NationStates Jolt Archive

[A simple request: Please read the Proposal FAQ (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469201&postcount=32) before replying to this topic. (Reading the proposal itself probably wouldn't hurt either. :p) Thanks.]

This will come to vote soon, thanks to the 165 nations (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=620&view=findpost&p=7253488) who have added their approvals:

This Assembly, having convened to reconsider its adoption of UN Resolution #92: Humanitarian Intervention, observes the following:

1. The United Nations through past legislation condemns in the strongest possible terms egregious human-rights violations such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;

2. The United Nations is committed to enforcing relevant legislation expressly forbidding such offenses by member states;

3. The United Nations is not necessarily opposed to international interventions with a humanitarian purpose, but does fear that UN involvement in military operations as stipulated by Resolution #92 is inappropriate;

4. The United Nations expresses strong concerns over the serious flaws evident in the remit of Humanitarian Intervention, specifically:

- that it permits the United Nations to authorize offensive actions against member states, in contradiction of the UN's long-held tradition of strict neutrality in international theaters of conflict;

- that it subjects the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states to a vote by a panel of unaccountable UN diplomats, allowing the United Nations to disregard member states' said sovereignty at the request of two or more nations;

- that it allows the United Nations to authorize interventions in non-member states, who are decidedly outside UN jurisdiction and are under no obligation to uphold UN mandates, however beneficial or well-intentioned;

- that it grants the overseeing panel unlimited powers to meddle in the planning and execution of intervention operations, greatly impeding their effectiveness and likelihood of success.

Whereas:

This Assembly considers the above-cited flaws to constitute a serious overreach of the mandate of the United Nations to protect international human rights;

This Assembly in particular strongly condemns this act's attempt to enforce UN dictates on non-member states;

This Assembly reassures its members that the enforcement of UN proscriptions against human-rights violations by member states will continue, even in the absence of an intervention accord;

This Assembly is convinced that nations finding cause to intervene in cases of grave human-rights abuses committed in other countries will do so, with or without a UN permission slip:

Be it therefore resolved:

1. UN Resolution #92: Humanitarian Intervention is hereby repealed.Relevant questions, concerns, comments will be addressed as necessary; however, to borrow a policy from our good friend Felix Dzerzhinsky (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13446283&postcount=1), idiotic/wankish/petulant remarks will not be entertained by this delegation (unless we're really bored/annoyed/tired/whatever).

The following staff members of the OMGTKK Mission to the United Nations are accredited to respond to comments by fellow member states: Sammy Faisano, Ambassador to Ardchoille and Adviser to the Mission
Jimmy Baca, Secretary of the Treasury and Adviser to the Mission
Cdr. Jenny Chiang, National Security Adviser and Adviser to the MissionThe views and opinions and insane ramblings and nut-kickings expressed by our senior ambassador, Mr. Batko-Yovino, are specifically those of their originator, and do not represent the views of the Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny in any way, shape or form.

Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

"While, admittingly, it is rather unlikely you can take my advice, I do note one thing that does bother me (and therefore, may bother other people too, and therefore is something to think about): If any nation actually follows through with "Humanitarian Intervention" and commit any human right abuses (or worse, if the TPP actually authorizes said human right abuses to make sure the operation is a success), then it looks bad on the TPP, and on the UN in general. Counter-genocide is still genocide, and I can't help but worry that a TPP will one day be convened in order to investigate crimes done by a previous TPP and call for military intervention against all those memberstates sitting on that TPP.

Still, we actually prefer an offical premission slip rather than a simple 'free for all' that most nations regretably do. This however is not that premission slip. It might be better to just have the TPP rule on 'genocide', as it already is allowed to do, and then allow nations the right to intervene ONLY when the TPP ruled genocide is happening, and not before.

Anyway, to summarize the above, FOR."
---Dr. Bob

The Holy Empire of Imota wholeheartedly agrees with the conclusion reached by Omigodtheykilledkenny and encourages all nations to support the repeal effort.

Vote: FOR.

Agregorn would never commit such an atrocity within her own borders. That is not to say we wouldn't wipe a nation off the face of the earth and leave it without orphans if the will of the people ratified it and had the resolve to see it through. We do not state this view only for ourselves, but for a large host of unrepresented bodies who are not present in the UN. Ask a nation blinded by religious or political fervor if they lack the resolve to annihilate their enemy. Ask them quickly. To quote an old adage... all is fair in love and war.

We are against this resolution as it stands now. Though we do not see any advantage in ethnic cleansing, nor do we have the stomach for it, we would be happy if the full extend of the borders for various terrorist states were reduced to an irradiated wasteland. When attacking the cancer of humanity and civilization, we cannot hold punches and must be thorough.

We do not want to come across as a nation that is in favor war and destruction. We believe that diplomacy and commerce will lead to productive and happy lives filled with progress for all nations, including Agregorn. Perhaps the law should extend to only those nations that are UN members, and only to state that diplomacy must be attempted with full effort, lest it invokes the wraith of the UN as a whole. This would give incentive for nations to join, realizing the protection of a civilized attitude that the UN would embody.

Despite the arrogance in which we would conduct our foreign policy if provoked... for ethical reasons we wouldn't stand against the UN presently. Unless, of course, for some obscure reason the UN decided to play host of a terrorist cartel. Were that to happen, we'd play our part in the end of the world, and we'd mourn those who question our resolve.

Since you asked so nicely, we'll head straight for the meat of the argument.

3. The United Nations, however, expresses strong concerns over the serious flaws evident in the remit of Humanitarian Intervention, specifically:

- that it permits the United Nations to authorize offensive actions against member states, in contradiction of the UN's long-held tradition of strict neutrality in international theaters of conflict;
This indeed is a serious concern, but we are at a loss as to how to deal with those who deny the supremacy of international law otherwise.

- that it subjects the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states to a vote by a panel of unaccountable UN diplomats, allowing the United Nations to disregard member states' said sovereignty at the request of two or more nations;
This is somewhat over-egged we feel; given the chaos that seems to surround the summoning of the Pretenama Panel from what we hear, and that panel members are unlikely to be pleased to be disturbed with trivial accusations, we sincerely doubt that any nation's sovereignty is in any jeapardy that is not in grave need of a smacking.

