NationStates Jolt Archive

See post 28


Seems better than blowing each others brains out.

Provide a them vs. us mentality too?

Provide a them vs. us mentality too?

Not really. More of an us with them.

West:
1. All western military forces withdrawal from all arab nations
2. Destruction of notorious prison camps with prisoners handed over to Islamic governments
3. Admittance of LMEN nations into UN if they meet requirements
-Must have been an LMEN member for a minimum of 5 years
-Must prove efforts against terrorists
-Must allow UN forces to build its anti-terrorism capabilities if not up to standard
-Must be nuclear weapons free
-Must have not had severe human rights abuses while 15% of current government officials were in power.


Islamic world:
1. Rejection of extremist values in government
2. Governmental forces root out terrorist forces
3. Recognition of Israel as a sovereign state
4. Establishment of LEMN in partnership with UN


LMEN (League of Middle Eastern Nations)
-Will be a sister organization to the UN
-All ordinances passed by LMEN can be vetoed by a 90% in the UN and all UN ordinances may be vetoed by a 90% vote in the LMEN. All vetoes may be overridden by a 95% vote in the parent organization of the ordinance
-A joint security council will be formed and will follow all rules of UNSC
-All LMEN nations must not harbor terrorists
-All LMEN nations must allow UN nuclear inspectors into their nations if requested
-All LMEN nations must allow LMEN forces to disrupt terrorist activities if it is agreed upon by 60% of LMEN members
-Each new member of the LMEN must be approved by 80% of active LMEN members (Cannot be vetoed by UN if they pass all other requirements)


Seems better than blowing each others brains out.

Questions:

1. What about Israel? They're a middle-eastern nation armed to the teeth with WMD.
2. Why do you expect the LMEN to adhere to rules like "all LMEN nations must not harbor terrorists, all LMEN nations must allow UN nuclear inspectors into their nations if requested, and all LMEN nations must allow LMEN forces to disrupt terrorist activities if it is agreed upon by 60% of LMEN members" when western countries *cough*America*cough*UK*cough* don't abide by them?

Questions:

1. What about Israel? They're a middle-eastern nation armed to the teeth with WMD.
2. Why do you expect the LMEN to adhere to rules like "all LMEN nations must not harbor terrorists, all LMEN nations must allow UN nuclear inspectors into their nations if requested, and all LMEN nations must allow LMEN forces to disrupt terrorist activities if it is agreed upon by 60% of LMEN members" when western countries *cough*America*cough*UK*cough* don't abide by them?

1. That's why they wouldn't be eligible to be admitted
2. That's something that needs to change within the UN. They need more power like being able to kick out countries for disobeying mandates.

Lets make it simpler:

World peace Treaty:

Rule#1: Every Country will respect the other countries sovereignity.
Rule#2: See rule #1. ;)

1. That's why they wouldn't be eligible to be admitted

Fair enough.

2. That's something that needs to change within the UN. They need more power like being able to kick out countries for disobeying mandates.

Not going to happen I'm afraid. The power in the UN lies for the most part with the USA, China and Russia. None of those countries are exactly saints when it comes to human rights and legality.

Lets make it simpler:

World peace Treaty:

Rule #1 Every Country will respect the other countries sovereignity.
Rule #2 See rule #1. ;)

That doesn't work when a gov't gets into power that severely oppresses its people and commits genocide.

Here's my proposal:

1. All countries will obey the commands of a quasi-evil Panda.
2. The Panda is infallible.
3. If in doubt refer to 1.

Fair enough.



Not going to happen I'm afraid. The power in the UN lies for the most part with the USA, China and Russia. None of those countries are exactly saints when it comes to human rights and legality.

The only real place where that is true is within the UNSC. Their vote is worth the same as the vote of everyone else in the main body.

The only real place where that is true is within the UNSC. Their vote is worth the same as the vote of everyone else in the main body.

Theoretically. However, remember that many of the countries in the UN are dependant on aid and subsidies from more powerful countries, the threat of withdrawing aid is enough to control the vote of most smaller countries. For an example of this behaviour look up Japan's efforts to get whaling legalised, after much bribery, blackmail and corruption they are near to getting a majority.

