FAILED: Prohibition of UN Military [Official Topic] [Archive]

Omigodtheykilledkenny

30-12-2006, 02:05

"C'mon, c'mon ..." Ring ... ring ...

"Hello?" a sleepy voice finally answered.

"Mr. Destructor, sir, this is Sammy. I've got great news! The proposal to--"

"Hey, kid! You know what time it is in Paradise City? It's December; we still got at least three months of night left, and I really gotta hibernate ... zzzzzzz ..."

"Wake up, sir. You're not a bear."

"Aw, man. Is this that annoying federal prosecutor again? Look, dude, I already told you, what happens at Frowning Street stays at Frowning Street, and I'm sick of you subpoenaing documents, so why don't you just crawl back down that whirlpool you came from and have your own private feeding frenzy with all the other sharks ..."

"I'm not the federal prosecutor, sir. I'm your man at the UN, and I'm trying to tell that Prohibition ..."

"Er, oh," Fernanda answered groggily. "Are you that guy what arranges my CPESL visits for me? Sorry I didn't get you the payment for this month, but we been really busy, you know, hiding from Artichoke-ville and all their terrible witchcraft and whatnot ..."

"No, Mr. Destructor, I don't work for CPESL. I work for you at the United Nations ..."

"United Nations?! Didn't we resign from that place?"

"We re-applied, sir; you ordered it."

"Dude, I sign a lot of things I don't even read. Did you know that January is Genderqueer Celebration Month? Apparently I signed that into law too ..."

"Well, Mr. Destructor, sir, this isn't about genderqueers; I wanted to tell you ..."

"... so now I gotta appear at some big festival at the Paradise City Sports Arena in a little pink tutu ..."

"Um, Mr. Destructor, sir? This ain't about your celebration. I'm just calling to tell you that the proposal your administration is sponsoring made to quorum, having received the requisite 121 signatures from delegate nations, so we're voting on it tomorrow."

A pause. "Dude, whatever. Look, I'm really hot for some redheads this week; could send an extra few with my regular order on Saturday? Thanks, man ..."

"Mr. Destructor, will you listen?! Prohibition of UN Military is coming to vote, and I need you to--"

"Who's this again?"

"Sammy Faisano, sir."

"Sammy Who?"

"Faisano."

"You're Sammy Faisano?" Fernanda asked excitedly.

"Yes, sir."

"Never heard of him."

"Goddammit! Mr. Destructor, this is very important. I'm here at the UN, and Prohibition of UN military, which I wrote, which you signed off on, which the administration is sponsoring, is coming to vote, so I need you to talk to Secretary Tehrani and arrange for a ..."

"Prohibition of UN Military?"

"Yes, sir."

"You mean the proposal to prohibit a UN military?"

"That's in the title, sir."

"Sweet! Finally! We're getting rid of the UN military! That way, when we finally attack UN Headquarters for being such douchebags all the time, they won't have any means to fight back! AHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!"

"Um, sir, that's not what this is about ..."

"Haha!! Take that, Frisbeeteria! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

"Good-bye, sir."

<click>

Ring! Ring!

"Uh, hello?"

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!"

<click!>

Prohibition of UN Military
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Omigodtheykilledkenny

Description: Determined to maintain the neutrality of the United Nations over international affairs, and to protect the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states;

This Assembly hereby resolves:

1. That member states shall neither raise nor contribute funds or forces toward the creation of any army or police force under the banner or command of the NationStates United Nations;

2. That member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

30-12-2006, 02:09

Sorry, folks. Jolt's being a little bitch, so no poll this time. FAQ coming tomorrow.

Havvy

30-12-2006, 02:52

OOC:Ha ha ha. lol. That's the best thing I've read on hear for the past week (even if I don't really come on more than once a week to the forums).

IC:I gave you your 127th endorsement. Sorry it took so long to endorse it. I am going to no matter what, vote for this because it is already a rule, and now it's going to be a resolution.

Edit: We will throw anybody out a window who disagrees with this resolution. Oh course, we hope nobody disagrees with it.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

"Did I miss the last meeting(s). Oh well.

Ellelt

30-12-2006, 05:38

Ellelt Is proud to report that Not only did it endorse this legislation...being number 115 but we will be casting all seven of our delegate votes for the Proposal.

Further we will assist in the throwing from windows of any person who opposes this fine piece of legislation.

Vladimir Khernynko
Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.
Delegate for the Allied Communist States.

Ithania

30-12-2006, 08:11

We’d like to say that we’re very pleased to see this has reached quorum and would also like to congratulate the representative from OMGTKK on a very succinct resolution. The reiteration of the rules this provides hopefully means that there’ll be fewer illegal proposals trying to establish one world military.

Our only advice as a pacifistic nation would be to alter the first article so that it reads “That member states shall neither raise nor contribute funds or forces toward the creation of any army”.

Other than that we’d love to engage in the throwing of people out of windows if you’d be willing to allow us? (Of course they’d have to land on de-sharpened feathers as a matter of principle.)

Late edit: We really do hope the majority of members have read the rules. Our greatest hate would be for the recurring theme of this topic to be nations stating something which is illegal whether or not this resolution passes.

The only justification we can see for voting against is that some nations may be hoping that the rules are altered in the future for some unforeseeable reason to allow UN military actions which is akin to hoping that Gatesville will become pro-UN.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Representative for Ithania,
National Female Defenestration Champion.

Nationalian

30-12-2006, 13:31

The People's Republic of Nationalian is strongly opposed to this resolution and will without any doubt vote against it. An army of UN is neccesary to establish peace in countries struck by war. Countries that are beeing attacked should of course get military support if the UN democraticly desides that. The UN should activelly work for a more peaceful world and if it takes military actions to solve conflicts so be it.

The People's Republic of Nationalian strongly urges every country to vote AGAINST this resolution.

St Edmundan Antarctic

30-12-2006, 14:23

*snip*

Maybe it's a good thing that our ambassador's job doesn't include the authority to launch nuclear attacks: Maybe...

*checks to see whether Nataionalian's ambassador is standing near a window: He is...*

"Look out below!"

Euphobes

30-12-2006, 14:24

The rules forbid a UN army anyway and a proposal including one will be illegal. Nationalian is mistaken in believing that the UN will offer military aid when OOC rules prohibit that. Euphobes has voted in favour of the resolution as opposing it won't serve any purpose.

Nationalian

30-12-2006, 14:34

Ardchoille

30-12-2006, 14:41

Dang me, us folks down here in Artichokeville bin rocked right back on our witchy ol' heels! Two good thangs comin' outta Omig_dtheybilledKenny in the one year! The first bein', a'course, young Sammy Faisano over there -- aww, lookit 'im blushin', ain't he just the cutest li'l thang? -- an' the second bein' this sassy l'il proposal ...

Abandoning the attempt to live down to her nation's nickname, Dicey Reilly turns to the representative from Nationalian:

Voting against this proposal won't give the UN an army. It can't have one because that's the way it was set up. This proposal is an attempt to get 'no UN army' on the books as a resolution as well. The idea is that it will stop nations writing as many illegal proposals. Think of it as a procedural motion.

Or think of it as a nice thing to do for Fris, who apparently believes that people read the lists of passed resolutions before writing new ones. Voting against it would be like telling him about You Know Who.

Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus ... so we're voting for him.

Nationalian

30-12-2006, 14:46

Dang me, us folks down here in Artichokeville bin rocked right back on our witchy ol' heels! Two good thangs comin' outta Omig_dtheybilledKenny in the one year! The first bein', a'course, young Sammy Faisano over there -- aww, lookit 'im blushin', ain't he just the cutest li'l thang? -- an' the second bein' this sassy l'il proposal ...

Abandoning the attempt to live down to her nation's nickname, Dicey Reilly turns to the representative from Nationalian:

Voting against this proposal won't give the UN an army. It can't have one because that's the way it was set up. This proposal is an attempt to get 'no UN army' on the books as a resolution as well. The idea is that it will stop nations writing as many illegal proposals. Think of it as a procedural motion.

Which is why we're voting for it.

Well, Nationalian thinks it's unfortunate that the UN can't have an army and we don't care if this resolution passes or not because we find it pointless then.

Ardchoille

30-12-2006, 15:00

Well, Nationalian thinks it's unfortunate that the UN can't have an army and we don't care if this resolution passes or not because we find it pointless then.

Not entirely pointless. It's rare to find so much sweetness and light in the General Assembly. We intend to enjoy it while it lasts. *Distributes bottles of Old 'n' Funky uisquebaugh*

FSPUB

30-12-2006, 15:39

this resolution is stupid ... The United Nations must have an army as you all know we have the Peace Keeping Forces that are considered millitary forces....they are necessary .. they do not make use of armed force but they act as a buffer in conflict areas...if you ban u.n millitary than in a conflict The U.N cannot do anything to stop it if the parts that take part in the conflict do not settle matters in a diplomatical way... The real U.N acts as a pacifier not as an agressor so there is no use to ban millitary forces from U.N.(and also every member of the u.n has to send troops it is mandatory and as an example china has been sending 1 man for 30 years , so everybody can send as many soldiers as they wish) ,,, That;s it enjoy your holydays :)

Zingatan

30-12-2006, 15:46

Ok- so the *rules* clearly state that a UN military force of any kind cannot and wil not be established. The resolutions apply only to UN members, right? Whilst the rules apply to every single nation in Nationstates. So could someone EXPLICITLY explain the point of this resolution? Please? Perty please?
Until I see a satisfactory reply, we in the URF are voting against this for being superfluous.

Ausserland

30-12-2006, 15:54

Ausserland has cast its vote in favor of the resolution.

We'd suggest that those who are complaining that the resolution would forbid a UN army spend their time reading the rules rather than wasting it by posting messages in this debate. The rules already clearly prohibit the formation or maintenance of any UN military force. Period. The resolution is intended merely as a warning signal for those who don't bother reading the rules.

To be honest, we really can't see the resolution having much value. As our distinguished colleague from Ardchoille suggests, the notion that those who write proposals without reading the rules will pore over the passed resolutions list seems rather Pollyana-ish to us. But the resolution will certainly do no harm and, on the off-chance it might do some good, we support it.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Windurst1

30-12-2006, 17:15

Nationalian even thou saying teh UN can't have an Army we stil get people making proposals for it to have one and the request for an anti UN army law came from the mods themselves. I support this.

From the Office Of Rika Shidou
Leader of Windurst

Ithania

30-12-2006, 17:22

We’d like to thank those nations who have “contributed” their complaints as they perfectly illustrate why a reiteration of the rules in resolution form is needed.

We, as natural pessimists, would typically be inclined to agree with the representative from Ausserland. However, given what the vote presently stands at, a worrying trend is emerging and should it continue we believe it will reveal that a significant minority, if not the majority, of member nations are unaware of the rules of this organisation.

Therefore this resolution could potentially provide the focal point needed to educate that group via the debate here and debates within regions which should ultimately yield less illegal proposals.

Conversely, should this resolution fail it could make the situation far worse by giving some member nations the “inspiration” to create proposals in support of a UN military under the belief they are legal because they have no knowledge to the contrary.

So let’s hope it passes because we’d prefer not to imagine the massive member education programme required in the alternative. (couldn’t resist letting pessimism exercise itself.)

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Representative for Ithania.

Aqua Anu

30-12-2006, 17:42

seems like a really pointless resolution seeing as you CAN'T make a U.N. army. Which honestly I don't understand I mean why doesn't the NSUN have a "peace keeping force" I can understand a full out army, oh the proposals we'd see. But a mild mannerd peace keeping force of volunteers? But not like it matters, I'm just going to abstain.

Gallantaria

30-12-2006, 18:08

Gallantaria voted against this resolution.

Gallantaria sees no need for this resolution considering that the rules already do not allow a UN-army.

Mikeswill

30-12-2006, 18:10

Mikeswill's vote for Prohibition of UN Military has been noted.

The NationStates Region is known as a Pacifistic ~ Pro-Peace Region. We find no reason for the UN to meddle in National affairs through the use of militaristic force.

The Mikes Hope Essence of Mikeswill
UN Delegate
NationStates Region

Jey

30-12-2006, 18:11

So could someone EXPLICITLY explain the point of this resolution? Please? Perty please?

This resolution:

1) Assists the mods by lowering the number of proposals that create a UN army (hopefully)
2) Lowers the number of needless newbie violations for such proposals
3) Provides IC legislative support for an OOC rule, for which there is a precedent in Rights and Duties of UN States

Schwarzchild

30-12-2006, 18:31

(Looks at Sammy Faisano)

You poor young man...(shaking head, trying hard not to laugh on the floor of the UN, not quite succeeding) don't worry, dementia can be cured with a regular colonic for the patient everyday. We recommend that you hire a nurse to apply the colonic.