- that it allows the United Nations to authorize interventions in non-member states, who are decidedly outside UN jurisdiction and are under no obligation to uphold UN mandates, however beneficial or well-intentioned;
Again, a serious concern, and strongly as we believe the UN should act to uphold the rights of sentients everywhere, we must accept that this is not a commonly held belief.

- that it fails to set specific guidelines for the overseeing panel's mandate, meaning it could authorize actions on flexible or subjective definitions of words like "tyranny" and "human rights abuses";
We regard this as a strong point of the resolution.

- that it grants the overseeing panel unlimited powers to meddle in the planning and execution of intervention operations, greatly impeding their effectiveness and likelihood of success.
We are of two minds concerning this; while our military do inform us regularly that politicians and diplomats should stay far away from the details of war, we do also feel that those who take responsibility of authorising military action should have some measure of control of what they have authorised. Great responsibility already comes with insufficient power in general, and we have no great desire to add to that.

We will probably abstain, and consider drafting some warm words commending humanitarian action in replacement, should this come to vote.

OOC:

This indeed is a serious concern, but we are at a loss as to how to deal with those who deny the supremacy of international law otherwise.Offensive actions against human-rights abusers by themselves are not condemned, just the UN authorization of such. "In contradiction of the UN's long-held tradition of strict neutrality" is just a polite way of stating, "This is against the rules." The UN itself cannot have an army, nor can it outsource its military influence to a coalition of member nations. It's just not done.

This is somewhat over-egged we feel; given the chaos that seems to surround the summoning of the Pretenama Panel from what we hear, and that panel members are unlikely to be pleased to be disturbed with trivial accusations, we sincerely doubt that any nation's sovereignty is in any jeapardy that is not in grave need of a smacking.The gravity of the threat is not at issue; just the basic principle that the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states should not be subject to a vote by the United Nations. Moreover, whatever "chaos" may have surrounded the roleplayed (and now defunct) version of TPP has no bearing on this resolution.

Again, a serious concern, and strongly as we believe the UN should act to uphold the rights of sentients everywhere, we must accept that this is not a commonly held belief.Not only is it not a commonly held belief, it's against the rules. UN resolutions cannot have any effect on non-member states.

We regard this as a strong point of the resolution.I thought it the weakest point, actually. :D

We are of two minds concerning this; while our military do inform us regularly that politicians and diplomats should stay far away from the details of war, we do also feel that those who take responsibility of authorising military action should have some measure of control of what they have authorised. Great responsibility already comes with insufficient power in general, and we have no great desire to add to that.I respectfully disagree, as meddling in war by bureaucrats and politicians is a surefire way to fail. I don't need to remind you what cost the meddling by Presidents Johnson and Nixon had on Vietnam, or Secretary Rumsfeld during the Iraq War. "Assuming responsibility" for authorizing something does not equal micromanagement, and that's precisely the authority this resolution grants TPP. Congress authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; does that mean they should be the ones planning operations?

I'm unsure about this effort, but I'll need some time to run over it. Is there a plan to draft a replacement?

Raphaël Sondrásái
First Secretary

A replacement for an illegal proposal that creates a de-facto UN army and never should have passed?

No, just a replacement declaring that a nation has the right to intervene in another nation to stop human rights abuses. I know many UN nations would love for such a right, and I think we might as well have such a resolution stating that.
---Dr. Bob

A replacement for an illegal proposal that creates a de-facto UN army and never should have passed?

No, a replacement for a proposal that tried to provide UN aid for humanitarian efforts but failed to do so. It seems like the answer would be no, though. That's fine, just checking.

R.S.
etc.

No, just a replacement declaring that a nation has the right to intervene in another nation to stop human rights abuses. I know many UN nations would love for such a right, and I think we might as well have such a resolution stating that.
---Dr. BobBob? Have you been drinking?

I'd love to see a good, solid humanitarian aid resolution, but a right for nations to intervene in another nation? That's a loophole that's begging to be abused. Every tin-pot dictator is going to suddenly become the world's best champion of human rights and find violations of same under every rock they look.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Only water, Rubina.

You're right that it's a loophole that tinpot dictators can use, and I don't want to give loopholes to these nations. But there are "sane" nations out there that do demand for this right. These nations are not tinpot dictators, but rather nations wanting and desiring to protect civilans all over the world, and will not do so for greed or for money. These nations do exist, and act as a police force within the world, protecting the rights of sapients in the worst-case.

But of course, I want UN regulation too to stop dictators. What I was proposing is that there be a Commitee to ascertin if a human right abuse is occuring. Once the commitee deterimnes that a human right abuse, then nations are able to respond as they deem fit, up to and including intervention. There are cases in which this sort of thing works, we need to regulate it, not ban it totally.

"Humanitarian aid" seems to already exist in the form of the IRCO, but it merely delays. Liberal interventionism has saved lives before, and many nations adhere to such a philosphy.

---Dr. Bob

No, just a replacement declaring that a nation has the right to intervene in another nation to stop human rights abuses.Nations already have that right, by virtue of the UN not outlawing it, and very highly unlikely to outlaw it in the future. Re-stating the status quo through legislation would be a total waste of time. (Blockers are only suitable for allowing nations to outlaw abortion and gay marriage, dontcha know? :p)

But of course, I want UN regulation too to stop dictators. What I was proposing is that there be a Commitee to ascertin if a human right abuse is occuring.That's what the Pretenama Panel currently does; why do we need a duplicate committee?

A concern: Member nations, who hate the rules (as seen in the votes for Prohibition of UN Military and Repeal "Max Barry Day") and like the idea of the UN intervening with military force, will likely condemn a lot of the arguments stated here. Do others share these concerns, and if so, what can be done to fix the repeal so it's more acceptable to the stupid metagaming masses?

IC: That's what the Pretenama Panel currently does; why do we need a duplicate committee?

Technically, however, a person can ignore what the TPP says about human right abuses and just go off and do its own thing. This resolution I propose would stop nations from intervening until AFTER the "TPP"/Commitee rules that human right abuses are indeed occuring. So, instead, it would stop the anarchy of constant intervention, by having the UN basically figure out if human right abuses are going on. If there are no human right violations, then there would be no need for an intervention, and nations would be prohibited for intervening to stop 'imaginary violations'.

