NationStates Jolt Archive

This forum is to show support for the anti-anti-UN movement. While not necessarily being for the UN, Opal Isle is adamantly opposed to movements against the UN. The goal of the UN is good, but clearly, it is not accomplishing its goal as they are making people bitter. Here is my message to the anti-UN people. You are only making the UN better. By not even attempting to cooperate with an organization that has absolutely no say-so over your country (unless you join it), you are making yourselves look like the bad guy. You are accomplishing nothing. I, in response to this blatant disregard of diplomacy, am placing an embargo on any nation that is official anti-UN. Any nations that wish to join me in my embargo of anti-UN nations may do so by stating their support here. Also, please help us collect a list of anti-UN nations so we may create a blacklist.

bump?

Power and War, off the top of my head. This annoys me - I know a whole bunch of them, but can't recall them when I need to.

We are fully in support of this...except the embargo part. That bit is pointless and a violation of their nation's sovereignty - they do nothing against the United Nations, why should we blockade them?

The Republic loves the U.N.

Their excessive restrictions on freedom of trade, their violations of national sovereignty, not to mention their laughable communist policies give developed nations like Tyrandis great trade surplusses when dealing with U.N nations.

I agree, because of the U.N's foolish ways nations like mine flourish :twisted:

Power and War, off the top of my head. This annoys me - I know a whole bunch of them, but can't recall them when I need to.

We are fully in support of this...except the embargo part. That bit is pointless and a violation of their nation's sovereignty - they do nothing against the United Nations, why should we blockade them?

How is an embargo a violation of a nation's sovereignty? Please explain that. You may have something confused, if you don't have anything confused, you're wrong.

As President of the EFU and President of the Republic of Nuovo Campania, I will express my county's, and my Unions endorsement of the UN, All nations that are opposed to the UN are foolish to believe they can go on without. what will happen next, a new UN, what did the UN come out of in the first place?, We'll probably see some fools try to create the Leauge of United Nations

As the founding member of the CTL, we do not appreciate your moves, which are a direct "insult" to us. Cease and desist.

As the founding member of the CTL, we do not appreciate your moves, which are a direct "insult" to us. Cease and desist.

Eduardio Hernandez, Profesor of Politics at Opal Isle University:

I find it quite interesting that Heraal's diplomacy is extremely harsh, yet altogether futile. The nation of Heraal was advised heavily, yet peacefully and diplomatically, by Opal Isle advisors attempting to convince them not to form the CTL. Our country's advisors treated them on a very professional level, and when they failed to convince them that the CTL was a step in the wrong direction, they went their seperate ways. I figured that the Nation of Heraal would've been at least taking notes from Opal Isle's more superior diplomats.

And we should listen to an oppressive dictatorship? I think not.

If Opal Isle were to form a new region of non-UN, non-anti-UN nations, who would show support for neutrality on this matter by joining the region?

In our region, we'd sort of have a court system in which if there was some sort of issue in which some nation was being totally out of line, we'd come together as a region and decide to kick them out. Aside from that, we'd just sit back, and live life in neutrality. And I ask what makes Heraal any better at all than the UN if they are going to judge countries based on their style of governing. I've passed two oppressive laws, one banning voting (as the people clearly love me) and one flogging criminals in public (which is necessary punishment), on any of the other laws, I've be actually very non-oppressive.

I realize this. I was in the North Pacific before joining the Treaty. However we feel a dictatorship of any form is oppressive, and we are also judging by the freedoms and economy of your nation.

Power and War, off the top of my head. This annoys me - I know a whole bunch of them, but can't recall them when I need to.

We are fully in support of this...except the embargo part. That bit is pointless and a violation of their nation's sovereignty - they do nothing against the United Nations, why should we blockade them?

How is an embargo a violation of a nation's sovereignty? Please explain that. You may have something confused, if you don't have anything confused, you're wrong.

Do you mean a refusal to trade or sending a bunch of ships and surrounding the nation? Refusal to trade, I'm ok with. That'd be a given :P

Civil Rights: GOOD
Economy: REASONABLE
Political Freedoms: UNHEARD OF

No matter what you were judging my country, the undeniable fact is that you declared my country as oppressive and decided you shouldn't listen to it for that fact. That is still judging no matter what angle you look at it from, therefore justifying my reason even further for being against the CTL, as it's the same as the UN, just a different flavor, yet they still despise the UN.

Secondly, I don't understand what economy has to do with oppressiveness. (OOC: Was the US Government Oppressive during the depression? Oh...) And aside from that, I don't see how you equate "Civil Rights: GOOD" with oppressive....

Power and War, off the top of my head. This annoys me - I know a whole bunch of them, but can't recall them when I need to.