We also recommend you take up heavy drinking. (starts laughing so hard that tears comes to his eyes)

(Looks over at the representative from Ardchoille, and gains a modicum of control back) You're right, he is cute.

The Commonwealth of Schwarzchild votes IN FAVOR of this fine resolution.

Now I must return to this lovely spiced egg-nog. Happy New Year! May all of your naughtiest hopes and wishes come true this year!

Sir Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador, Commonwealth of Schwarzchild

Dashanzi

30-12-2006, 21:05

I have placed my nation's vote in favour of the resolution. Best of luck, Ambassador Faisano; it seems you will need it, and not just for the resolution.

Benedictions,

Mikeswill

30-12-2006, 21:23

In response to a Nation in my Region disagreeing with my FOR Vote:

I can appreciate The Rogue Nation of Indogma's concerns about the alleged plight of the small and weak Nation versus a larger aggressor but: 1) the small Nation has alternative options; 2) aggression against other Nations is seldom the pretext for UN intervention.

The first point: In the JenGuv Land Nations have the luxury to belong to Regions arguably to extend their health and well-being providing the action of War as an unviable course by an aggressor. For instance, should a Nation in this Region choose to War with another Nation, said Nation could be expelled from the Region causing the action of War to be pacified.

The second point: In the Global World seldom do Nations actually attack each other across National borders. The last case in point was the Iraqi aggression against Kuwait some 16 years past. The result was US intervention against the aggressor. The majority of National aggression in the World today is internal strife (to include the Balkan example). It is in these instances that the UN has occasionally interceded.

From a JenGuv standpoint I do not want the interference of the UN to over rule both National and Regional Sovereignty. If peewee Nation has a difficulty with an aggressor then peewee ought to find the alternative options toward peace that Regional power can be induced and not depend on the arbitrary power or wisdom of the UN to come to his aid.

The Peace Loving Nation of Mikeswill

Omigodtheykilledkenny

30-12-2006, 22:21

Kwaaazy Kenny Voting Report
We tell you how you voted, so you don't have to.

Prohibition of UN Military

--- FOR: 954 (42.2%)
--- AGAINST: 1,307 (57.8%)
--- GIRAFFE IN A HOTTUB: 0 (0.0%)
--- POLAR BEAR IN A FRIDGIDAIRE: 0 (0.0%)
--- HOTRODIA IN A PENGUIN SUIT: 0 (0.0%)
--- CEO IN A NAUGHTY NIGHTIE: 0 (0.0%)
--- KARMI IN ARMY BOOTS: 0 (0.0%)
http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/images/senate/icon.lg.pro.winner.gif HACK IN A SEXY SPEEDO: 0 (0.0%)

Votes Reporting: 21% (Compared to votes for Repeal "Fair Sentencing Act")

The OMGTKK Mission to the United Nations is prepared to project that HACK IN A SEXY SPEEDO will win the UN vote on "Prohibition of UN Military" on 01.03.2007, with an estimated 94% of the vote. You wanna know just how we know what the outcome will be before it's realized? It's similar to the Jevian process, actually: we look at the current returns, analyze them against recent votes of the UN, gaze at tealeaves, perform an ancient Kawaiian voodoo ritual, then sit around snorting coke and gunpowder, sacrifice a virgin heifer to the gods, and after the ensuing blood orgy consult the Grand Satanic Oracle Necromonicus. Necromonicus knows all, sees all. And if any one tries to question our completely-100%-accurate-all-the-time predictions, we simply tell them: "We Report, You Can Suck It." So suck it hard.

George Brown
Director of Communications

Schlagerland

30-12-2006, 22:29

The Oppressed Peoples of Schlagerland vote in favor of this resolution.

Resolutions supporting the same thing over and over again is a Hallmark of the United Nations.

We should encourage this trend.

Now, where's that eggnog bowl at again???

HotRodia

30-12-2006, 22:59

I am entirely in favor of hobbling this body in its quest for world domination through warm and fuzzy doctrines of peace, love, and recreational drugs.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Kedalfax

30-12-2006, 23:31

This was posted by Kenny in the IDU Forums. (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1082)

I would just like to make it clear to the members of the IDU that this was submitted this at the behest (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=510977) of Game Moderators seeking IC justification for the already-effective rule banning UN military forces. This is not a fiendish attempt to deprive the UN of power it does not have, but the response to a request to "enforce" current proposal rules through UN legislation. Thank you.

So. Obviously this proposal is NOT illegal, it does NOT violate any laws, and it does NOT remove any powers from the UN. I would seriously like to know what is wrong with this proposal!

Sirat

30-12-2006, 23:56

OOC: I'm in favor of it because it gives an IC justification for the OOC rule.

IC: The nation of Sirat has serious concerns with giving an organization as meddlesome as the UN the ability to use military force. Therefore, we support this prohibition.

Drogren

31-12-2006, 00:03

The colony of Drogren has no qualms supporting this resolution. The UN has no place on the battlefield, beyond spreading slowers about, calling for peace, and getting shot.

UN ambassador for Drogren,
General Zandar Sardaal

Lysanderian Sparta

31-12-2006, 00:10

Voted against....

Why?

Because the UN needs peacekeeping forces in order to do anything. Without it, theyd just be a bunch of beauracrats with doing EVEN LESS to benefit humanity.

Waterana

31-12-2006, 00:12

Can't believe I haven't commented on this yet.

Waterana approves of this legislation, and votes for. While we do agree with all things peaceful warm and fluffy, like promoting international peace and disarmament (cue music....Blowing in the Wind), we also approve of preventing the UN raising an army of any sort. If this assists in reducing the numbers of those who continually attempt to do so, in spite of the proposal rules, then it can only be a good thing.

Yelda

31-12-2006, 00:47

An army of UN is neccesary to establish peace in countries struck by war.

this resolution is stupid ... The United Nations must have an army as you all know we have the Peace Keeping Forces that are considered millitary forces....they are necessary ..

seems like a really pointless resolution seeing as you CAN'T make a U.N. army. Which honestly I don't understand I mean why doesn't the NSUN have a "peace keeping force"

Voted against....

Why?

Because the UN needs peacekeeping forces in order to do anything.

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Henceforth, my policy will be to post this quote from the rules every time anyone comes in here yammering about "why can't the UN have an army? We need an army!"

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Poster of Obnoxious Red Text

Altanar

31-12-2006, 00:52

Ardchoille

31-12-2006, 00:53

Oh please don't let her say anything about Mr Faisano oh please don't let her say anything about Mr Faisano oh please please please ...

Avaya Thibaudet, the Ardchoille delegation intern, sits tensely if unreadably in her all-enveloping white robes as Ardchoille's Co-President, Dicey Reilly, once more enters the debate:

"I would like to assure the representative of Schwarzchild that the representative of Omigodtheykilledkenny is not demented. He has conducted himself with amazing and (nationally) uncharacteristic discretion, both in the submission of this proposal and in ..." (glancing at the cringing intern beside her) " ... other matters.

"I would urge the delegate of Lysanderian Sparta to read this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=511849) thread, particularly the second post -- without embarrassment, because he's not the only one been caught this way, as I can attest (sorry about that newest dependency of ours, mods).

"While not wishing to deflect debate from the substance of the proposal, I must beg nations not to support the Hack in a Sexy Speedo option. Having just returned from a holiday in a Downunderian nation where such budgie-smugglers are the norm, I assure you, sexy they are not.

"I am therefore instructed by my government to vote for the Hotrodia in a Penguin Suit option, penguin suits being notoriously unrevealing, despite a personal preference for the Ceo in a Naughty Nightie choice."
____________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

Ariddia

31-12-2006, 00:53

For a brief moment, I hoped this proposal could establish a record for highest ever percentage of votes in favour. In a sane world, it would.

But then I remembered... :(

Anyway, it goes without saying (although I'm saying it anyway) that Ariddia supports this.

Drogren

31-12-2006, 01:16

For those of you who think the UN should have an army it can send across anyone's borders at will, in complete defiance of the fact the rules explicitly state it can't, we have a solution. The Kingdom of Altanar would be more than happy to occupy your lands whenever you wish, if only to show you the complete foolishness of wanting to create an army for that purpose. We'll keep your peace like you've never seen it kept before, if that's what you really want.

No takers? Wow, we're shocked.

And as you might guess, Altanar is voting for this resolution.

- Cmdr. Delren Meleketh, Security Chief

Hear, hear! Drogren would be only too happy to assist in such an mission. Even with our main battle tanks occupied with the hunting of plasma cannons, we are quite sure we can come up with a few million heavy infantry should such an invas... I mean, 'Peacekeeping mission' be warrented.

General Zandar Sardaal

Paradica

31-12-2006, 01:32

For a brief moment, I hoped this proposal could establish a record for highest ever percentage of votes in favour. In a sane world, it would.
As did I. On the other hand, in a sane world this proposal wouldn't be needed.

Havvy

31-12-2006, 01:46

The delegates of the following regions have been tossed out of windows by Dr. Sizofren:

Nationalian
FSPUB
Aqua Anu
Lysanderian Sparta
------
"Please, try reading the UN Charter (OOC: The rules) before coming back in here. I'm sure the UN Gnome gave you a copy of them when you first came in. In case they haven't, here."

*Dr. Sizofren throws 4 slips of identical papers out the window.*

"If only people learned rules before you start acting. I mean really, you had to learn the rules before you could play little kid games like hop-scotch, solitary, tag, and baseball! Why would a job be any different!"

OOC Translation: Everything has rules you have to follow. If you don't follow them, you get punished. This could be a pay deduction, time-out, jail, being called a cheater, or losing. Yes, there are a lot more, but really. [/OOC]

"If only the world we live on could be sane." *Sign*

All speaking done by Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

Lithoria

31-12-2006, 02:36

The Citizen's Republic of Lithoria would like to support this proposal and would happily do so but for one nagging concern. For the moment Lithoria is abstaining from voting until the following question may be raised.

Should this proposal come to pass, would it prohibit all United Nations members from organizing international coalitions independent of United Nations sanction in order to bring to justice governments seen by said coalition to be violating basic human rights?

If such answer be yes, all United Nations members would be prohibited from organizing a non-UN sanctioned international armed force in the interest of human rights abuses, then Lithoria would be forced to decline support for this proposal in fear that the members of the United Nations would be rendered toothless and powerless if and when human rights abuses occur in other countries.

If such independent organization is not prohibited, however, then Lithoria would gladly cast its vote in support of this proposal.

Ferrard Carson,
Secretary of State,
Citizen's Republic of Lithoria

Jey

31-12-2006, 02:40

Yelda

31-12-2006, 02:45

North Austin

31-12-2006, 02:56

Retired WerePenguins

31-12-2006, 03:01

"I am therefore instructed by my government to vote for the Hotrodia in a Penguin Suit option, penguin suits being notoriously unrevealing, despite a personal preference for the Ceo in a Naughty Nightie choice."

A large emperor penguin enters the hall accompanied by Red Hot Blonde.
The penguin speaks, and Red Hot translates.

"Suit? Who needs a suit?"
http://pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/5512569/217619197.jpg

Dancing Bananland

31-12-2006, 03:05

How can this resolution be failing, IT'S IN THE FREAKING RULES.

Recap, reasons to support this proposal:
-It's backed up by the game rules.
-The mods requested it.
-Even if it fails, you still can't create a UN army.
-It does or affects nothing else in the game.

Okay, there is basicaly only one valid argument, that I have seen, against this proposal, and that is that it's unnecessary as it's already in the UN Charter/rules. Even the rules aspect is negated because it was the mods (replace M with G for an idea of their job) who requested the proposal in the first place.

Recap, reasons to vote against:
-Already in the rules, unneccessary beauracry
.....
.....ummm
-Holding out some vain hope someday in the distant future you may pass a UN army resolution?
...
-Rebellion is considered "cool"
-Very very ver lost causes are considered "cool"

Considering only one of the reasons to vote against make any real sense, I really think people should reconsider their votes against.

Lithoria

31-12-2006, 03:06

i voted against it.

reason : what if there was a war that needed to be intervened? who will do that?

and also PECEKEEPING missions. yeah, let's just let people starve.

we need something that can stop some bigot nations. and the U.N. forces do that.

Representative of North Austin - your concerns are precisely the reason I have raised Lithoria's issue and found the answer satisfactory to my country's general populace. Should destabilizing conflict occur, the powers-that-be within the United Nations would be perfectly capable of organizing a military alliance distinctly seperate from the United Nations in order to intervene in such a conflict.