If you want to grant the Permenta Panel the right to block interventions by having them rule if 'severe human right violations' are in fact occuring or not, then that is a good idea, but I have heard from other nations, like QoD, that the TPP is ineffective. Since it is staffed by gnomes, I doubt that it is in fact ineffective, but there is call for reform though.
---Dr. Bob

OOC:
A concern: Member nations, who hate the rules (as seen in the votes for Prohibition of UN Military and Repeal "Max Barry Day") and like the idea of the UN intervening with military force, will likely condemn a lot of the arguments stated here. Do others share these concerns, and if so, what can be done to fix the repeal so it's more acceptable to the stupid metagaming masses?

I have this same feeling myself. I wouldn't call them stupid though. Still, here's a possible revision to sway those pro-military folks. I am taking out some of the arguments that would scare them off.

1. The United Nations through past legislation condemns in the strongest possible terms egregious human-rights violations such as genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity;

2. The United Nations is committed to enforcing relevant legislation expressly forbidding such offenses by member states;

3. The United Nations, however, expresses strong concerns over the serious flaws evident in the remit of Humanitarian Intervention, specifically:

- that it fails to set specific guidelines for the overseeing panel's mandate, meaning it could authorize actions on flexible or subjective definitions of words like "tyranny" and "human rights abuses";

- that it does not account for what would happen if either the intervention operations or the overseeing panel itself engages in "tyranny" and "human right abuses" as well;

- that it allows the United Nations to authorize interventions in non-member states, who are decidedly outside UN jurisdiction and are under no obligation to uphold UN mandates, however beneficial or well-intentioned;

- that it grants the overseeing panel unlimited powers to meddle in the planning and execution of intervention operations, greatly impeding their effectiveness and likelihood of success.

Whereas:

This Assembly considers the above-cited flaws to constitute a serious overreach of the mandate of the United Nations to protect international human rights;

This Assembly reassures its members that the enforcement of UN proscriptions against human-rights violations by member states will continue, even in the absence of an intervention accord;

This Assembly is convinced that nations finding cause to intervene in cases of grave human-rights abuses committed in other countries will do so, with or without a UN permission slip:

Be it therefore resolved:

1. UN Resolution #92: Humanitarian Intervention is hereby repealed.

Only three arguments that you made, and one bolded argument that I suggested (take it out if you wish though, the goal of that bolded one was to scare the pro-military supporters into realizing WHY we hate the military, "who watches the watchers?"). I trimmed out the main objections you have against the resolution, OMGTKK, because I sorta bet that the reason you hate it is exactly the same reason the metagamers love it. Our goal is not to preach to the converted, but preach to the metagaming masses. Actually, I've been wondering of taking out Objection #4 (that the lawyers are not good at deciding what cities to bomb), and instead just talk about how this panel is too powerful for our liking.

Also OOC:

Offensive actions against human-rights abusers by themselves are not condemned, just the UN authorization of such. "In contradiction of the UN's long-held tradition of strict neutrality" is just a polite way of stating, "This is against the rules." The UN itself cannot have an army, nor can it outsource its military influence to a coalition of member nations. It's just not done.
OK, I'll give you that one.

The gravity of the threat is not at issue; just the basic principle that the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states should not be subject to a vote by the United Nations. Moreover, whatever "chaos" may have surrounded the roleplayed (and now defunct) version of TPP has no bearing on this resolution.
But the territorial sovereignty and integrity of member states is constantly subject to votes by the United Nations. It's what we do. It's a lot more dodgy when we're talking about non-member nations, but it's implicitly done in pretty much all the war-related resolutions and (most obviously) Cob's National Waters resolution which claims borders. Basically I was just politely taking the opposite view.

Not only is it not a commonly held belief, it's against the rules. UN resolutions cannot have any effect on non-member states.
They can't have a direct effect, sure. They can, and frequently do, have indirect effects, and this one is only indirect. Illegal, but indirect.

I respectfully disagree, as meddling in war by bureaucrats and politicians is a surefire way to fail. I don't need to remind you what cost the meddling by Presidents Johnson and Nixon had on Vietnam, or Secretary Rumsfeld during the Iraq War. "Assuming responsibility" for authorizing something does not equal micromanagement, and that's precisely the authority this resolution grants TPP. Congress authorized the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; does that mean they should be the ones planning operations?
No, I agree with you there. I just don't go as far on the scale as your counter-argument; "assuming responsibility" does include saying "OK, this is out of hand, stop now."

A concern: Member nations, who hate the rules (as seen in the votes for Prohibition of UN Military and Repeal "Max Barry Day") and like the idea of the UN intervening with military force, will likely condemn a lot of the arguments stated here. Do others share these concerns, and if so, what can be done to fix the repeal so it's more acceptable to the stupid metagaming masses?
That's what I was poking, Kenny! Sorry I don't have any fixes to offer, but at least some of the arguments need strengthening of themselves rather than just talking round the illegalities of the original.

OK, in order to make this repeal more appealing to the masses, a clause will be added prominently (near the top) stating the UN does not oppose humanitarian missions carried out independently. But the main thrust of the argument, that military interventions by the UN pose a significant disruption to international order, and thus these operations should be done outside the UN's influence, will remain.

In addition, the clause discussing "flexible or subjective interpretations" of "tyranny" and "human rights abuses" will be removed, because it's very weak. These terms are "defined" by the original; not well, but they're defined.

That's what I was poking, Kenny! Sorry I don't have any fixes to offer, but at least some of the arguments need strengthening of themselves rather than just talking round the illegalities of the original.Just out of curiosity, how should some of these arguments be strengthened, in your view?

I'd love to see a good, solid humanitarian aid resolution, but a right for nations to intervene in another nation? That's a loophole that's begging to be abused. Every tin-pot dictator is going to suddenly become the world's best champion of human rights and find violations of same under every rock they look.

In the Name of the Eternal Kawaii (mtCObp)

Ironically, it was exactly this sort of reasoning that led the author of this repeal to launch an unprovoked attack upon our nation. We applaud the reemergence of sanity among the representatives of Omigodtheykilledkenny, and lend our support to their effort here.

OOC: sorry, Kenny, I seem to be ridiculously busy right at the moment. I'll get back when I have some braincells spare to make sensible remarks.

Submitted (www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=humanitarian) yet again, this time with a light TG campaign to help it along. (No, I don't need help, but thanks for your concern. :p)

Approve!!