We are fully in support of this...except the embargo part. That bit is pointless and a violation of their nation's sovereignty - they do nothing against the United Nations, why should we blockade them?

How is an embargo a violation of a nation's sovereignty? Please explain that. You may have something confused, if you don't have anything confused, you're wrong.

Do you mean a refusal to trade or sending a bunch of ships and surrounding the nation? Refusal to trade, I'm ok with. That'd be a given :P

Refusal of trade.

I realize this. I was in the North Pacific before joining the Treaty. However we feel a dictatorship of any form is oppressive, and we are also judging by the freedoms and economy of your nation.
um you made the treaty, (i am trying to fix my status and have been for some time no comments on my nation being a compulsory consumerment state) but this whole netruiallity is over the top i mean just don't get in the debates and you're neutral.

Ah...I see. Sorry about the confusion then...I'd naturally refuse to trade with Anti-UN nations...or most of them. Goes along with my policy of refusing to trade with noobs.

Civil Rights: GOOD
Economy: REASONABLE
Political Freedoms: UNHEARD OF

No matter what you were judging my country, the undeniable fact is that you declared my country as oppressive and decided you shouldn't listen to it for that fact. That is still judging no matter what angle you look at it from, therefore justifying my reason even further for being against the CTL, as it's the same as the UN, just a different flavor, yet they still despise the UN.

Secondly, I don't understand what economy has to do with oppressiveness. (OOC: Was the US Government Oppressive during the depression? Oh...) And aside from that, I don't see how you equate "Civil Rights: GOOD" with oppressive....
oh yeah mister enlightened dictator is now talking about oppression

As enlightened as I am, I've no idea what Oppersion is...unless he is closely related to the inventor of the atomic bomb...

Ah...I see. Sorry about the confusion then...I'd naturally refuse to trade with Anti-UN nations...or most of them. Goes along with my policy of refusing to trade with noobs.
oh we're newbs bad choice of words their should have left last part out, we are different and therefore must be noobs ba i haven't even talked to many UN members much less fought any. i am not a warmonger i haven't lost my temper yet i don't call people names often and i do research about former alliances to see what went wrong.

1) You may no lose your temper or call names, but "oh yeah mister enlightened dictator is now talking about oppression" wasn't exactly a nice comment, so no one is in the all-clear here.

2) Why don't you "reashreach" about dictionaries?

3) I do agree though, the last part of West Scotland's post probably was unnecessary.

4) However, a post just to flame West Scotland and attempt raising yourself above the people who don't agree with you is even more uncalled for.

5) Thanks for playing.

1) You may no lose your temper or call names, but "oh yeah mister enlightened dictator is now talking about oppression" wasn't exactly a nice comment, so no one is in the all-clear here.

2) Why don't you "reashreach" about dictionaries?

3) I do agree though, the last part of West Scotland's post probably was unnecessary.

4) However, a post just to flame West Scotland and attempt raising yourself above the people who don't agree with you is even more uncalled for.

5) Thanks for playing.i did say often it was sarcastic and sorry about that research i will go back and fix it, flame you call that a flame i call it a argument. f.y.i I meant for that to be said in a calm voice if i hadn't it would have been in capitals and bold.

oh we're newbs bad choice of words their should have left last part out, we are diffrent and therfore must be noobs ba i haven't even talked to many UN members much less fought any. i am not a warmonger i haven't lost my temper yet i don't call people names often and i do research about former allainces to see what went wrong.

That's an argument and my country is landlocked.

oh we're newbs bad choice of words their should have left last part out, we are diffrent and therfore must be noobs ba i haven't even talked to many UN members much less fought any. i am not a warmonger i haven't lost my temper yet i don't call people names often and i do research about former allainces to see what went wrong.

That's an argument and my country is landlocked.
then it was a statement defending my self from what i saw a personal insult.

If you want to defend yourself from personal insult don't post anything because my English was better than that when I was....well...

OH WAIT! My English has never been that bad...

If you want to defend yourself from personal insult don't post anything because my English was better than that when I was....well...

OH WAIT! My English has never been that bad...
if you had a actual argument you wouldn't have posted about my spelling. becasue thats the way people are.

Well, if you could use the English language, there'd be something to argue against.

Well, if you could use the English language, there'd be something to argue against.
ok this is turning into a flame war i am leaving this topic.

Now, if someone would like to seriously discuss creating a league of nations that is truely neutral concerning the matter, please post here. I really don't think it is necessary for the anti-UN people to post here. This is not a debate thread really. It's an organizational thread. When I was posting on the anti-UN thread, I was trying to advised the organization/orginizational efforts, not tear it down and attack it. We are appalled that we can not be treated equally. Hipocrisy, hipocrisy, hipocrisy.