To the Ambassador from the People's Democratic Republic of Yelda, Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú, thank you for supplying an answer to my question; I have conferred with my compatriots and we have agreed to fully support this proposal in all respects.

Ferrard Carson,
Secretary of State,
Citizen's Republic of Lithoria

Yelda

31-12-2006, 03:08

i voted against it.

reason : what if there was a war that needed to be intervened? who will do that?

and also PECEKEEPING missions. yeah, let's just let people starve.

we need something that can stop some bigot nations. and the U.N. forces do that.

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador
Poster of Obnoxious Red Text

Romanworldsx

31-12-2006, 04:00

Lithoria

31-12-2006, 04:04

((OOC))

Romanworldsx

Read my posts and you'll see that this isn't true. Nations can still ally themselves in pursuit of a common interest or goal. Example: The United States/Great Britain/Other countries banding together into the Coalition of the Willing and invading Iraq. The Coalition was not sanctioned by the United Nations, but still was formed. That type of organization is still legal under this proposal.

~ Ferrard

((/OOC))

Yelda

31-12-2006, 04:06

now listen if the united nations did this in real life they would have no way of stoping genocide or other important issues [like saving Darfur]. It would let nations do whatever they like without any way to hold rogue nations back.
Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Hint: This isn't real life.

Samsom

31-12-2006, 05:39

We really don't need one more military force do we? If the time comes that the UN needs a military, it can rely on those of its member states can it not?

The Most Glorious Hack

31-12-2006, 06:22

For those of you worried about crippling the UN, don't worry. You'll still have Lassie:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/UNLassie.jpg

Flibbleites

31-12-2006, 06:25

Well, Nationalian thinks it's unfortunate that the UN can't have an army and we don't care if this resolution passes or not because we find it pointless then.If you don't care whether or not the resolution passes, does that mean that you will be changing your vote from Against to Abstain?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Somethingey

31-12-2006, 06:37

Do we really need this:mp5: and mybe some of this:sniper:

No we don't if something bad happens then ask an ally for help and if you
don't have one now would be the time to get one.

Also The Empire of somethingey votes for.

Namiquipa

31-12-2006, 06:41

Flibbleites

31-12-2006, 06:46

This Measure to attempt to disban the UN millitary is utterly ridiculous. many nations depend on the support of the UN armed forces to maintain security when the said nation is unable to. it is incredulous to believe that by dismantaling the UN millitary will somehow make the planet a safer place to live. the People's Republic of Namiquipa offically rejects said resolution of prohibition and urges the rest of the member nations to vote Against it as well. However, it is the opinion of the Ministry of Affairs that the United Nations review its policies on how the Millitary is run and just exactly who runs it.

Declan Oromoff- Minister of Foreign Affairs
People's Republic of Namiquipa
"Ad Lucem"

You might want to take a look at that big red text a few posts above yours and try again.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Yelda

31-12-2006, 07:11

Karmicaria

31-12-2006, 07:28

The Queendom has voted FOR this resolution.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

(OOC)Army boots? Is that the best you could come up with, Kenny? Karmi in Army Boots. Heh. :p

Lithoria

31-12-2006, 08:04

((OOC))

Lassie in a smurf hat... Lieber Gott, Sacre Merde, Madre de Dios...

((/OOC))

Ariddia

31-12-2006, 12:51

This Measure to attempt to disban the UN millitary is utterly ridiculous. [...] it is incredulous to believe that by dismantaling the UN millitary will somehow make the planet a safer place to live.

Ambassador Zyryanov resists an urge to bang her head against her teacup.

"Perhaps we could offer Minister Oromoff an education. Starting with primary school. We promise not to let him graduate until he can read. Oh, and write, too."

The Tetrad

31-12-2006, 14:38

Ausserland

31-12-2006, 14:59

Every individual or body of individuals has the right to defense and security. The UN is not a neutral ground. There are very specific rules that govern it, which make it biased...biased in favor of peace and democracy, but still biased. It already has Rules of Engagement which forbid it from invading countries or joining in wars. This proposal will not do anything but remove the UN's teeth, making it vulnerable to attack. The UN being that vulnerable makes every member nation just as vulnerable.

Vote AGAINST.

Just to satisfy our curiosity, we'd appreciate knowing if the representatives of Namiquipa and the Tetrad bothered reading any of the posts in this thread before posting their comments. And we'd also like to know where we can find the "Rules of Engagement" that bind the NSUN's non-existent military forces? :rolleyes:

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Legupia

31-12-2006, 15:06

The People's Republic of Legupia would like to voice support for this resolution.

1. The United Nations does not govern any territory, therefore it needs no army to defend itself against threats
2. The United Nations does not and should not hold an army for the purposes of invasions.
3. The United Nations would reserve the ability to sponsor invasions or peacekeeping missions led by member nations for humanitarian purposes in troubled countries.
4. Although a UN military is considered illegal in custom anyways, it is not codified in any previous UN resolutions.
5. This resolution was requested by the Powers That Be (a.k.a. moderators), and most nations should know which side they want to be on.

We would like to urge all other nations to support this resolution.

Retired WerePenguins

31-12-2006, 16:24

now listen if the united nations did this in real life they would have no way of stoping genocide or other important issues [like saving Darfur]. It would let nations do whatever they like without any way to hold rogue nations back.

:headbang: This isn't real life, real world or real anything.
Is this the real life-
Is this just fantasy-
Caught in a landslide-
No escape from reality-
Open your eyes
Look up to the skies and see

More over in the so called real world the United Nations does not have a standing army. Member states have armies and extend portions of their armed services under the banner of the United Nations. In practice that doesn't need to happen as allied nations can form alliances that can send troops on the behalf of the United Nations. (NATO is a good example of a multi-national force not directly under the UN banner that has deployed in a number of cases.)

I see a little silhouetto of a man,
Scaramouche,scaramouche will you do the fandango-
Thunderbolt and lightning-very very frightening me-
Galileo,galileo,
Galileo galileo
Galileo figaro-magnifico-

In any event the United Nations (the one here in NS which we should be technically be discussing) cannot act in a partial manner. It cannot implement resolutions that requires the active roleplaying participation by some or parts of its members. All committees are staffed by peace loving gnomes. It is not possible to even bring a resolution like condemning Darfur on the floor in the first place (Branding violation) and so the only thing a UN army could do would be to attack every UN nation at the same time. (Or defend every UN nation at the same time.) That's beyond silly; it's stupid! But it's NationStates, we love it and will ever defend it!

Kedalfax

31-12-2006, 16:34

Every individual or body of individuals has the right to defense and security. The UN is not a neutral ground. There are very specific rules that govern it, which make it biased...biased in favor of peace and democracy, but still biased. It already has Rules of Engagement which forbid it from invading countries or joining in wars. This proposal will not do anything but remove the UN's teeth, making it vulnerable to attack. The UN being that vulnerable makes every member nation just as vulnerable.

Vote AGAINST.

Let's say this again:
Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

The UN has no teeth to be taken away! And of course the UN is biased toward peace!

Ithania

31-12-2006, 17:16

(OOC: ouchie, red isn't very sympathetic to eyes is it? :()

*The deputy ambassador hands the representative for Kedalfax large neon lights*

Perhaps those will get the bloody point across and conveniently blind those who are voting against... that way they won't be able to tell the gnomes who repeatedly hit them with a copy of the resolution.

Moros "Iron Side" Pelvar,
Deputy UN Representative,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

FSPUB

31-12-2006, 17:26

this is bullshit i must remind you that the u.n.s role is to maintain peace at interntional level it is an improved version of the league of nations.... U.N must act as a pacifier not only among country members but also among non-member states ..conflicts etc thus The Peace Keeping Forces are military and act as a buffer in conflict areas it is not allowed to make use of force but is able to fight back if attacked so there is no use to ban millitary from U.N. as it is clearly said that missions carried under the U.N. have no violent character only a pacifier character.... this is what the real U.N. is about so there is no use of such a resolution...respect

Ariddia

31-12-2006, 17:35

OOC:

this is bullshit i must remind you that the u.n.s role is to maintain peace at interntional level it is an improved version of the league of nations....

This is the NSUN, not the real UN. There has never been a League of Nations. There is no stated role for the United Nations.

And that answers the rest of your post too.

For goodness' sake, do read the rules and the rest of the thread before you post.

Ithania

31-12-2006, 18:21

OOC:
U.N must act as a pacifier not only among country members but also among non-member states

With "respect" wouldn't it be true under this system that all nations are effectively members because they have no choice but to abide by rulings even if they haven't agreed to any of the resolutions passed in the *artificial and virtual* NSUN? Would you like to explain to me how you can possibly have this rationale even in real life?

post title: wow again

I believe we're finding ourselves saying the same thing considering you were given the exact same responses earlier...

respect

"Respect" to you too, I'm sorry if you read this and think I'm being awfully harsh but I don't like it when people ignore the replies they've been given which took the time and effort of others.

However, I believe all people deserve chances so if you learn from this I won't give you an unjustly critically reply again. :)

Intangelon

31-12-2006, 19:28

OOC: So military action is verboten for the UN by the rules, and the hope is that those drafting proposals will consult the list of active proposals (theoretically including this one) and realize that their proposal to create a big ol' NSUN Death Star is illegal both I and OOC.

I can see why the NSUN shouldn't have an army -- it's just one principle: who RPs it?

My only other questions are these two:

1. How many proposals have there been recently for UN military buildup or action? Admittedly, I miss the occasionaly resolution due to time away from computers, but I don't recall seeing many. Or any.... Of course, I know one of you NSUN scholars will set me straight there.

2. How many other game rules are canonized in NSUN law? Is there a precedent, and does that mean we'll see a few more resolutions attempting to do the same thing as the one OMGTKK so skillfully drafted? I ask because I'm looking for a really cheap, no-brainer resolution that has something like the force of NS rules behind it on order to draft and successfully pass a resolution of my own...(just teasing, Kennyites).

IC: Yeah, what the hell, we vote for. Superfluous but well-intended is better than superfluous and worthless. The Mods deserve all the help they can get.

Yelda

31-12-2006, 19:48

1. How many proposals have there been recently for UN military buildup or action?
I can't give you an exact number (because I haven't counted them), but they do seem to show up in the Silly Proposals thread with some regularity. I'm sure Hack or Fris could give a fairly accurate estimate.

2. How many other game rules are canonized in NSUN law? Is there a precedent,
Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50).

Frisbeeteria

31-12-2006, 20:26

1. How many proposals have there been recently for UN military buildup or action? Admittedly, I miss the occasionaly resolution due to time away from computers, but I don't recall seeing many.
I delete 2-10 every week. Without fail. Can't speak for Hack, but I'm sure he could add to the total.

Zingatan

31-12-2006, 21:32

This resolution:

1) Assists the mods by lowering the number of proposals that create a UN army (hopefully)
2) Lowers the number of needless newbie violations for such proposals
3) Provides IC legislative support for an OOC rule, for which there is a precedent in Rights and Duties of UN States

If the newbies are submitting proposals which directly violate *the rules* what is a UN resolution going to do to stop them submitting the same, illegitimate proposals? Will there be any relief for the mods?
And furthermore, at risk of deletion here, why should the average nation/regional delegate give a damn if the mods have to do *sighs* ohh so much work as to click delete on the half-arsed proposals?
I've also noted, despite the fact that the majority of the posters on this thread have voted for this resolution, the votes are stacked heavily against. Will of the nations, perhaps? No, silly thought. Must be something mentally wrong with people who disagree with this legislation.

Ithania

31-12-2006, 22:30

If the newbies are submitting proposals which directly violate *the rules* what is a UN resolution going to do to stop them submitting the same, illegitimate proposals? Will there be any relief for the mods?

OOC: I believe if you look at the debate so far it isn't necessarily "newbies" but rather a wider uninformed group of NSUN member nations therefore, as has already been stated, this could potentially ensure less illegal proposals via a trickle down effect of information from UN to regional to national level.

And furthermore, at risk of deletion here, why should the average nation/regional delegate give a damn if the mods have to do *sighs* ohh so much work as to click delete on the half-arsed proposals?

OOC: I don't believe you're at risk of deletion; however, you are at risk of sounding arrogant and discourteous.

The moderators run the entire game and do have lives to live beyond NS therefore considering their duty to so many nations the least they should be allowed to ask for is an IC resolution to enshrine OOC rules isn’t it?

I've also noted, despite the fact that the majority of the posters on this thread have voted for this resolution, the votes are stacked heavily against. Will of the nations, perhaps? No, silly thought. Must be something mentally wrong with people who disagree with this legislation.