Approve!!
Gladly.

In something of a rarity in Unker history, we have no complaints or arguments to put forth. We are only writing for the purpose of informing the delegation that Unkerlantum has submitted its approval of this proposal.

Have a nice day.

Vokhuz Kon
Unkerlantum UN Executive Delegate

I'm glad to see that there is some serious steps being taken to remove this awful resolution, however, I am afeared that many delegates will see the title and automatically vote against; Humanitarian Intervention just sounds so...nice, and the stupider delegates (i.e. all of them who aren't me) might not realise, as you have rightly pointed out, that the original resolution is on very shaky ground.

The only solution I can think of is the write the repeal in such a way it looks like it's repealing a non-existant resolution that everyone would hate if it existed - e.g. make out humanitarian intervention is actually about segregating people shorter then 5'7" from those taller (promoting apart-height, if you will) then everyone will vote for. Chances are no-one will check.

Downside is that this is: a) probably illegal and b) a crap idea

On behalf of the Miniconomy Region, the Free Land of Setswana acknowledges this call for a repeal and has voted accordingly.

I'm glad to see that there is some serious steps being taken to remove this awful resolution, however, I am afeared that many delegates will see the title and automatically vote against; Humanitarian Intervention just sounds so...nice, and the stupider delegates (i.e. all of them who aren't me) might not realise, as you have rightly pointed out, that the original resolution is on very shaky ground.

The only solution I can think of is the write the repeal in such a way it looks like it's repealing a non-existant resolution that everyone would hate if it existed - e.g. make out humanitarian intervention is actually about segregating people shorter then 5'7" from those taller (promoting apart-height, if you will) then everyone will vote for. Chances are no-one will check.

Downside is that this is: a) probably illegal and b) a crap idea
OoC: The UN has a long history of cheating via use of "loaded language." Resolution titles use connotative words way too often. E.g., "End Barbaric Punishments #41." Barbaric shouldn't be allowed to appear in any legal document of any mentally sane country. I'm beginning to think it would be better to remove the titles of all Resolutions and just number them.

The only solution I can think of is the write the repeal in such a way it looks like it's repealing a non-existant resolution that everyone would hate if it existed - e.g. make out humanitarian intervention is actually about segregating people shorter then 5'7" from those taller (promoting apart-height, if you will) then everyone will vote for. Chances are no-one will check.

OOC: It wouldn't be too hard already. The TPP is the UN body that can authorize Humanitarian Interventions, which is composed of 12 nations, but there is no clause stating that those 12 nations has to be human-right defenders themselves. The nations on the TPP can all be Kennyites and then stamp an offical UN seal of approval on any imperialistic nonsense that a tinpot dictator would want.

OoC: The UN has a long history of cheating via use of "loaded language." Resolution titles use connotative words way too often. E.g., "End Barbaric Punishments #41." Barbaric shouldn't be allowed to appear in any legal document of any mentally sane country.

OOC: It's not the countries that are mentally insane, it's the players who run these countries, who create these proposals, and who vote for them. After all, we don't run countries in real life. If we did, we'd likely find ourselves hanging from lightpoles, due to gross incompetence.

The TPP is the UN body that can authorize Humanitarian Interventions, which is composed of 12 nations, but there is no clause stating that those 12 nations has to be human-right defenders themselves. The nations on the TPP can all be Kennyites and then stamp an offical UN seal of approval on any imperialistic nonsense that a tinpot dictator would want.Actually, it's the Kennyites who overthrow "tinpot dictators" (we were a lead proponent of the anti-terror bill, among others), but thanks just the same for implying we support genocide.

Since you asked so nicely, we'll head straight for the meat of the argument.


This indeed is a serious concern, but we are at a loss as to how to deal with those who deny the supremacy of international law otherwise.


This is somewhat over-egged we feel; given the chaos that seems to surround the summoning of the Pretenama Panel from what we hear, and that panel members are unlikely to be pleased to be disturbed with trivial accusations, we sincerely doubt that any nation's sovereignty is in any jeapardy that is not in grave need of a smacking.


Again, a serious concern, and strongly as we believe the UN should act to uphold the rights of sentients everywhere, we must accept that this is not a commonly held belief.


We regard this as a strong point of the resolution.


We are of two minds concerning this; while our military do inform us regularly that politicians and diplomats should stay far away from the details of war, we do also feel that those who take responsibility of authorising military action should have some measure of control of what they have authorised. Great responsibility already comes with insufficient power in general, and we have no great desire to add to that.

We will probably abstain, and consider drafting some warm words commending humanitarian action in replacement, should this come to vote.


This is a conservative policy and hence we support this fully.
Lord Norman Wolfowitz
Prime Minister
TheElitists
UN Delegate
ConservativeRepublicans

This is a conservative policy and hence we support this fully.What is a conservative policy? Gobbannium's comments [*snort!*], or the repeal?

At any rate, as this is very likely going to be at vote tomorrow (unless SS's repeal makes it first), and this thread has just 29 posts, we could just as well use it as the official topic. Sticky/title change, if ya don't mind, Your Modlinesses. ;)

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/crad45eh.png

Bob? Have you been drinking?

I'd love to see a good, solid humanitarian aid resolution, but a right for nations to intervene in another nation? That's a loophole that's begging to be abused. Every tin-pot dictator is going to suddenly become the world's best champion of human rights and find violations of same under every rock they look.

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

Hearing ambassador Talone's response, the good but unwholesome Sen. Sulla looks up from reading the latest issue of Soldier of Fortune(TM). He starts to whistle Marching through Georgia, while trying to maintain an innocent expression...and failing badly.:D

Proposal FAQ
Based on TG replies, etc.

We live in a dangerous world filled with evil people who commit unspeakable horrors against freedom-loving people, and the UN must be empowered to counteract such atrocities. How can you possibly introduce a repeal of humanitarian interventions?
First off, we are by no means opposed to military operations to halt genocide, ethnic cleansing, and other grave human rights abuses committed in violation of international law. In fact, the Federal Republic has led multiple invasions of nations that were doing just that (don't scoff, Kawaii!). Our objections lie mainly with giving a panel of unaccountable UN diplomats authority to determine which UN members are entitled to territorial sovereignty, and which ones are not. It holds dangerous ramifications, both to international order and unity, and also to the credibility of this body, which has always maintained strict neutrality over international affairs.