That doesn't work when a gov't gets into power that severely oppresses its people and commits genocide.#1) historically Wars have produced far more victims than civil wars..

#2) your proposed anti-terror or anti-nuclear rules do nothing to help the "oppressed peoples".

Negating nuclear technology is not going to stop a dictator from opressing his people.. also Terrorism/guerrilla warfare usually favors the oppressed under-armed populations.

Theoretically. However, remember that many of the countries in the UN are dependant on aid and subsidies from more powerful countries, the threat of withdrawing aid is enough to control the vote of most smaller countries. For an example of this behaviour look up Japan's efforts to get whaling legalised, after much bribery, blackmail and corruption they are near to getting a majority.

There's a perfect place for a new UN ordinance. All nations must donate a proportional amount of "aide money" to the UN. The UN then distributes these funds to those nations that are in need of it the greatest. This takes away that issue.

First: historically Wars have produceded far more victims than civil wars..
Look to Rwanda or Somalia. Those are cases of Mass genocide which produced far more casualties that any foreign intervention.

Second: your proposed terror or nuclear "pre-conditions" do nothing to help the "opressed peoples".

#1 Negating nuclear technology is not going to stop a dictator from opressing his people..

The LMEN would function much like the UN. Nations which opress their citizens would be punished accordingly.

#2 Terrorism/guerrilla warfare usually favors the opressed under-armed populations.

Name a member of the UN which has a wide-spread guerilla movement within. You can't because they cannot afford to opress their peoples without having to deal with UN sanctions and a severe reduction in power.

Name a member of the UN which has a wide-spread guerilla movement within. You can't because they cannot afford to opress their peoples without having to deal with UN sanctions and a severe reduction in power.

Peru - Shining Path
Colombia - FARC
Nepal - Maoists

Try again

Peru - Shining Path
Colombia - FARC
Nepal - Maoists

etc,etcExactamente.. There is hundreds of guerrilla groups all over the world..

Exactamente.. There is hundreds of guerrilla groups all over the world..

Guerrillas aren't terrorists. They are people fighting for a cause against enemy MILITARY forces. Terrorists fight against civilians to swing a nations opinion of an issue.

Guerrillas aren't terrorists. They are people fighting for a cause against enemy MILITARY forces. Terrorists fight against civilians to swing a nations opinion of an issue.one man's terrorist.. etc (you lose)

Your "treaty" is a loser proposition.
Most sovereign self-respecting Nations would never sign such a one-sided proposition.

The UN sucks, buy your LMON stinks.

one man's terrorist.. etc
No, i'm looking at it from a generic stand point. A geurilla fights against an enemy military, wether right or wrong. A terrorist kills civilians to swing a populations opinion, wether right or wrong.

No, i'm looking at it from a generic stand point....Whatever you are looking at.. It is not working ;)

Guerrillas aren't terrorists. They are people fighting for a cause against enemy MILITARY forces. Terrorists fight against civilians to swing a nations opinion of an issue.
You ask for Guerillas, I give you Guerillas.

Your "treaty" is a loser proposition.
Most sovereign self-respecting Nations would never sign such a one-sided proposition.



The extremists get what they want. All western forces off of islamic territory.

The extremists get what they want. All western forces off of islamic territory.when you say "the extremists"
You are talking about Who?

Islam?
The sunnis?
The shi-ites?
The Arabs?
Iran?
Syria?
The Sheiks?

Although I do not agree with this proposition, I must argue that their is a great difference between the moral of Geurilla's and Terrorists.. In the titles alone it kind of spells out the tactical aims.

when you say "the extremists"
You are talking about Who?

Islam?
The sunnis?
The shi-ites?
The Arabs?
Iran?
Syria?
The Sheiks?

All followers of the islamic faith who favor an interpretation of the koran that is classified as extreme.