*Ambassador Anravelle rises, holding a hand out to steady herself… then two.*

We have no qualms about admitting that we do believe that there is something mentally deficient about the people who are voting against this *the Ithanian delegation moans* and it takes the form of a lack of information in comparison to the long-standing, informed member nations who frequent this chamber.

Moreover, we believe the “will of the people” is based on “silly thoughts” in this instance as has been demonstrated by the many member nations sending representatives to inform us that this resolution will “disband” present UN military forces which do not and clearly cannot exist!

We are more than certain if every member nation were to partake in reading the rules and comments left by esteemed representatives then this resolution would pass with a record margin.

Anravelle “was that really half a bottle?” Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Havvy

31-12-2006, 22:45

Alright, well, I am trying to get a few delegates to change their mind. I have a problem with trying to think of a reply to this, and at the same time, not annoy anybody. Those in quotes is the text of my original telegram to this nation. Anyways, what would a nice reply be fore this?

Dear Dr. Sizofren,

I thank you for your posting and I am willing to answer it. First of all I want to apologize for my english; I am not a native speaker...

"The leader of Gallantaria, I ask you to change your vote around. This piece of legislation is not hurting your nation in any way."

I do not agree on that point, because this resolution is unecessary as the game itself does not allow any war. With almost 200 resolutions I see no need for more of them without due reason.

"1. You will still be able to have an army."

I agree on this point. But so do I if this resolution fails.

"2. The UN can't have an army anyways."

So why make a resolution? Maybe the game might be extended one day..

"3. This resolution is suppose to make it so that there's IC writing back the OOC rules."

I see no need for this. The players who did not read the rules did not read the nearly 200 resolutions either.

"4. It was asked for by the moderators."

Do you see how arrogant the moderators and their fellows are in the forum? Everyone who dares to give another opinion is considered to be a stupid idiot immediately! If the moderators are for this resolution, it is a reason to be against it!

"That should be enough reasons for you to change your votes."

For the reasons mentionned above, I will not change my mind. If the mods want to have less illegal propositions, they should do more to help new players. What about, for exemple, offering new players help by an experienced player, a kind of tutor, instead of refering to them as "n00bs" or worse? I would be pleased if you could talk to the mods about this, my last "discussion" with them was a bit "tense" not to say aggressive...

"If it is not, please check out the sticky on the nationstate forums. You will find backing by ALL the moderators, and every other important person of the UN."

Nice to know that the Nations voting against this resolution are not important...

"Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador of Havvy
'Official Seal of Havvy'"

Nevertheless, dear Dr. Sizofren, I thank you for your notice and wish you a happy new year!

The President of the Confederacy of Gallantaria

Kivisto

01-01-2007, 02:45

Gallantaria voted against this resolution.

Gallantaria sees no need for this resolution considering that the rules already do not allow a UN-army.

Then consider it roleplaying practice.

For those of you who think the UN should have an army it can send across anyone's borders at will, in complete defiance of the fact the rules explicitly state it can't, we have a solution. The Kingdom of Altanar would be more than happy to occupy your lands whenever you wish, if only to show you the complete foolishness of wanting to create an army for that purpose. We'll keep your peace like you've never seen it kept before, if that's what you really want.

Damn! Why didn't I think of that.

i voted against it.

reason : what if there was a war that needed to be intervened? who will do that?

and also PECEKEEPING missions. yeah, let's just let people starve.

we need something that can stop some bigot nations. and the U.N. forces do that.

Humanitarian Intervention. It's already on the books. Go look it up.

now listen if the united nations did this in real life they would have no way of stoping genocide or other important issues [like saving Darfur]. It would let nations do whatever they like without any way to hold rogue nations back.

The rogue nations outnumber us like 3.5 : 1. The UN having an army won't stop them if they decide to gang up and do anything. As for the Darfur example: Humanitarian Intervention. It's already on the books. Go look it up.

Quantum Exterminatia

01-01-2007, 04:02

Lady Deathstrike

01-01-2007, 04:11

Apologies if this has been said before. The major problem with the resolution: it's as though it considers the status of NationStates to be that the world revolves around the UN, that the UN is all there is to NationStates, and that all the other thousands of nations that aren't in the UN don't actually exist. Abolish the military? It sounds like an utopian ideal that seems to be bereft of common sense. So let's say all UN nations disarm. What happens if they happen to be attacked by a nation that isn't a member of the UN?

"Member states shall neither request nor expect intervention in any armed conflict by any UN-created military or police force."

Great - so my nation is forced into disarmament, and then some rogue nation comes in and conquers Quantum Exterminatia with a butter-knife while the UN twiddles its thumbs.

This resolution isn't going to force your nation into disarmament. It's not calling for all UN nations to disarm. It says that no UN Military can be formed as per the rules of the game. This proposal was written at the request of the mods. There is the hope that there won't be as many proposals in the list that create a UN army. As Fris stated, he clears 2-10 of them out of the list per week. There really shouldn't be any. If you like, here is the rule pertaining to the formation of a UN Army.

Originally Posted by Rules For UN Proposals (Now Binding)
Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

Kivisto

01-01-2007, 04:37

Hell! Not only will this not make you disarm, but as an IntSec proposal, it will boost your police/military ratings. /statwank

The Most Glorious Hack

01-01-2007, 05:59

I delete 2-10 every week. Without fail. Can't speak for Hack, but I'm sure he could add to the total.Yup. I've been less active on the game side lately, but I easily nuke a few a week, especially when you add in the various police Proposals.

Intangelon

01-01-2007, 06:03

I can't give you an exact number (because I haven't counted them), but they do seem to show up in the Silly Proposals thread with some regularity. I'm sure Hack or Fris could give a fairly accurate estimate.

Rights and Duties of UN States (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030090&postcount=50).

Concise and accurate as usual, Yelda. Thank you.

Intangelon

01-01-2007, 06:08

Yup. I've been less active on the game side lately, but I easily nuke a few a week, especially when you add in the various police Proposals.

I delete 2-10 every week. Without fail. Can't speak for Hack, but I'm sure he could add to the total.

Thank you, gentlemen. That's why I changed my vote.

Well...that and the fact that a UN force of any kind is illegal. All the time I've been here, and that's one rule that slipped my mind. Then again, Intangelon has never participated in any extra-regional military action.

Ben Royce reaches under his NSUN DeskRostrumTM and retrieves a half-meter-long 4x16cm board of Intangible Cedar and knocks, half in supersition, half in habit.

Legupia

01-01-2007, 07:27

Rubina

01-01-2007, 08:26

We had full intentions of voting for this well-written proposal. The many 'against' votes, however, have thoroughly convinced us that we truly need a UN military force. Not only that, but it's obvious that we need a mandatory draft in order to ensure that military force is well-staffed. I propose starting with those self-same 'againsters.' Obstinance over logic wins the day.

Basherie, dear, remind us to fill that anti-sarcasm prescription as soon as possible.

Leetha Talone
Ambassador to the UN
Rubina

Schlagerland

01-01-2007, 10:10

Leaders of the world, get this into your heads:

THE UN DOES NOT HAVE 'PEACEKEEPING FORCES'. THE UN SANCTIONS OTHER NATIONS TO SEND TROOPS ON PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I mean honestly, its like we let anyone run a country these days!

<sigh> I think we lose this battle to the unwashed, uninformed masses

(ooc +1 on this)

(ic)

The Delegate from Schlagerland would like to humbly offer the delegate from Legupia a pillow before he gives himself brain damage from banging his head against the wall.

Damaging our brains makes us more like them... and we don't need that.

I am informing my region about this topic, and why it is so important to vote yes... and I would encourage everyone else who votes yes on this to do the same... let the folks back home know what the reason is for this.

Ardchoille

01-01-2007, 10:15

Dicey Reilly nudges her yawning intern.

"I hope you're taking notes," she chides. "That was an education in how to be sarcastic. Ms Talone could have been glaringly obvious and called for a UN force to invade all the Againsts; instead she's suggested they be drafted into it. Subtle. Let the hook get well in before the fish wakes up."

She considers, then adds, "Of course, she also had to put out red flags so they'd know she was being sarcastic. It's called Lowest Common Denominator politics. But it's much cleverer than abuse, and you really should learn how to do it."

Avaya yawns again, leaving Dicey wondering: was that an insightful comment on the whole situation? Or was the girl just plain bored?

Zingatan

01-01-2007, 13:09

OOC: I believe if you look at the debate so far it isn't necessarily "newbies" but rather a wider uninformed group of NSUN member nations therefore, as has already been stated, this could potentially ensure less illegal proposals via a trickle down effect of information from UN to regional to national level.

OOC: I don't believe you're at risk of deletion; however, you are at risk of sounding arrogant and discourteous.

Anravelle “was that really half a bottle?” Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Heaven forbid I should sound arrogant and discourteous on a game where you pretend to be the leader of a nation...
And you'll find that I wasn't personally saying newbies were all proposing illegitimate drafts, it was a quote from another nation giving me reasons why this resolution should pass.
Gallantaria has summated all my points about this resolution, and his point about people who disagree with the mod/mainstream views held in this forum being disregarded as 'n00b's should be emphasised before we start calling anyone arrogant.

XTPx

01-01-2007, 15:38

Q: what about a peacekeeping force?

Ithania

01-01-2007, 16:12

(None of this is in character)
Heaven forbid I should sound arrogant and discourteous on a game where you pretend to be the leader of a nation...

When a person is pretending to be the leader of a nation they are role-playing, it is fictional and for entertainment purposes only. I don’t think that’s a reflection of their true personality in any way because its a necessary part of the game.

Your attitudes and opinions seemed to be stated out of character, which is not fictional, it is simply who you are, therefore I don't think your opinion and the fact that we have nations are linked in the slightest.

However, if you were in character then I apologise and ask you to make a distinction between the two in future if that’s okay?

And you'll find that I wasn't personally saying newbies were all proposing illegitimate drafts, it was a quote from another nation giving me reasons why this resolution should pass.

Okey dokey, I do dearly apologise. I believe we’ve both interpreted Jey’s words differently haven’t we? The quote you used seemed (to me) to be suggesting that the “newbie violations” aren’t necessarily all committed by new nations but are what one would expect from new nations and are also committed by older nations alike due to an ignorance of the rules.

Whereas, you seem to have interpreted it literally which is probably more correct isn’t it?

Gallantaria has summated all my points about this resolution, and his point about people who disagree with the mod/mainstream views held in this forum being disregarded as 'n00b's should be emphasised before we start calling anyone arrogant.

If it were my place I’d respond to Gallantaria’s telegram with regard to the trickle down effect of information, suggest to her/him that this is an attempt to help players by bringing the rules to the fore via this controversy so that they’ll now be aware of them, ask her/him how much time he’s willing to dedicate to helping new players, and ask her/him why (s)he’s already voted if her/his region claims to have a poll prior to the delegate voting.

Anyhoo, I’m afraid I’ve never seen a reply by a mod calling anybody a n00b or generally degrading them for no reason, if you could telegram me such examples I would be most grateful.

As for a “mainstream”, with so many varied nations and so many varied opinions from NatSov supporters to IntFed supporters, liberals to conservatives, and communists to capitalists I simply can’t see where this idea of a “mainstream” is coming from. If such a mainstream existed these debate threads wouldn’t be present would they?

Finally, it’s not that your opinion is different but rather the fact you attacked others which prompted my response and I apologise for the vitriolic nature of that… and to some degree after re-reading, this too,

I believe the quote was “why should the average nation/regional delegate give a damn if the mods have to do *sighs* ohh so much work as to click delete on the half-arsed proposals?” which to me is discourteous because it’s an attack on their commitment and arrogant because you’ve never been in their position yet claim what they have to do is easy. I’m aware that it isn’t my place to defend them so I’ll stop here.

If you’d like to discuss this further I suggest we take it to telegrams from here on in so as not to waste the time of others or space here.

Kedalfax

01-01-2007, 17:26

Q: what about a peacekeeping force?

God Lord, are you blind? It's been posted SO MANY TIMES!

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

No troops. Nada. It isn't allowed!

And I thought this resolution would sail right through with a huge majority. HAH!

Ariddia

01-01-2007, 17:38

All right, all right, let's be nice to the newbs... In the meantime, I'm going to the Strangers' Bar for a drink before I do get too irritated.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

Zingatan

01-01-2007, 20:35

If you’d like to discuss this further I suggest we take it to telegrams from here on in so as not to waste the time of others or space here.

Any discussion of the original remark about the mods commitment and any arrogance should indeed be carried out by telegram. I have nothing further to add on the statements. Nothing I say on this forum is a true reflection of my 'real life' views, because in my 'real life' I am not one of thousands of people ruling nations, regulated by all-knowing, all-seeing mods. Not only should all my statements be taken with a pinch of salt, but taken in the light-hearted manner in which they are written. This is beside the point, my original point still stands.