A second problem lies with the resolution's innate pointlessness: members seeking to invade other nations for whatever reason are by no means required to solicit the UN's approval for doing so; all this does is add a superfluous bureaucratic layer to the mess. In allowing the Pretenama Panel to dictate the terms and the details of military actions against rogue nations, we're really only giving potential liberators the option of having their battle plans meddled with by foreign diplomats, thus reducing the effectiveness of humanitarian missions. If nations desire to free downtrodden peoples of the world, why would they willingly and voluntarily submit to UN oversight, when they aren't even required to?

Why do you say we shouldn't be preventing non-members from committing genocide and other vile acts? Non-members can violate human rights just as easily as UN members can.
True, but non-members are not required to abide by UN laws. UN-authorized coalitions will have a hard time justifying the military enforcement of UN laws prohibiting slavery, genocide, etc., when the people supposedly committing these acts are under no obligation to follow said laws. It's a sad truth about the NS world: sovereign nations are only required to follow international agreements they freely and voluntarily sign on to, and that includes UN resolutions. That's not to say that nations should turn a blind eye to tyranny and oppression in non-member states, however; there remain plenty of options for combating human-rights violations by non-members -- military, political, diplomatic, economical -- outside the UN's purview.

UN Members should have the right to intervene when regions come under attack by oppressive invaders. My regionmates are currently liberating [x region] from the godless [y raider group] right now!
We're not talking about the raiding/defending component of the game; Humanitarian Intervention is a roleplayed resolution addressing imaginary RP atrocities in imaginary nations. It has nothing to do with Gameplay.

My (or my friends') nation(s) have come under attack too many times by genocidal maniacs and we have to have the UN's help to repel future incursions.
Uhh, the NSUN doesn't do that. The RL U.N. might, but not this one. Besides, most hardcore roleplayers just ignore the UN anyway, whether or not they are members. It's kind of hard in freeform RP to force players to recognize the authority of international laws they neither know nor care about. If you try to assert that the United Nations is sending troops to fight them off "for violating UN Resolution $$," they'd probably laugh in your face.

But Gwenstefani's my friend!! And a wonderful person besides! How can you knife the back of such a great guy, terrific player, fine nation, indispensable ally, Olympic ice-dancing medalist, champion Subway Sandwich Artist, etc.?
Indeed, Gwenstefani is a valued member of the UN community, and I always enjoy his posts. However, on this issue I think he is mistaken. I judged his work purely on its merits when I went about writing the repeal, and I would expect the repeal to be judged the same way.

Don't you think the UN is overdoing it with all the repeals currently in queue? When are we going to pass an actual proposal?
Heh. Don't look at me. Most of my repeals fail anyway.

How dare you pass this proposal?! You're giving the UN too much power, and taking away my sovereignty!!!:gundge::sniper:

or:

This is a great idea! There are many oppressed peoples in the world who can use the UN's help!:fluffle::)
Um, I don't mean to embarrass you, but this is a repeal; that is, we're getting rid of a law that "takes away your sovereignty" or "helps oppressed peoples." Keep that in mind when you vote.

You're a funny guy, Kenny. Surely you have an hilarious, disgusting, forumban-inducing "aristocrats joke" to share with us all?
Indeed I do. I particularly enjoy the Palentine Dolphins version:A man walks into a talent agency with his family and their dog, and *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* the rectal *bleep!* *bleep!* <unbelievably gross act> *bleep!* *bleep!* the mother started to *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* took a knife to the son's *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* then the daughter said to the father *bleep!* *bleep!* then the dog began to *bleep!* *bleep!* gnawing on the father's *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* <anatomical impossibility> *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* shut the fuck *bleep!* *bleep!* singed the hair on his *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* her trusty meat-cleaver, and *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* a small tortoise and a bunny *bleep!* *bleep!* pulled it out of his *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* all over the fucking place.

The agent stared at them in horrified disbelief, and finally said to them: "You are all in violation of UN resolutions! I'm sending troops to invade you now!!:upyours::upyours:"

To which the father only laughed, and proceeded to *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!* tore out his *bleep!* *bleep!* danced upon his *bleep!* *bleep!* *bleep!*

Which is a pity, because he was such a fine dancer.Now go vote yes.Still to come: knee-slapping, side-splitting Kennypoll™. Stay tuned.

Kenny. Is this up for vote soon or just up for approval?

I'm not Kenny, but this is at quorum this very moment, so will be at a vote near you Real Soon Now.

The Holy Empire of Imota supports this measure and pledges to vote for it when it is submitted to the General Assembly.

Burgen Alsonis, Ambassador to the United Nations

Sorry, the poll sucks, but I promise you the repeal's better. :D

We here at the council for the Allied states have taken time to read this repeal thoroughly and discuss it.
I do very much agree with the terms of this resolution and I find it strongly and adequately worded. It is our hope that as soon as the actual repeal goes through that our glorious United Nations delegates will begin writing a new resolution that addresses these concerns.
Is anyone currently working on that? Or as a matter of courtesy are they waiting for the repeal to pass?
Also the Allied States applaud the delegate putting forth this resolution for his well planned argument and impressive communication of his central points.
The Allied states of Sollomanna will be voting for this resolution and our council urges those who haven't taken the time to read carefully into the proposal itself or the conversation so far to do so to become more properly informed.

Sorry, the poll sucks

I respectfully disagree. actually i was going to abstain before i read the poll, and anybody good enough to cite that Clinton-Dole debate will probably get my vote.

The Republic of Youteria strongly disagrees with this proposal. Our country, one of whose pillars is the development based on the diversity of it´s inhabitants, considers that the defense of human rights by any means possible should be a prerogative for the United Nations. Thus, the vote of the Republic goes against this resolution. May God save Youteria.

-Foreign Affairs Chancellor Dominus Ahenobarb

The Republic of Youteria strongly disagrees with this proposal. Our country, one of whose pillars is the development based on the diversity of it´s inhabitants, considers that the defense of human rights by any means possible should be a prerogative for the United Nations. Thus, the vote of the Republic goes against this resolution.

You may think it should be a prerogative, but it really isn't. You'd have realized that if you had reviewed any of the arguments that preceded your statement. Individual nations can form their own little justice league of do-gooders and go out and try to "defend human rights" all they like. They don't need UN approval to do so, and shouldn't have it anyway. The UN should, in our estimation, be about nations coming together to find reasonable compromise. Military force does not connote reasonable compromise.