Although I do not agree with this proposition, I must argue that their is a great difference between the moral of Geurilla's and Terrorists.. In the titles alone it kind of spells out the tactical aims.the title (word) terrorism.. means the use of Terror to obtain something.

the word Geurilla(guerrilla) should spell(mean) nothing to you. Unless you speak Spanish.;)

We're all idealists, unless we've been brainwashed to blieve the government's propaganda. If it's all in the name of freedom, what freedom are you giving them?

Another proposal: One concept would be that the world would be divided into a multitude of different regions much like NS. Theses regions would have a government that handles security for all included nations, domestic and foreign economic policies, and human-rights issues. Then, delegates from each region would represent that region in the global level of the proposed system of international government. This would take away some of corruption that individual nations practice to furthur themselves because the other nations in their region would not support it. This organization would have much more power than the UN. If an individual country commits an offense, then its regional government can provide punishment and help it back into the international stage with a more tailored response than the global level could. The global level of the government would collect regional funds and distibute them evenly throughout the world. This would be a very open process with many people invovled in order to prevent against corruption. This would prevent one region or nation from having more power than another.

Another proposal: One concept would be that the world would be divided into a multitude of different regions much like NS. Theses regions would have a government that handles security for all included nations, domestic and foreign economic policies, and human-rights issues. Then, delegates from each region would represent that region in the global level of the proposed system of international government. This would take away some of corruption that individual nations practice to furthur themselves because the other nations in their region would not support it. This organization would have much more power than the UN. If an individual country commits an offense, then its regional government can provide punishment and help it back into the international stage with a more tailored response than the global level could. The global level of the government would collect regional funds and distibute them evenly throughout the world. This would be a very open process with many people invovled in order to prevent against corruption. This would prevent one region or nation from having more power than another.
sounds good.

Another proposal: One concept would be that the world would be divided into a multitude of different regions much like NS. Theses regions would have a government that handles security for all included nations, domestic and foreign economic policies, and human-rights issues. Then, delegates from each region would represent that region in the global level of the proposed system of international government. This would take away some of corruption that individual nations practice to furthur themselves because the other nations in their region would not support it. This organization would have much more power than the UN. If an individual country commits an offense, then its regional government can provide punishment and help it back into the international stage with a more tailored response than the global level could. The global level of the government would collect regional funds and distibute them evenly throughout the world. This would be a very open process with many people invovled in order to prevent against corruption. This would prevent one region or nation from having more power than another.

Yes, and try getting the realistic countries to believe that. Sweden just won't believe it can work. Too many countries are clinging to the remains of their collapse. Barbarit here we come!

All followers of the islamic faith who favor an interpretation of the koran that is classified as extreme.

Wow, talk about tautology. :rolleyes:

Yes, and try getting the realistic countries to believe that. Sweden just won't believe it can work. Too many countries are clinging to the remains of their collapse. Barbarit here we come!

All that would be necessary is for one or two very powerful nations to leave the UN. If the US left, then what would the UN really be? Just an organization with a lot of talk but no way to enforce its policies. What may also be necessary for something like this to be put into action is another world war. It would instill the fact that the UN is basically powerless and would prompt world leaders to create a international governing body that would have more power like the one i have outlined.

Wow, talk about tautology. :rolleyes:
Thats because it was in response to a redunant question.

Another proposal: One concept would be that the world would be divided into a multitude of different regions much like NS. Theses regions would have a government that handles security for all included nations, domestic and foreign economic policies, and human-rights issues.
Sounds like the EU or Mercosur proposals so far.

Then, delegates from each region would represent that region in the global level of the proposed system of international government. This would take away some of corruption that individual nations practice to furthur themselves because the other nations in their region would not support it.
It would do nothing of the sort. It would just introduce a further level of corruption to get delegates to support the interest of particular nations. Again see the EU for examples.

This organization would have much more power than the UN.
How?

If an individual country commits an offense, then its regional government can provide punishment and help it back into the international stage with a more tailored response than the global level could.
Or decide that they have not commited any offence regardless of the evidence.

The global level of the government would collect regional funds and distibute them evenly throughout the world. This would be a very open process with many people invovled in order to prevent against corruption. This would prevent one region or nation from having more power than another.

Dream on.

Thats because it was in response to a redunant question.

How so?