Uninformed players, on the whole, do not tend to come on the forum. Hence they generally have not read the...extensive rules surrounding NS, the NSUN and NSUN Proposals. The controversy is thereby contained to the more experienced players who make use of the forum. I do not believe the passing of this resolution will make life any easier for the mods, and my dislike for superfluous legislation predominates any wish to test out whether this resolution will help the mods out at all.

Flibbleites

01-01-2007, 20:54

Leaders of the world, get this into your heads:

THE UN DOES NOT HAVE 'PEACEKEEPING FORCES'. THE UN SANCTIONS OTHER NATIONS TO SEND TROOPS ON PEACEKEEPING MISSIONS :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
I mean honestly, its like we let anyone run a country these days!

<sigh> I think we lose this battle to the unwashed, uninformed massesFor crying out loud, we don't even do that much.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Uninformed players, on the whole, do not tend to come on the forum.

OOC: Have you looked at this thread? It's proof that uninformed players do occasionally find their way onto the forums.

Kivisto

01-01-2007, 22:37

Uninformed players, on the whole, do not tend to come on the forum. Hence they generally have not read the...extensive rules surrounding NS, the NSUN and NSUN Proposals.

Rules for UN proposals are all linked to from the NationStates main page. They are, in fact, linked from the section that tells you about the UN and what it does. In theory, you would have to go right past that link if you were going to join the UN, and you'd have to follow it to learn anything more about the UN than those few introductory lines. They are uninformed becausee they were not willing to find out what they getting involved in before applying to join.

Even past that point, and the point where RL is separated from NS since that keeps cropping up, there is the fact that a bunch of these people have found their way to this debate and failed to actually read the content of the thread to find out that their concerns were not truly valid before spewing out their "uninformed" nonsense.

n00b or not, I feel no compunction to be gentle with the willfully ignorant.

Ellelt

01-01-2007, 23:50

Neither do I. I have taken the liberty of providing several of the Elleltian Embassy's guards to entertainingly remove these representatives from the debate floor using that window. *points to window which hasn't been broken yet from previous defenestrations*

"Камрады, извлекают тех невежественных людей от соединенного пола камеры наций, использующ то окно. И будьте уверен вы пролом оно." Khernynko says prior to the subsequent defenestration of the Representatives of: XTPx, Quantum Exterminatia, The Tetrad, FSPUB; by burly Elleltian soldiers.

Sorry that I haven't been able to defenestrate more of them but I had to go back to New Stalingrad for the New Years Festivities, featuring our latest Rocket, and the unveiling of our shiny new sputnik satellite which might be sent skyward shortly.

Vladimir Khernynko
The Defenestrating Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.
Delegate for the Allied Communist States.

Gilabad

02-01-2007, 04:39

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

Hellao again! It is me, Borat Sogadiev!! I believe this proposal is a very nice!!! The Gilabadian government is in full support of this proposal, and has already submitted a vote for it. This is to help prevent the Civil Liberty monsters from getting involved with sovereignty...yes? Here is why I support proposal.... First, it does not restrict international military aid to nations of genocide and civil war, because the UN does not need its own army to provide military support. A country can be appointed by the UN to spare its military to go under UN sanction to provide military aid to a nation. Second, even if an army was created under the flag of the UN, it would be quit useless, with all of the "rules of war" and "rules of engagement" that would be placed upon them. What good is an army that can't shoot until one of its soldiers was killed? This was especially evident in Mogadishu, Somalia in 1993. An army simply is combat innefective when it abides by the rediculous and frivilous "rules" that are appointed by the UN to control how an army fights, when the enemy completely ignores the UN. Third, this is to ensure that, as I said before, the Civil Liberty monsters that UN is laced with from interfering with another nations buisiness. As far as I'm concerned, if people want to kill eachother, then by all means let them!!!!

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

Gilabad

02-01-2007, 04:43

(Wired to OMGTKK [highly encripted])

From President Warlord Shawhabas,

My government will provide full support for an invasion of the UN and the capture of the UN HQ. We will provide military assets along with troops. We shall wait until the right moment of course..... I am very greatful of your glorious resolution to rid the world of this tyranny!!!

Allech-Atreus

02-01-2007, 06:10

Karmicaria

02-01-2007, 06:17

The levels of stupidity apparent in this congress are absolutely astounding.

Did Neville put something in the food? Did Building Management drug the water?

Honestly, I'm sure the levels of idiocy here are in violation of some law.

Unfortunately, there is no violation of any law. I know it's difficult, but try not to get too upset with it. Why don't you go have a drink, relax a little and then return. There's no guarantee that things will be better, but it might be easier to deal with after you've had a few drinks.

Tana Petrov
Stepping in for a bit
Queendom of Karmicaria

Algolian

02-01-2007, 07:54

Is this resolution a joke?

A resolution to improve world security by boosting military and police calls for the disarmorment of the UN? A resolution calling for a total UN non-involvement in any sort of armed conflict, is considering itself 'mild' strength? Please tell us that this is just a mishap of communication on the part of translators, or that it's Wackey Wednesday or something.

We will have to vote against this resolution on the sheer level of stupidity inherent to it alone; the 'topic' at 'debate' can't even be debated properly.
Regardless of how you feel about such an amendment to the UN Charter, please re-write this and re-submit it properly.

This is a gross waste of our time.

Ithania

02-01-2007, 08:08

Army, Police, SWAT, etc

The UN doesn't get an army. Nor does it get to form The World Police. This is pretty clear: don't do it.

(*sigh* I hadn't got to do that yet so I suppose it's some consolation.)

I'd like to ask you, should you return, to read through each post in the thread and you'll find that this isn't disarming anything. (see the quote above).

The reason this resolution is "mild" is because it just maintains the status quo. It makes no alterations beyond enshrining the rules in resolution form.

Finally, this isn't an "ammendment" to anything as I believe I'm correct in saying there can't be any ammendments. (thanks, I wasn't sure)

Very late edit because it isn't worth an extra post: I'd like to say the following in response to the edit in the post below: I considered the "calls for the disarmorment of the UN? A resolution calling for a total UN non-involvement in any sort of armed conflict" to be his acceptance that the UN can have an army.

Also, could you perhaps check your pronouns please?

Havvy

02-01-2007, 08:10

I do believe that there was a debate over what category this should fall under. I believe the moderators had asked it to be mild, because it didn't really do anything, and International Security because it's basically giving you more of a chance to survive because the UN isn't allowed to invade your country.

Please flip your vote.

Also, this isn't an amendment to the 'charter'. It's technically restating it.

The charter I believe would be the FAQ. Everything else in the UN seems to be a member, a proposal, or a resolution.

Edit: Notice that this was posted exactly 2 minutes after his. Also, he never said we could have an army.

Ellelt

02-01-2007, 09:18

Suddenly Elletian soldiers grab the representative from Algolian, and promptly throw them from the nearest window.

This defenestration is entertaining to watch.

Vladimir Khernynko
The Defenestrating Elleltian Ambassador to the UN.

Gallantaria

02-01-2007, 11:22

Can someone please formulate a resolution forcing Elleltian officials to open the window before defenestrating someone and close it afterwards? It is getting very cold in the UN building due to the lack of windows...

Ardchoille

02-01-2007, 11:39

The levels of stupidity apparent in this congress are absolutely astounding.

Did Neville put something in the food? Did Building Management drug the water?
Honestly, I'm sure the levels of idiocy here are in violation of some law.

I have been asked by A Friend to point out that many delegates are quite capable of achieving the most astonishing levels of negative intelligence without any artificial assistance whatsoever.

May I also suggest that whoever is defenestrating people stop doing so, as it causes unrest among the clean-up crews.

If they start asking for danger money again, something they have not done since the mission to decon Demon Lord Enigma's suite, that will have a trickle-down effect on the bar staff, setting off yet another wage spiral. Defenestration = Dearer Drinks!
________________________________
Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille.

St Edmundan Antarctic

02-01-2007, 12:19

The delegates of the following regions have been tossed out of windows by Dr. Sizofren:

Nationalian
FSPUB
Aqua Anu
Lysanderian Sparta

"Ahem!" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12149606&postcount=7)

(OOC)Army boots? Is that the best you could come up with, Kenny? Karmi in Army Boots. Heh. :p

(OOC) And in nothing else apart from those boots? ;)

Altanar

02-01-2007, 12:33

This debate is making us want to create a mechanical defenestrator of some sort. As fun as manual defenestration is, it's inefficient, considering how many people enter these hallowed halls practically begging to be tossed out a window. A mechanical defenestrator would solve that problem by tossing them out a lot faster. Maybe we can convince the DoD back home to come up with something.

- Cmdr. Delren Meleketh, Security Chief

Ariddia

02-01-2007, 12:37

A resolution to improve world security by boosting military and police calls for the disarmorment of the UN?

It is NOT disarmament! How did the honourable delegate from Algolian get to be representative of his country without knowing how to read?

Suddenly Elletian soldiers grab the representative from Algolian, and promptly throw them from the nearest window.

And there was much rejoicing.

Aschenhyrst

02-01-2007, 14:51

the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst is strongly OPPOSED to the creation of a standing U.N. Army. our nation views this as the first step on a long slippery slope towards a one-world government. the people of the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst recognize only one sovereign, HRH Mark II. if a standing army is authorized for the U.N., our nation will IMMEDIATELY withdraw from the U.N. and will no longer recognize it as a legitimate political entity. furthermore,upon our withdrawl from the U.N., the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst will no longer recognize the U.N. banner as a neutral force and all forces wearing the "blue" headgear of the U.N. inside of our territory will be regarded as foreign invaders and dealt with as such. please bear in mind we have no hostile intent towards the individual nations who are members, but we cannot guarantee the safety of any nations troops upon our soil. our nation enjoys its freedom and will not bow to the wishes of any tyrant. if the creation of a U.N. Army is approved, the presense of U.N. Troops inside our internationally recognized border will be viewed as AN ACT OF WAR. we want peace as much as anyone but we will not submit to any attempt to undermine our sovereignty. this statement is endorsed by the following members of the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst Government : His Royal Highness, King Mark II; Sir William de Aschenhyrst, Duke of Ulster, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Sir Robert de Aschenhyrst, Duke of Leinster, Minister of Defense; Sir Elihu de Armitage, Duke of Exeter, Speaker of the House of Lords; Charles Emerson Winchester, Speaker of the House of Commons. "Vinceit Qui Patitur"-He Who Endures, Conquers. "Deo Vindice"-God Vindicates

Czardas

02-01-2007, 16:16

Originally we planned to vote for this. However, it's becoming plainly obvious that the UN is in need of a paramilitary or at least police force, to patrol regions and eject anyone who can't spell disarmament, doesn't understand the meaning of repeal, thinks the UN has a Geneva Convention/Tokyo Accords/Security Council/UNICEF/UNESCO (etc.), and/or has obviously failed to read the proposal rules.

Besides, passing this will have little effect on the mods' workload. In addition to the n00bs who fail to read past resolutions when setting up a UN army, we'll get a fistful of repeals of this one, too. It'll essentially have no effect on anything, and may even increase the number of "UN Army" proposals.

I propose that it eventually be resubmitted in a more extended version, explictly allowing individual nations to band together to create their own military forces against rogue nations as long as such forces are distinctly separate from the UN -- because we can't get anything through unless it's explicit -- and possibly with an explanation of why exactly it's being submitted as international security, as opposed to global disarmament or political stability or something.

-- A Shadowy Figure Lurking In the Corner Somewhere
Czardaian Ambassador to the United Nations
"Haven't we resigned, already?"

Ithania

02-01-2007, 16:20

Oh dear, we are afraid to say that we’re unsure as to whether the representative from Aschenhyrst:

a)Misinterpreted the resolution and believe it to be an attempt to create a UN military which we think is unlikely considering that this resolution is so concise and the title contains “prohibition”.

b)Is suggesting that your nation will leave the UN if this resolution fails because you believe that this would somehow mean the UN has the ability to create a military force (an already illegal military).

In the case of the former we’d like to recommend re-reading the resolution, it isn’t an attempt to create a UN military.

In the case of the latter we believe that if you read the transcripts of comments from esteemed representatives of more experienced nations than us you’ll find that the UN is already forbidden from creating an army irrespective of whether this passes or fails so there is no danger of your nation being subject to UN “blue beret” forces as they can’t exist anyway.

We hope this has been of assistant to the representative in some way and thank you for your passionate contribution.

It'll essentially have no effect on anything, and may even increase the number of "UN Army" proposals.