May God save Youteria.

Indeed, because if your government really thinks it's a good idea to go barging in with your army into every nation that doesn't meet your standards, sooner or later, someone is going to turn your nation into a parking lot. Take that as you will.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

The Republic of Youteria strongly disagrees with this proposal. Our country, one of whose pillars is the development based on the diversity of it´s inhabitants, considers that the defense of human rights by any means possible should be a prerogative for the United Nations.

From this statement our humble council is given the impression you took no time to read the actual bill or any arguments presented here. This isn't about Humanitarian intervention as an idea being wrong, or of doing things to stop genocide and crimes against humanity being flawed.

The main argument here is that the initial proposal was flawed with a loophole that allowed vigilantism and the option bypass the council created to approve it and turn any nation into a "parking lot"

This resolution is here to repeal the first one so something better, and something that addresses the fundamental issues with this bill that were discovered.

Also while I agree the protection of Human Rights should be a priority for our glorious United Nations, so to should be making sure that that protection is not misused for the ends of the corrupt, who will take advantage of the loopholes in the proposal.

Thus, the vote of the Republic goes against this resolution. May God save Youteria.

-Foreign Affairs Chancellor Dominus Ahenobarb

Hopefully soon you will re-read this humble conversation and realize the error of your ways or at the very least read the bill in question in the future.

I'm against the repeal.
Almost all of the arguments in favor of the repeal are true; I just don't find them convincing.
One in particular -- that it empowers and/or requires the U.N. to act against non-Member states -- I think is just not a good objection. The U.N. should be even more willing to act against non-Member states than against Member states.

I need to let this mull a bit before I make a decision, Abstain for now.

I'm against the repeal.
Almost all of the arguments in favor of the repeal are true; I just don't find them convincing.
One in particular -- that it empowers and/or requires the U.N. to act against non-Member states -- I think is just not a good objection. The U.N. should be even more willing to act against non-Member states than against Member states.Except that it's illegal to enforce UN laws in non-member states. Quoth the FAQ (www.nationstates.net/page=faq#UN):

Your nation can join the UN, but it's not compulsory. As a non-member, you are unaffected by any UN decisions. So if you're happy looking after your nation and don't want to dabble in international politics, don't join up.And the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465):

Essentially, a MetaGaming violation is one that breaks "the fourth wall", or attempts to force events outside of the UN itself. Proposals dealing with Regions, with other nations, Moderators, and requiring activities on the Forums are examples. This also includes Proposals that try to affect non-UN nations.

I need to let this mull a bit before I make a decision, Abstain for now.You're joking, right?

I'm against the repeal.
Almost all of the arguments in favor of the repeal are true; I just don't find them convincing.

Let me get this straight. You find the arguments to be true, yet not convincing? How is it that the truth is not convincing to you? Does your delegation get supplied with tinfoil hats before your nation sends you over here too?

Jaris Krytellin, etc.

I'm voting for this repeal. As mentioned in the repeal, the resolution allows the UN to disregard a nation's sovereignty too easily.

The only thing about Humanitarian Intervention that bugs me is the fact that nations outside the UN are being harassed by the UN. I am a member, and therefore I would find it insulting to be on any team that supports such invasive action.

Another resolution will most likely be up for vote later on, and I will take part accordingly. This resolution was outside any of my control however, so I feel compelled to fight for its removal.

The Republic of The State of New York after reviewing U.N. Resolution 92 is against repealing it because it acts as an enforcement mechanism to other resolutions.

Although the People's Republic of XanaMing is a neutral country (Along with the rest of the World Conglomerate region) and does not vote on non-business issues, we feel that this directly threatens the sovereignty of nations. After all the United Nations stresses fully on the concept of sovereignty. Nations should be allowed to accomplish a peaceful economic rise without the influence of outside power.

We stand firmly in support of the nation's right to govern themselves and in the support of allowing the development of strong economies without the suppression of outside influences and nations.

Therefore XanaMing is in favor of repealing.

--Yuto Yu Han
Chairman of the People's Republic of XanaMing

The Republic of The State of New York after reviewing U.N. Resolution 92 is against repealing it because it acts as an enforcement mechanism to other resolutions.That's one way to look at it. Another is this:

1) Military enforcement shouldn't be necessary, as compliance with all laws by member states is mandatory; 2) military enforcement as stipulated in this resolution is totally inappropriate, because it allows the UN to control a multinational force, which it can't do, and also allows it to enforce compliance with UN resolutions by non-member states, which it likewise can't do; and 3) UN authorization of military enforcement is pointless, as nations can always seek enforcement of UN laws without the UN's say-so. As stated previously (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13469201&postcount=32), all this resolution really does is hurl a wrench of foreign diplomatic meddling into the works of military strategy -- something a nation with any knowledge of military operations knows would severely hurt chances of success. So under this mandate you have two choices: a) undertake coalition operations on your own, without unaccountable diplomats breathing down your neck, or b) do the same, with unaccountable diplomats breathing down your neck. Now imagine: you want to liberate oppressed peoples from the cruel machinations of an overbearing tyrant, and you want to ensure the greatest degree possible of success. Are you really going to opt for the latter choice?

These are the inherent flaws in the resolution that lead us to believe we'd be better off without it.

VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL FOR 2 REASONS!
1. A vote for this proposal is a step back, and a vote for GENOCIDE
2. This is another repeal, END THIS ENDLESS ONSLAUGHT OF REPEALS! :upyours:

Burtilana

Although the People's Republic of XanaMing is a neutral country (Along with the rest of the World Conglomerate region) and does not vote on non-business issues, we feel that this directly threatens the sovereignty of nations. After all the United Nations stresses fully on the concept of sovereignty. Nations should be allowed to accomplish a peaceful economic rise without the influence of outside power.

We stand firmly in support of the nation's right to govern themselves and in the support of allowing the development of strong economies without the suppression of outside influences and nations.

Therefore XanaMing is in favor of repealing.

--Yuto Yu Han
Chairman of the People's Republic of XanaMing

If you want to govern yourself, without outside influence, LEAVE THE UN!


Burtilana

Could a replacement Resolution be considered that creates a committees that decides when intervention is justified?

