, but the simple fact that corpses earn less and spend less than living people.You must excuse the haste with which that line was written. What I should have said was: "Kenny-hating leftist pinko commie 'peacenik' bastards." That's who your Red Cross rep is starting to sound like. :p

But it shouldn't detract from my original point: the goal of any war should be victory, and wasting valuable smashing time to weep and count the bodies does nothing to that end, except enable our critics and our enemies.

I also see that you were mocking my polls earlier, as was Cluichstan. Well, congratulations! You both just made the list!

[Unfurls a list just as long as Homer Simpson's; "Chechnya" and "Pallatium" are at the top, followed by "Love and esterel," "Compadria" and a whole bunch of other countries yet to be invaded. "Tiki Taki" and "The Eternal Kawaii" have been crossed out. He adds Mik and Cluich to the bottom.]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

You must excuse the haste with which that line was written. What I should have said was: "Kenny-hating leftist pinko commie 'peacenik' bastards." That's who your Red Cross rep is starting to sound like. :p

But it shouldn't detract from my original point: the goal of any war should be victory, and wasting valuable smashing time to weep and count the bodies does nothing to that end, except enable our critics and our enemies.


First, I wouldn't describe Jean-Christophe as being a Kenny-hating pinko commie bastard, though he is a world renowned humanitarian and doctor, so it is only natural that liberals might actually sound like him. But I'd like to make it clear that the people of Mikitivity highly respect Mr. Dunant and the reason he addresses the United Nations is his opinions on humanitarian ideals is shared by a great many people in not just Mikitivity, but in the International Democratic Union.

Second, I believe you've nailed the crux of the matter with this resolution ... it is in fact designed to enable critics of war a tool for finding alternatives to civilian causalities. That is in fact the precise reasoning many UN Delegates are citing here and in their regional debates as a justification for a yes vote. For example, the West Pacific is preparing to cast its vote in favour (if they've not already), and though the debate was close, the reason was identical to what we've seen echoed here by supporters: the UN should be finding ways to reduce civilian causalities.

Finally, my government has been in communication with the Nuns, the sponsors of this resolution, and I'd highly recommend that if any government finds that this resolution needs improving that they consider them worth contacting, and they've convinced me that their intent was to get the ball rolling.

Howie T. Katzman