In response, we'd like to ask what you think would happen should this resolution fail by a huge margin if you'll permit us? What kind of message will this be sending out to member nations who are unaware of the rules?

We believe it will give them the impression that because so many people voted against there must be a desire for resolutions supporting a military resulting in a surge of illegal (unbeknownst to them) proposals.

Therefore we’d like to ask you not to contribute to giving this wrongful impression and vote FOR, risking the circumstances you raised in order to reduce the likelihood of what we believe are perhaps the far worse circumstances we raised.

(At least if this is passed the repeals would hopefully be limited by the notes about rules that perhaps the wonderful people at NSWiki will add to it. After all, any authors will need a copy of the original text, name, etc to repeal it won't they? So they could see it. [/grasping at straws])

I propose that it eventually be resubmitted in a more extended version, explictly allowing individual nations to band together to create their own military forces against rogue nations as long as such forces are distinctly separate from the UN.
Forgive us if we're missing some subtlety but isn't already possible with this resolution? It seems to us to simply prohibit forces under the UN banner, it has no effect on any other kind of militaristic force does it?

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Czardas

02-01-2007, 16:42

In response, we'd like to ask what you think would happen should this resolution fail by a huge margin if you'll permit us? What kind of message will this be sending out to member nations who are unaware of the rules?

We believe it will give them the impression that because so many people voted against there must be a desire for resolutions supporting a military resulting in a surge of illegal (unbeknownst to them) proposals.

Therefore we’d like to ask you not to contribute to giving this wrongful impression and vote FOR, risking the circumstances you raised in order to reduce the likelihood what we believe are perhaps the far worse circumstances we raised.
Don't misunderstand me. I've already voted for it, as I support it anyway. However, I don't see it as particularly helpful to either the moderators or the General Assembly.

Forgive us if we're missing some subtlety but isn't already possible with this resolution? It seems to us to simply prohibit forces under the UN banner, it has no effect on any other kind of militaristic force does it?

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

It's possible, yes, but the ignorant masses seem to be incapable of grasping that. Just look at this thread.

-- A Shadowy Figure Lurking In the Corner Somewhere
Czardaian Ambassador to the United Nations
"Haven't we resigned, already?"

Ithania

02-01-2007, 17:01

Don't misunderstand me. I've already voted for it, as I support it anyway. However, I don't see it as particularly helpful to either the moderators or the General Assembly.

Oh dear we do apologise, "originally we planned to vote for" seemed to us to be suggesting you were now against and we agree with you partly regarding the help this will give.

We're basing our vote on nothing more than hope and hypothetical scenarios, its just that our scenarios differ from yours.

It's possible, yes, but the ignorant masses seem to be incapable of grasping that. Just look at this thread.

We (I? I'm not sure if this is meant to rped ) understand and agree to some extent however we'd feel that it would be questionable of any legislation to volunteer a virtual, almost proxy, UN army by the backdoor.

Finally, we'd like to indicate that despite our earlier "display" of opinion we're now questioning whether the "uninformed masses" are the fault of the states or the fault of the UN not communicating with them.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Gallantaria

02-01-2007, 17:13

Finally, we'd like to indicate that despite our earlier "display" of opinion we're now questioning whether the "uninformed masses" are the fault of the states or the fault of the UN not communicating with them.

I thank you for this questioning. This is the point that should be discussed if the amount of illegal proposals is to be reduced.

Hirota

02-01-2007, 17:24

Finally, we'd like to indicate that despite our earlier "display" of opinion we're now questioning whether the "uninformed masses" are the fault of the states or the fault of the UN not communicating with them.At the risk of hijacking this topic further - this has been observed before - both on jolt and off-site.

Kivisto

02-01-2007, 17:54

At the risk of hijacking this topic further - this has been observed before - both on jolt and off-site.

Not only that, but there have been TG campaigns and visits to off-site forums to try to communicate the relevant facts to some of those who seem to be misunderstanding this proposal. The effort at communication has been made. The efforts of those receiving said communications to comprehend them seem to be lacking.

Vlist

02-01-2007, 18:43

This proposal is the most foolish one ive ever seen :headbang:

Paradica

02-01-2007, 18:50

Care to explain why?

Flibbleites

02-01-2007, 18:52

This proposal is the most foolish one ive ever seen :headbang:

You're right, there seems to be over 5000 fools voting against this.

Bob Flibble
UN Represntative

Hirota

02-01-2007, 19:16

Hirota supports this proposal.

Havvy

02-01-2007, 19:20

It is sad that so many people are against this. There has to be a way to make people vote for this. Shall we try giving more information on the subject in the information of the resolution?

This is a gloomy day in the land of Nation States. If people can't understand the UN, than well, why are they even in it? They have not figured it out yet.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador (:( <--Mood)

OOC: This will probably fail. I think it has to do with the supporting material that is suppose to persuade a person to think one way or the other. We need to add in some other supporting material before we can possibly have a shot at getting this resolution passed. Maybe the thread used to rewrite the thread could be reused.

Dashanzi

02-01-2007, 19:26

I regret to inform the assembled delegates that the tally of votes in my nation's region looks most unfavourable for this resolution. The New Cultural Revolution has conveyed its dismay to its regionmates and will strive to restore some common sense to the Alliance.

Benedictions,

Windurst1

02-01-2007, 19:35

Rika huffs. " I am disgusted at all the people agasist this. All it does is enforce the OOC rules and brings them IC. The mods also wants this. But i'm agaist all the nay sayers are NOOBS that want a army even thou it is Illegal by the OOC rules. I hope all the nay sayers get a visit from the death star soon.

Gwenstefani

02-01-2007, 19:36

I have voted against this proposal. Mainly because as delegate I have to vote with the majority of my region's wishes. But also as an individual nation.

I am well aware of the rules of the game and the UN.

I realise that the UN is not allowed an army.

I also am aware that a UN resolution cannot change the game rules.

However, just because that is the rule, doesn't mean I have to (or even should) vote for that to be the case. I voted against this proposal because I would prefer for the UN to be able to deploy peacekeeping forces. One can abide by the rules without agreeing with them, and this proposal seems to be nothing short of trying to reinforce an unpopular rule by codifying it as a UN resolution.

Yelda

02-01-2007, 19:59

Ariddia

02-01-2007, 20:11

Thank you. That is the first sensible opposition to the Resolution that I have seen expressed so far. I may not agree with your reasons, but at least I can respect them.

Indeed. Perhaps it can get an actual, meaningful, sensible debate started.

Paradica

02-01-2007, 20:18

Nah

Cluichstan

02-01-2007, 20:28

Nah

Not with brilliant replies like that, no.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Thokstar

02-01-2007, 20:46

As a newbie, I don't see a compelling reason to vote for this.

The major argument is that it will cut down on the work of the mods.

Yeah, right! Do you really think a resolution will stop people from submitting illegal proposals if the rules don't work?

At which point this comes down to a matter of roleplaying. And I wouldn't be interested in passing such a resolution declaring the UN's own weakness, and that has the side effect of making my country spend more money on defense/police concerns, money that I'm personally not interested in spending.

Altanar

02-01-2007, 20:52

As a newbie, I don't see a compelling reason to vote for this.

But, in theory, you have compelling reasons to vote against it? Let's take a look...

The major argument is that it will cut down on the work of the mods. Yeah, right! Do you really think a resolution will stop people from submitting illegal proposals if the rules don't work?

It might, if the idiots voting against this allowed it to even have a chance to by becoming an approved resolution. If it's voted down, it definitely won't stop people from doing anything. And even if it has only a minor effect in cutting down the volumes of illegal resolutions the mods get, and in how much time is wasted on illegal "but the UN neeeeeeds police/an army/someonewaaaaa" proposals, how is that a bad thing?

At which point this comes down to a matter of roleplaying. And I wouldn't be interested in passing such a resolution declaring the UN's own weakness, and that has the side effect of making my country spend more money on defense/police concerns, money that I'm personally not interested in spending.

So, you're voting against it because you don't think it'll help, and don't want to even give it a chance to, despite the fact it could be repealed later if needed. You also don't want to declare something which is fact anyway, i.e. that the UN can't raise its own special little armed forces. In other words, you don't have any compelling reasons at all. But thanks for playing.

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Ithania

02-01-2007, 20:56

Thank you. That is the first sensible opposition to the Resolution that I have seen expressed so far. I may not agree with your reasons, but at least I can respect them.

We'd like to concur with the Yeldan representative. You provided a concise and respecting reason for your position and we thank you for showing us informed reasons to stand against this resolution. We also disagree but appreciate your contribution dearly.

This is a gloomy day in the land of Nation States. If people can't understand the UN, than well, why are they even in it? They have not figured it out yet.

We are also demoralised, this is a disaster for the NSUN in our opinion because it illustrates that this organisation may be far less than unified in its understanding than we would naturally expected.

Over 66% of the turnout is "against" according to our estimates. How could this rift possibly happen?

There has to be a way to make people vote for this. Shall we try giving more information on the subject in the information of the resolution?
We are glad you are still optimistic that things can be repaired.

We too are willing to use the talents and time we have to ensure adaptations can be made so that this is acceptable to the majority.

We can see two prominent options: either begin phenomenal campaigns to inform every delegate and region about the aims of resolutions on this topic so that there is an informed foundation far in advance of future attempts or, as you suggest, provide a great deal more information in the resolution itself and use ordinary campaign methods to support it.

Typically, we think we’d defer to the latter but with such a schism we don’t think it would be sufficient.

Indeed. Perhaps it can get an actual, meaningful, sensible debate started.

We're afraid that our staff believes the matter of respecting rules to be too subjective and opinion based to have a debate.

However, we freely admit that most of our staff is in the Stranger's bar drowning their sorrows.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

[gah, silly me forgot to press submit quite some time ago]

Thokstar

02-01-2007, 21:03

Give me an explanation of how it will cut down on illegal resolutions, given that there's already a rule banning those resolutions.

Really please do so. I don't think anybody has mentioned how that works.

If this resolution actually included some sort of punishment for submitting an illegal resolution, then I might consider it having a beneficial effect in that regards. But otherwse, this resolution is as likely to be as effective as a resolution banning stupidity.

At which point it's all about roleplay, and I've explained my roleplay reasons for voting against it.

Altanar

02-01-2007, 21:22

Give me an explanation of how it will cut down on illegal resolutions, given that there's already a rule banning those resolutions. Really please do so. I don't think anybody has mentioned how that works.

I am sure that others have, but it really boils down to this: if there is a CODIFIED resolution in the UN legislation specifically spelling it out for the dunderheads that insist on continually submitting resolutions calling for the UN to become the almighty police/army over us all, maybe a few of the nations that insist on such abortive legislation will quit wasting our time with it. Not everyone bothers to read the rules before joining, but maybe we'll catch some of those people if they read the actual list of passed legislation. A faint hope, sure, but it's better than whistling in the wind and ignoring the problem. Some of us also find it desirable to make it damn clear that we don't think the UN should ever have an army.

If this resolution actually included some sort of punishment for submitting an illegal resolution, then I might consider it having a beneficial effect in that regards.

Punishing someone for submitting illegal legislation? I think we already do that, by deleting their efforts and warning them if they do it too often. Anything else would not be workable.

But otherwse, this resolution is as likely to be as effective as a resolution banning stupidity.

Don't tempt me. Please. This debate makes it too tempting already.

At which point it's all about roleplay, and I've explained my roleplay reasons for voting against it.

Bah. (Yes, that was a diplomatic bah.)

- Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Ithania

02-01-2007, 21:22

Give me an explanation of how it will cut down on illegal resolutions, given that there's already a rule banning those resolutions.

Really please do so. I don't think anybody has mentioned how that works.

I apologise for the vague and somewhat confusing nature of what I'm about to post but I simply can't elaborate, I'm running out mental energy from constant exam revision so I hope you can forgive me but my general impression was that:

If this passes (I’m an undying optimist) it'll be on full public view when it does and some 28,000 member nations will receive a telegram telling them that the UN Military has been formally prohibited.

I believe the effect of this mass deliverance device to all member nations would be to ensure that the resolution will be in their recent memory thus potentially pre-emptively preventing them from making illegal proposals. (I don't think there's any practical way of getting even a minority to read the rules so this is the only uniform way of doing it in my opinion)

May I ask if you would like to think of a better way of mass information to prevent member states from getting thoughts about authoring resolutions on this subject? Perhaps you would personally prefer to consult all 28,000 members personally?

If you have any question on that rather hypothetical scenario please feel free to ask me and I think I should have enough energy to perhaps scrape something together.