[signed]
Sir Robert Holst
United Nations Regional Delegate
Rotovian Ambassador to United Nations

*raises hand*

I have heard rumors that there is a dimension that exists outside of our own. Ztarullian scientists currently studying this phenomenon have begun to call this theoretical alternate dimension "Real World". My question is, does the Resolution #92 come from such a place?

And is "tyranny" not simply a matter of majority opinion?

Schuyler Roosevelt and Ztarullia abstain, at least until regional elections on this proposal are over...

You may think it should be a prerogative, but it really isn't. You'd have realized that if you had reviewed any of the arguments that preceded your statement. Individual nations can form their own little justice league of do-gooders and go out and try to "defend human rights" all they like. They don't need UN approval to do so, and shouldn't have it anyway. The UN should, in our estimation, be about nations coming together to find reasonable compromise. Military force does not connote reasonable compromise.



Indeed, because if your government really thinks it's a good idea to go barging in with your army into every nation that doesn't meet your standards, sooner or later, someone is going to turn your nation into a parking lot. Take that as you will.

Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador Emeritus

Should Youteria´s interest be to use its military to protect its ideals and wellbeing, then so it shall be. Our armies are ready to stop any kind of attack on minorities by any government. We strongly believe that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to the government, and if it attacks the only reason it has to exist, then there will not be any excuse for them to remain in power. The nation of Youteria (its people) would be thankful if someone freed them from the oppression of a government who doesn´t support human rights.
May God save Youteria.

Severus Casius, Military Secretary of State

Could a replacement Resolution be considered that creates a committees that decides when intervention is justified?

[signed]
Sir Robert Holst
United Nations Regional Delegate
Rotovian Ambassador to United Nations

We back this sentiment, and hope that a replacement Resolution would pass that would regulate the right of Humanitarian Interventions.

VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL FOR 2 REASONS!
1. A vote for this proposal is a step back, and a vote for GENOCIDE
2. This is another repeal, END THIS ENDLESS ONSLAUGHT OF REPEALS! :upyours:OK, a few things:

1. Thanks for thinking of my weary eyes. If you hadn't have used giant green bold letters, I probably would have missed your post.
2. We always thought socialists were a-OK with genocide? Hmm.
3. Culling your talking points from a Kenny Poll? Honestly, are you that big an idiot?
4. We had a read of your RMB. You guys really are brave little rebels against repeals, aren't you? And you yourself seem to have a high mind for human rights. You voted AGAINST Repeal "End slavery," didn't you? Go on, be honest!

If you want to govern yourself, without outside influence, LEAVE THE UN!Eh. Not as effective without the giant letters or extraneous smileys. Let's try it again, shall we?

If you want to govern yourself, without outside influence, LEAVE THE UN!:upyours::sniper::gundge::headbang::mp5::fluffle:Much, much better! Yeah, that really does it for you. Go ahead and take the smileys with our compliments. No good n00b should post without them.

Should Youteria´s interest be to use its military to protect its ideals and wellbeing, then so it shall be. Our armies are ready to stop any kind of attack on minorities by any government. We strongly believe that sovereignty belongs to the people, not to the government, and if it attacks the only reason it has to exist, then there will not be any excuse for them to remain in power. The nation of Youteria (its people) would be thankful if someone freed them from the oppression of a government who doesn´t support human rights.

That's fine, Secretary Casius. This repeal won't prevent you from doing any of that, along with anyone else you might be able to rally behind you. It just keeps the UN out of it on the military end, as it should.

We back this sentiment, and hope that a replacement Resolution would pass that would regulate the right of Humanitarian Interventions.

We don't. Nations can decide for themselves as it stands now how they might want to "intervene" in other states, UN members or not. We see no need whatsoever for the UN to regulate that.

We also find the very idea of the UN providing a mandate for interventions, either through formal regulation or mere "encouragement", to be frankly a bit unreasonable. The position of the government of Altanar, as it has always been, is that the UN should focus on helping its members achieve compromise with each other through non-military means. Providing a military component is not only illegal, it goes against the very idea of diplomacy and reasoned compromise. That is not something the UN should be mandating or encouraging, in our opinion. And since nations can already decide to intervene in other nations if they really want to, without need for recourse to the UN, we see any such mandate from this body as both unneeded and potentially harmful to international stability.

Jaris Krytellin, etc. etc.

Let me get this straight. You find the arguments to be true, yet not convincing? How is it that the truth is not convincing to you? Does your delegation get supplied with tinfoil hats before your nation sends you over here too?

Jaris Krytellin, etc.



An example of an argument which is admitted to be true but still fails to convince:

"But, mom, all my friends do!"
"Yes, they all do, but I'm still not going to let you do it. If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you jump too?"


(And, no; we have to supply our own tinfoil hats before we're permitted to join the diplomatic corps.)

VOTE AGAINST THIS PROPOSAL FOR 2 REASONS!
1. A vote for this proposal is a step back, and a vote for GENOCIDE
2. This is another repeal, END THIS ENDLESS ONSLAUGHT OF REPEALS!

I suppose that i shouldn't point out this is like repeal 2 of about 5 in a row that we will be facing?

Jainey Slate
UN Rep

I had to think about the people who have slightly worse sight than myself, and I wanted to make it stand out, ya see, it was my first post!

2. We always thought socialists were a-OK with genocide? Hmm.


Where did you get the idea that all socialists were ok with genocide? im very against it!

*raises hand*

I have heard rumors that there is a dimension that exists outside of our own. Ztarullian scientists currently studying this phenomenon have begun to call this theoretical alternate dimension "Real World". My question is, does the Resolution #92 come from such a place?

And is "tyranny" not simply a matter of majority opinion?

Schuyler Roosevelt and Ztarullia abstain, at least until regional elections on this proposal are over...
~Chancellor Scelestus of Vrall stood up calmly, clearing his throat before speaking~
I've heard about this "real world". My scientists suggest that they have a similar society, but there is no proof yet- obviously, there is no way there yet!

It is possible that R92 comes from such a place, but if there is the "real world", wouldn't that suggest other worlds?

To get on topic, it is wrong morally to let genocide spill innocent blood, yet it is also wrong to invade non-UN nations for the purpose of ending such genocide. I vote for the repeal, but highly recommend that someone proposes a slightly less invasive resolution.