Oh and if you’ll permit I’d like to point out that now this resolution has got to the floor I believe that if it fails things will get far worse concerning illegal proposals because member nations will think (wrongly) the defeat of this allows them to make legislation on the subject so there’ll be an influx of military proposals.

That’s why this resolution is now an absolute necessity in my opinion... but it's too late for this version now isn't it? Some intelligent and eloquent person or persons will have to draft a new resolution which will get the information dissemination to occur as soon as possible.

Isabelle J.
A very tired student.

Thokstar

02-01-2007, 21:41

Thanks for the reply. The "everybody will be mass-telgrammed" thing was what I was missing.

(That said, I'm not convinced that the resolution would work, [since the target audience may not read the telegram] or that the resolution will have anything more than a short term effect either way, but at least I can see that it might have a chance of a short term effect.)

The Best In The World

02-01-2007, 21:54

If, as most say, this resolution does not change new procedures because the ability of the UN to create an army is forbidden, then why have the resolution? It serves no purpose. All this talk of reducing unneeded illegal proposals is for naught because, for one thing, this resolution (if passed) is unnecessary. Why add a resolution if, as proponents say, the issue is already implied? This is not a debate over whether the UN should have a standing military or not. It is a debate over adding useless laws and regulations into the UN archives.

The Best In The World does not publicly give a stance on the legality of a UN military. However, when confronted with this particular resolution and its unnecessary nature, we cannot but chose to vote against it.

Ithania

02-01-2007, 21:58

Thanks for the reply. The "everybody will be mass-telgrammed" thing was what I was missing.

You're more than welcome for the reply. :)

(That said, I'm not convinced that the resolution would work, [since the target audience may not read the telegram] or that the resolution will have anything more than a short term effect either way, but at least I can see that it might have a chance of a short term effect.)

I actually kind of agree with you. My support for this is based on the idea that something is better than nothing, beyond that I don't think I have any real support.

Anyhoo, I think quantity wise more people will open, read, and understand a telegram out of a sample of 28,000 than would out of say a manual sample of 200 which would be the only method available if this resolution or one similar doesn't pass.

Also, I believe those who don't open their telegrams are perhaps less likely to be active in the game therefore would be less likely to submit any kind of proposal wouldn't they?

Finally, I'd like to finish by suggesting that any method used to prevent rule breaking is ultimately temporary if I may?

Even if you were to manually have a discussion with every single UN member many would ultimately forget. With the addition of the fact that new nations join while older nations die this becomes even easier to see.

A resolution such as this is the quickest, most effective means of universally informing in my opinion.

Havvy

02-01-2007, 21:58

Well, let's get a little hypothetical. What if the UN Charter (OOC: a.k.a. the rules) was modified to allow a UN Military? Would you really want that!?

I know for a fact I wouldn't. A UN Military would do disastrous things to the UN, and frankly, we would leave. This resolution blocks nations from making a military if that happens. I see only good in that. That is why our nation will continue to vote FOR.

Dr. Sizofren
UN Ambassador

The Best In The World

02-01-2007, 22:05

I respect that argument. Don't think that The Best In The World is entirely against it, I just haven't decided yet.

But your arguement is defeated if the UN charter remains unchanged. Now, I am new to this game, but what are the real chances of that happening. I want to guess zero.

Havvy

02-01-2007, 22:08

Yes, it does seem to be close too zero.

Still though, IC Backing is another good thing.

While the resolution might not do much, at least it's doing something.

<--OOC-->

Ithania

02-01-2007, 22:20

[kind of IC]
If, as most say, this resolution does not change new procedures because the ability of the UN to create an army is forbidden, then why have the resolution? It serves no purpose. All this talk of reducing unneeded illegal proposals is for naught because, for one thing, this resolution (if passed) is unnecessary. Why add a resolution if, as proponents say, the issue is already implied? This is not a debate over whether the UN should have a standing military or not. It is a debate over adding useless laws and regulations into the UN archives.

We don't mean to be rude but we're not actually finding your question that simple (OOC:I'm referring to you post title). Perhaps, it is because we're quite exhausted but your point seems to run around in circles and links things which are not comparable.

All this talk of reducing unneeded illegal proposals is for naught because, for one thing, this resolution (if passed) is unnecessary.
We're sorry but you seem to be proving why its a necessity in the same sentence as saying why it isn't to us, could you elaborate for our sake please?

The resolution is necessary to prevent other illegal proposals. It might maintain the status quo in a legal sense but it most certainly doesn't maintain the status quo with respect to atmosphere within the UN that's been spoken of throughout.

Why add a resolution if, as proponents say, the issue is already implied.
Because it seems to only be implied for a small minority of nations, the point of adding this is to ensure that the majority become aware of the implied issue. You would only need to look at the present voting ratio to see this.

This is not a debate over whether the UN should have a standing military or not. It is a debate over adding useless laws and regulations into the UN archives
We're most pleased to know that you think raising the level of awareness and allowing the UN to function with less legality problems is useless.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Legupia

02-01-2007, 22:43

I think the reason this one failed is because the wording was confusing to the uninformed. Maybe in the next try include a clause confirming that peacekeeping missions are not UN responsibility.

<sings to the tune of Video Killed the Radio Star>
Ignorance killed the resolution...

Matianus

02-01-2007, 23:11

First, I would like to thank the representatives of Ithania for going about this debate in the correct direction, even if it took a bit for it to happen.

The good comments of this debate covered, what the hell are you supporters doing violently maiming the opposition? I thought my own country was fairly violent at quieting opposition, but damn you people certainly go well beyond the legal limits of Matianus' debate system. If there is one thing Matianus has learned over its internal struggles, it's that you can not change people's opinions by nuking them.

Similarly, you can't change people's beliefs by screaming [OOC words that the IC representatives hypothedically can't hear] "read" at them. What is there to read on the matter? As far as I know, there is nothing stopping the UN from attempting to unify its members into a singluar world military--if 30% constitues the term "world"--in order to attempt to take on the rest of the world. My own nation will not stand for that. Accordingly, peacekeeping missions are in the best interests of capable neighboring nations (to the areas needing peace-keeping), so why is a resolution banning the UN's involvement a bad thing?

Jach' al Mutin
Chief Nomad of the roaming Matianus.

[And the OOC comments: Of those who continuously state that they can't see what this resolution does, I believe the above argument clearly implies that the representatives would not know of the OoC rules regarding the illegality of a UN military. In effect, it is transferring an OoC rule into an IC one in a way that hypothedically lets more resolution contributing nations know a certain rule that seems to gets overlooked quite frequently.]

[Well, in case that wasn't clear enough, I'll make it longer and less so: Citing the rules for submitting resolutions is not a convincing argument for a resolution to be passed. I am saddened that this resolution was apparently unclear to its target audience--those who don't know the rules--and hope to see a recurrance of this resolution written more towards the audience that it is intended towards--again, those who [i]don't know the rules.]

Aschenhyrst

02-01-2007, 23:47

to clairify matters: if the U.N. gets an army legally or otherwise the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst will resist it by all means necessary. we are willing to stand up for justice and free people everywhere. we ask anyone who feels as we do to join us. for we must all hang together or most assure we will hang separately. stop the U.N. Army, reign in the U.N., FREEMEN of the world unite. Kingdom of Aschenhyrst "Vinceit Qui Patiteur"-He Who Endures, Conquers. "Deo Vindice"-God Vindicates.

HotRodia

03-01-2007, 00:10

Stupidity is winning again in the halls of the UN.

It's the kind of stupidity that leads nations to fail to read the procedures of a large international body prior to joining it. The kind of stupidity that leads nations to decide that it is logistically sound and politically desirable to have a UN military composed of units from thousands and thousands of nations with extremely diverse languages, cultural norms, technological capabilities, and military philosophies, the combination of which make battlefield cooperation nearly impossible, and the training and re-tooling to gain the necessary levels of military standardization prohibitively expensive.

It's the same stupidity that has repeatedly led this body to pass harmful legislation and defeat useful legislation. It's the same stupidity that has led many good nations to resign from this body because this lovely democratic body, to put it bluntly, passes unscientific and impractical nonsense while rejecting good legislation because, let's face it, there's just too many big words. It's the same stupidity that has led many nations to vote on a resolution that would completely destroy the global economy because, well, it sounded nice.

Stupidity is the reason I've been paying attention to UN affairs well before HotRodia ever joined, and then resigned...twice. After all, I need a good laugh now and then, and stupidity on a truly impressive scale is as good a thing to laugh at as any.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Frisbeeteria

03-01-2007, 00:26

to clairify matters:

To clarify matters further ...

You still haven't read the damn thing, have you?

Ithania

03-01-2007, 01:28

You still haven't read the damn thing, have you?

We've taken the liberty of sending our earlier reply to the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst in the hope that perhaps it was simply missed. (i.e. he didn't read then so he wouldn't read it now so I'll take the answer to him if won't come to the answer to avoid more outbursts).

<snip>
HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Perhaps there are member nations whose leaders and representatives do make genuinely “stupid” decisions when voting on resolutions. However, we dislike pigeonholes and generalisations therefore we have to disagree with you on this topic.

We believe that within that “stupid” group there could be nations or delegates that are informed yet still choose to take the “stupid” option. In the case of this resolution we would like to point to the representatives from GwenSteffani who gave rational and concise reasons as to why they voted against. However, we admit that this is a minority.

Furthermore, we believe another key group are those nations who didn’t read the UN rules when joining but have never been shown the error of their ways so can't recover from it.

It is our opinion that these are the majority as telegrams received resulting from campaigns within our own region and internationally pertaining to this resolution have shown us that when provided with information nations will listen.

Therefore, we would suggest that if the representative would like more informed UN members ("less stupid" to be brutal) then perhaps he would consider the effects of lumping nations in groups and whether or not this disaster would have been avoided if such a course had been taken.

Of course, we feel we should point out that you are representing the views of your nation in the manner you see fit and that is your right, we would not seek force our opinion on you.

We merely ask that you could perhaps pause for reflection when dealing with stupid people and, in return, we will consider being more brutally honest about groups and its merits.

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

(OOC: In case there's still mods around may I ask if there's anything I could do if I perhaps, hypothetically came across an instance where I'm almost certain that one person has multiple UN nations? I know this isn't the place to ask is it? But I'm afraid I wouldn't know where is)

Havvy

03-01-2007, 01:52

OOC To Hotrodia

I am sorry, but that has to be the most disrespectful post from any moderator I have even said. That type of generalization is disrespectful to the UN as a whole. Shame on you.

HotRodia

03-01-2007, 02:11

(OOC: In case there's still mods around may I ask if there's anything I could do if I perhaps, hypothetically came across an instance where I'm almost certain that one person has multiple UN nations? I know this isn't the place to ask is it? But I'm afraid I wouldn't know where is)

You can use the Getting Help (http://www.nationstates.net/-1/page=help) page for those sorts of *hypothetical* requests. ;)

OOC To Hotrodia

I am sorry, but that has to be the most disrespectful post from any moderator I have even said. That type of generalization is disrespectful to the UN as a whole. Shame on you.

That post was signed as a character, Havvy. My characters can say demeaning, disrespectful, and even (God forbid) truthful things if they want to.

It's only an official Mod opinion post if I sign it with this:

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Please don't take my character's remarks or my personal remarks as Mod posts.

[NS]Ardchoilleans

03-01-2007, 03:48

Though the current vote suggests it won't make a difference, I'll be interested to see how (or if) the big, big regions vote.

At this stage, the Pacific and the W, E and N Pacific haven't. Nor has the Rejected Realms. I didn't see Gatesville in my myopic trawl through the delegate votes.

The South Pacific was evenly split last time I looked, with members arguing variously that the UN needs a military or it will be ignored, that the proposal was badly worded and that the NS UN should remember the lesson of the League of Nations.

This was the case even though another member had posted an impeccably clear explanation, with links, of what the vote was about and why, even down to the famous RED LETTERING (though it wasn't red there).

What this suggests to me is that information, by itself, isn't enough. Perhaps it might work if individual members could get their offsites to post the red letters as a scrolling note, or finagle their inclusion in WFEs, with the DON'T DO IT bit a screamer. "Don't" might work better than "Here's why you shouldn't".

Community Property

03-01-2007, 04:04

Ambassador Jackson staggers into the hall, sits at his table, rubs his overly red eyes, stares at the paper in front of him, looks at the tally board, stares at the paper in front of him, and leaps to his feet.

“Ho-ly shit! And I thought I was the only one comin' in here high...

“What in the world are you idiots thinkin'? We don't have a U.N. Army. We ain't never gonna have a U.N. Army. So why in the hell are people thinkin ' it's some kinda crime to say that in black an' white?!?

“I take back everythin' my predecessor said about people here not bein' stupid. Two-fuckin'-thirds of the people in this body are stupid. Mebbe they oughta get booted just for stupidity...

“'Bout all I can say is that the parliamentarians oughta just ignore 'create a U.N. Army' resolutions. That's right, ignore 'em. If they make quorum, wait until the day before they'd hit the floor and delete 'em. Let the bastards who put 'em up there waste a week or two on a telegram campaign and then blow their proposal away with an' send 'em a nastygram sayin' 'Your “Create a U.N. Army” proposal has been deleted because it is illegal. Please read the rules again before submittin' another proposal. This is your first warning. Two more, and your nation will be ejected and banned from the U.N.' Screw 'em.

“I figure if you do that enough times, mebbe people will get discouraged and stop submittin' proposals calling for us to do something that our own rules say we can't. Or mebbe not, given the collective I.Q. of our members.

“'Bout the only thing I can say here is that – an' this is sour grapes – the same people who refuse the read the rules before they drop a proposal in the bin would probably also refuse to see what we've already passed, too. So I guess the best we can do is continue to make fun of them in the forums. Small consolation, I know – but what the fuck.

“Now, if you'll 'scuse me, I'm gonna go to the Strangers' Bar. It's one Hell of a lot mo' intelligent a place than this hall is.”

Havvy

03-01-2007, 04:14

OOC: Sorry Hotrodia. Oh, and is talking about moderators and deletion considered OOC or IC, because if it's OOC, Cluich's Ambassador Jackson would seem to be babblin' on about nothing.

Quintessence of Dust

03-01-2007, 04:20

As our first vote as members of these United Nations, I lodge Quintessence of Dust's vote FOR this proposal, and note my lament for its impending failure, taking heart only in that the manifestation it seeks to prevent cannot take form anyway. With good reason, we should add, for which reasons we had hoped this legislation would cement that opposition. Our commiserations to the author nonetheless.

-- Coriolanus Digweed
Ambassador to the United Nations
The Democratic States of Quintessence of Dust

Community Property

03-01-2007, 04:24

OOC: Sorry Hotrodia. Oh, and is talking about moderators and deletion considered OOC or IC, because if it's OOC, Cluich's Ambassador Jackson would seem to be babblin' on about nothing.OOC: That's why I used the term “parliamentarians” - I'm maintaining the IC illusion that illegal proposals are bounced by these noble souls (or some kind of impersonal Rules Committee) when submitted through whatever IC submission process takes place to bring proposals to the floor.

The reference to deletion is to proposals being deleted, not nations. And nations are ejected from the U.N. by the Gnomes (or the Office of the General Secretary, whomever) for rules violations; IC, we know this. I don't consider it out of bounds to allude to these processes in a roundabout IC fashions, but YMMV.

'Nuf said.

Yelda

03-01-2007, 04:53

Cluich's Ambassador Jackson
Community Property is a puppet of Cluichstan?! http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/blink.gif

Mavenu

03-01-2007, 06:05

Ardchoilleans;12165877']
The South Pacific was evenly split last time I looked, with members arguing variously that the UN needs a military or it will be ignored, that the proposal was badly worded and that the NS UN should remember the lesson of the League of Nations.

I could use some help fighting this thinking... (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=7167&view=findpost&p=2518215)

*sigh*

back into the trenches... :(

Flibbleites

03-01-2007, 06:18

Community Property is a puppet of Cluichstan?! http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/blink.gif

OOC: Well when you consider that we're all puppets of HotRodia, it's not really that surprising.:p

[NS]Ardchoilleans

03-01-2007, 07:08

I could use some help fighting this thinking... (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=7167&view=findpost&p=2518215)

*sigh*

back into the trenches... :(

I believe the Assassins' Guild has a very reasonable discount on bulk orders ....

Waterana

03-01-2007, 07:49

The West Pacific's vote seems to be against at the moment, 7 to 2. I say seems because I don't know how the TGed to the delegate votes stand, but they are prob around the same ratio.

I've posted on the offsite forum explaining what the resolution does and why it was written, but won't hold my breath for any reversals.

Gilabad

03-01-2007, 08:36

From Representative Borat Sogadiev of Gilabad,

The Gilabadian government has had quite enough of you Civil Liberty Monsters! You who place restrictions upon your own armies!! You are not a very nice and I spit upon your "Uzbeck-like" comments!!! Now for buisiness yes? My government will give each you Civil Liberty nations 100,000,000$ each if you vote for the proposal!! Haha!! Money very hard to resist.........yes? Keep in mind that your arguments hold no...how do you say....water!! There is no reason that UN should have army!!!

-Representative Borat Sogadiev

Mavenu

03-01-2007, 17:16

Ardchoilleans
The South Pacific was evenly split last time I looked, with members arguing variously that the UN needs a military or it will be ignored, that the proposal was badly worded and that the NS UN should remember the lesson of the League of Nations.I could use some help fighting this thinking... (http://z1.invisionfree.com/forums/theSPacific/index.php?showtopic=7167&view=findpost&p=2518215)

*sigh*

back into the trenches... :(

vote was against. lost by one vote...

/me ponders defenstration in his region...

Aschenhyrst

03-01-2007, 17:30

official statement from the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst : the Kingdom understands that the U.N. is not allowed to have an army, per nationstates rules. the Kingdom of Aschenhyrst also understands that this resolution is for a Prohibition of such an Army, we whole-heartedly SUPPORT this resolution. our point is simply we are OPPOSED to the creation of a UN Army and are APPALLED by the fact that so many nations are opposed to prohibiting the creation of said army. if the UN were allowed to create a standing army we would take the aforementioned actions. Kingdom of Aschenhyrst "Vinceit Qui Patiteur"-He Who Endures, Conquers "Deo Vindice"-God Vindicates. OOC: in the real world, I am OPPOSED to giving the real UN too much power.

Ithania

03-01-2007, 19:08

vote was against. lost by one vote...

We would like to commend you on your valiant effort and we ask that you remain optimistic.

Your work within your region will provide the informed foundation necessary to pass future resolutions on this subject.

I take back everythin' my predecessor said about people here not bein' stupid. Two-fuckin'-thirds of the people in this body are stupid.

We'd like to ask you to read the transcript for our earlier reply to the representative for HotRodia. We believe that the majority of those who voted against are not "stupid" but merely ill-informed and can be convinced to support future attempts.

Further, we have taken the liberty of sending telegrams to a small sample of delegates as a pilot study for a telegram campaign so that this resolution or another on the subject will meet with far less opposition next time.

Out of that sample we have already received five responses informing our office that they have changed their vote to FOR and expect that other regional delegates will inform of us they have done the same upon receiving our telegram from their staff.

If any representives would be interested in aiding us with the drafting of a more succinct, convincing telegram and perhaps even helping our overburdened staff to dispatch them to the some 2000 delegates we would greatly appreciate it.

(OOC: I believe some are offline and if I don’t get at least 60% confirming future support I think it wouldn’t be worth my time would it?:( .)

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania

Thokstar

03-01-2007, 19:36

Some suggestions for the next proposal of this type (and I assume there will be a next proposal of this type)

1. Don't include the "increase military and police budgets" line in the resolution. If this is about the NSUN not having an army, make the resolution only be about the NSUN not having an army. Some of us don't want to increase our military/police budgets.

2. Include some of the reasons why having a NSUN army is impractical/shouldn't happen. That is, given us a feel for the benefits of this policy.

3. Include a reminder that this won't affect humanitarian efforts.

I'm still not convince that such a resolution would pass, but it would be doing better than this resolution.

Frisbeeteria

03-01-2007, 20:04

The resolution "Prohibition of UN Military" got its ass handed to it, 7,085 votes to 3,824.
Oh well. So much for that idea.

Ithania

03-01-2007, 20:16

"Oh dear, the inevitable has happened, we send our consolations to the author nation."

Anravelle Kramer,
UN Ambassador,
Ice Queendom of Ithania.

Don't include the "increase military and police budgets" line in the resolution. If this is about the NSUN not having an army, make the resolution only be about the NSUN not having an army. Some of us don't want to increase our military/police budgets.

OOC: I believe that it’s a mandatory line for any resolution under the heading of International Security so the only way of removing that is to change to Global Disarmament but seeing as this resolution doesn't disarm anything I don't believe it’s appropriate.

Oh well. So much for that idea.
At least there were 3,824 nations and delegates using their votes in support. Hopefully, the majority of those were making an informed decision and were aware of the necessity of this so will make the same choice next time.

The same applies to the uninformed who will perhaps continue to vote for this because they’re pacifistic or perceive this (wrongly) as a chance to restrain UN power.

That is of course presuming that there will be a future resolution because I imagine the burden of illegal proposals is going to increase now isn't it?

Anyhoo, in case any of the "uninformed" come to gloat without reading the other 10 pages I think I'll leave a little note:

"Look what you're trying to do to skippy"
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/4158/skippyandfriendxz7.jpg
idea stolen from The Most Glorious Hack

Cluichstan

03-01-2007, 20:26

All OOC, cuz I'm feeling lazy:

Ardchoilleans;12165877']I didn't see Gatesville in my myopic trawl through the delegate votes.

Nevadar, the Gatesville UN delegate, didn't vote on this one. She hasn't been active for the past four days.

OOC: Sorry Hotrodia. Oh, and is talking about moderators and deletion considered OOC or IC, because if it's OOC, Cluich's Ambassador Jackson would seem to be babblin' on about nothing.

Community Property is a puppet of Cluichstan?! http://209.85.48.9/html/emoticons/blink.gif

OOC: Well when you consider that we're all puppets of HotRodia, it's not really that surprising.:p

Well, now that HotRodia has become a mod, you are all puppets of Cluichstan now. :cool:

OOC: I believe that it’s a mandatory line for any resolution under the heading of International Security so the only way of removing that is to change to Global Disarmament but seeing as this resolution doesn't disarm anything I don't believe it’s appropriate.

You're correct. All IS proposals get that tag. I dunno, though. GD might actually work. Under this proposal, nations wouldn't have to spend extra funds to support UN military actions. As much as I generally despise GD proposals, I think, perhaps, an argument could be made for that category. What do you think, since you're the proposal's author, Kenny? And what do think, O Modly Ones?

Frisbeeteria

03-01-2007, 20:53

As much as I generally despise GD proposals, I think, perhaps, an argument could be made for that category. What do you think, O Modly Ones?
As I originally stated, this concept could be phrased to fit Global Disarmament, International Security, or even Political Stability or Furtherment of Democracy. There are no hard-and-fast rules on something like this. It's all in how you sell it.

Cluichstan

03-01-2007, 21:00

As I originally stated, this concept could be phrased to fit Global Disarmament, International Security, or even Political Stability or Furtherment of Democracy. There are no hard-and-fast rules on something like this. It's all in how you sell it.

Ah, right. I've had a lot on my mind lately and had forgotten that discussion. Sorry 'bout that.

So...like I said, as much as I generally loathe GD proposals, why not resubmit it as one, Kenny? I think the fluffies and the unwashed masses are much more likely to vote for a GD proposal.

Omigodtheykilledkenny

03-01-2007, 21:19

Ithania

03-01-2007, 21:35

I think it was the title

I'm not sure if changing it too much is a wise idea though because I think that would reduce the intended effect of the proposal wouldn't it?

I, perhaps wrongly, thought that the main purpose of this resolution was to reduce the number of illegal proposals.

If I were one of those who haven't read the rules I think I'd be just as likely to submit a military proposal post the resolution passing if I received a telegram from the compliance ministry referring to a "UN Neutrality Bill" (or some such) because that's vague.

However, if I received one saying "UN Military Prohibition" I'd instantly be less likely to submit a proposal because it’s explicit. So perhaps the title would be as much an asset after passing as it is prior to it?

Cluichstan

03-01-2007, 21:43

I'm not sure, since UCAA was GD, and it still failed. I think it was the title, both times. Crazy militants didn't want the UN "banning" their "unconventional arms," and ravenous fluffies didn't want their beloved UN to be deprived of its precious and "necessary" (though nonexistent) UN military.

Besides, I'm tired and not up for another telegram campaign right now.

True, but maybe a category switch and a title change would work -- say, something like "UN Military Ban." The latter would get all the fluffies who only read titles going, "Ban militaries? Hell yeah!" And that way, too, you get rid of that IS tag about boosting military spending.

And I wasn't suggesting that you resubmit right away. In fact, I'd give it till the end of the month, when all of the college students are back at school and using NS to avoid doing their schoolwork. ;)

NationStates Jolt Archive

FAILED: Prohibition of UN Military [Official Topic]