Someone hand Chancellor Scelestus a pencil and a piece of paper.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Someone hand Chancellor Scelestus a pencil and a piece of paper.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
A straight-jacket would perhaps be more fitting. Literally.

Travda's position remains the same as it was under the Unkerlantum regime. The UN has no direct authority over non-member states. Let he who wishes to police the rest of the world and set it to rights do so on behalf of his own nation and people, not the UN.

Vokhuz Kon
Travda UN Chief Delegate

Could a replacement Resolution be considered that creates a committees that decides when intervention is justified?

We back this sentiment, and hope that a replacement Resolution would pass that would regulate the right of Humanitarian Interventions.

We would point out that the court of public opinion serves this role quite nicely. Nations' "right" to invade other nations extends only so far as the rest of the nations are willing to let them do so. And despite certain delegates distaste for diplomacy (mandatory or not), it, more often than not, provides the longer lasting solution to any perceived human rights offenses.

We'll happily go on record as supporting (*gasp*) this repeal.

...while trying to maintain an innocent expression...and failing badly. :DWould the good, but unwholesome senator like to join us for a high-stakes game of Omaha high-low a little later? ;)

Leetha Talone
UN Ambassador

I wanted to make it stand out, ya see, it was my first post!I suppose content was too much to hope for?

After having heard most arguments for and against this repeal, Gallantaria remains undecided.

On one side, it is wrong to think any statement against the worst of crimes like genocide would have any force without any kind of possible action against member states that do not respect the UN-rule. Nothing is more useless than a rule or a position you cannot enforce.

This action can only be coordinated by the UN as it is the UN who sets the rules to condemn genocide. This is one of the most basic principles: the one who sets a rule must be able to enforce it.

That leads to the reflexion that you either agree with the original proposition or agree allowing genocides.


On the other hand, the original resolution is a bit too fast about military action. Military action must stay the last of a list of possibilities to enforce a rule. Genocides does not happen just like that, they all have a special history and own reasons to occur. Sometimes it is even better to allow an ethnic cleaning to restore a durable peace in a region. The resolution lacks to name some possible options.

Therefore, Gallantaria thinks this resolution goes in the right direction while being not as effective and precise as one would like to.

Therefore, Gallantaria will abstain.

I suppose content was too much to hope for?

Yeah, well, I hadn't much to say! lol :P

I've decided to support this, but am working on a Genocide Prevention Treaty, which I would hope we can all support.

That would be an interesting idea, but you have to be careful, lest it just duplicate the "Eon Convention".
---Dr. Bob

I've decided to support this, but am working on a Genocide Prevention Treaty, which I would hope we can all support.Unneeded, we already have a resolution on genocide (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7680087&postcount=84). Interestingly enough, it states this:

Article 3: Investigation and Intervention

§1. Member Nations are required to submit to an investigation ordered by TPP instituted by an accusation of Genocide. If no evidence is found, TPP is disbanded. If evidence is found, TPP can take in to custody those suspected to be responsible.

§2. Nations may not invade other nations based on this convention.

Human intervention is ok, but how far should is go is the question..Right?:confused:

Kenny, how does a resolution that says we're not allowed to invade other nations because of genocide stop me from starting a treaty outside the scope of the UN to bring military force upon anyone who were to commit a genocide?

I said Treaty, not resolution.

Kenny, how does a resolution that says we're not allowed to invade other nations because of genocide stop me from starting a treaty outside the scope of the UN to bring military force upon anyone who were to commit a genocide?

I said Treaty, not resolution.I was referring to the resolution's impact on Humanitarian Intervention, that #92 seemingly contradicts a standing resolution, aside from its other illegalities.

"In accordance with the wishes of the Region, I have been pleased to cast Antarctic Oasis' 20 votes in favor of this well-crafted and much needed repeal.

In other business, the following Ambassador..."

<DarkGreen size 5 Fixedsys fonts snipped> :upyours:

"...will be fed to my dog, Mister Jones."

http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b106/Yelda/ghostbusters_monster.jpg

A large "dog" enters the General Assembly. The animal trots down the main aisle, snarling and drooling. Stopping to sniff the air, it finally acquires its target and launches itself at the Burtilanan delegation.

Knocking over cans of horrid green paint that the Burtilanans had been stockpiling for some obscure reason, Jones charges through the desks and latches onto the Burtilanan Ambassador, swallowing him whole. He then turns on the Ambassador's staff, who run screaming from the hall.

The "dog" belches a couple of times, farts, then wanders about the assembly. It becomes immediately apparent that the animal is in some discomfort, probably intestinal.

( OOC: It's worth noting here that due to Jones' massive size and his "unique" digestive tract, the Ambassador really was swallowed whole and wasn't chewed up, bitten or harmed in any way. Well...unless you consider being in the belly of a giant satanic dog "harmed". Anyway, he'll survive.)

Suddenly, Jones bolts for the nearest window and with a massive heave vomits out the Burtilanan Ambassador. The Ambassador, along with other bits of undigested food too horrible to mention, hangs seemingly in mid-air for a split second. Those close to window who were paying attention might have noticed an expression of utter confusion on the Ambassador's face. He then plummets downward, landing with a tremendous splash in the Vastiva Memorial Reflecting Pool.

Felix walks over and pets the "dog" in an attempt to soothe him. He then goes to the window and shouts down at the Burtilanan Ambassador:

"Well I hope you're happy! You have sickened my dog in much the same manner as this "debate" has sickened me!"

"Come Jones, I have some baby seal carcasses back in the office which will help you forget this unsatisfactory meal."

The resolution Repeal "Humanitarian Intervention" was passed 5,586 votes to 2,860.

Hmm Iron Felix, thats some imagination you have there!:confused:

I had to think about the people who have slightly worse sight than myself, and I wanted to make it stand out, ya see, it was my first post!

Well, if you were truly concerned about people's sight, you would have stuck with black. Black text on either a white or yellow background is the most readable match-up. As indicated on w3schools (http://www.w3schools.com/quality/quality_readability.asp) readability improves.

And if you're concerned about Iron Felix and his um... little puppy, you haven't seen the defenestration machine at work in the UN chambers.

http://cache.g4tv.com/images/ImageDb3/067/245/image67245/67245_M.jpg
Jainey Slate
UN Rep