From MMI Department of State:

Opal Isle, we understand your point made herein but must disagree with you. You may be correct in that anti-UN nations and alliances might be made out to be the bad guy to some people. But there IS a growing anti-UN movement (look at the votes and closing divide on their passed legislation) largely due to their biased leftist policies. More and more UN nations ARE getting sick of the UN. Therefore, an open and organized presence and movement against the UN is beneficial for all of those countries. It says that there are others out there that agree. It focuses the resentment. It provides leadership.

Plus I'll add my country myself to your blacklist, along with the 56 other countries in my regional alliance. Face it ... this is a growing movement. It's spreading throughout the NationStates world no matter where you look.

MMI, I would advise you to do a better job of comprehending. First, you don't understand my point, but clearly disagree with what you think you understand as my point. And if I said that the anti-UN nations were made out to be the bad guy, that'd probaby be correct as well. What I said is that the anti-UN people are going about bringing change in the wrong way. They are making themselves look like the bad guys by promoting hatred for the UN. How many UN resolutions passed apply to non-UN nations? None. That being said, in your statement about their being a growing anti-UN movement and citing the votes and closing divide on their passed legislation, if more people are going against submitted UN resolutions, then the UN is starting to work. If more and more UN nations are getting sick of passed UN resolutions then more and more UN nations should vote against pending UN resolutions, therefore causing less and less UN resolutions to be unnecessarily passed. The anti-UN groups are not even trying to make the UN work. And I agree, an organized presence and movement can be beneticial to countries. Did you ever think about organize a massive movement for joining the UN and voting against resolutions that you don't like and even attempt repealing passed resolutions? You aren't going to change the UN by staying on the outskirts and just hating it. I don't see what the focus of the resentment and the leadership offered by this sort of hate-based organization will accomplish. The International Union (which I will post a link to that thread, which is apparantly not interesting to people) offers an alternative to the UN. We don't want to try taking out the UN because we know that if people would use it properly it would work absolute, undeniable miracles. However, it is not at that stage yet, and we don't care enough about the UN to attempt making an effort to change that. For now, we simply realize that the UN does not and can not affect our nation, and therefore, we are attempting to organize a co-isolationist movement. We don't plan to spread hate that accomplishes anything. We plan to move to a new region where we don't have to deal with the UN/anti-UN arguments because until the two sides learn to comprimise and focus energy on actually accomplishing anything instead of just hating, nothing will be done.

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=154255

Oh, and by the way, Opal Isle is, at least for now, backing off of the embargo idea. No nations will be embargoed by Opal Isle at this point in time.

Opal Isle, I do understand your points and yes, we have considered your strategy in detail as outlined here by AWS ...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=146905

with additional viewpoints of ours here ...

http://www.nationstates.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=143353

As you see, our strategy is two fold, ...

(1) support the growing anti-UN movement by mechanisms that you denounce, as impotent, but that we understand as important ...

and

(2) ultimately reign in those countries to mass-join the UN with cross-delegation in order to enhance its evolution of irrelevance. Currently, we are in stage-1 of this strategy but rapidly approaching stage-2.

Ah...I see. Sorry about the confusion then...I'd naturally refuse to trade with Anti-UN nations...or most of them. Goes along with my policy of refusing to trade with noobs.
oh we're newbs bad choice of words their should have left last part out, we are different and therefore must be noobs ba i haven't even talked to many UN members much less fought any. i am not a warmonger i haven't lost my temper yet i don't call people names often and i do research about former alliances to see what went wrong.

No...no...you see, the UN is part of the game mechanics. You don't destroy the UN. Peopole who believe they can remove the UN from the Game are...newbies...acceptable. People who stubbornly maintain that it really can and form anti-UN coalitions and forces are...noobs.

People who call people names are ex-nations :P

What went wrong with former anti-UN coalitions is that you STILL can't force the mods to remove the UN from the game...period.

Ah...I see. Sorry about the confusion then...I'd naturally refuse to trade with Anti-UN nations...or most of them. Goes along with my policy of refusing to trade with noobs.
oh we're newbs bad choice of words their should have left last part out, we are different and therefore must be noobs ba i haven't even talked to many UN members much less fought any. i am not a warmonger i haven't lost my temper yet i don't call people names often and i do research about former alliances to see what went wrong.

No...no...you see, the UN is part of the game mechanics. You don't destroy the UN. Peopole who believe they can remove the UN from the Game are...newbies...acceptable. People who stubbornly maintain that it really can and form anti-UN coalitions and forces are...noobs.

People who call people names are ex-nations :P

What went wrong with former anti-UN coalitions is that you STILL can't force the mods to remove the UN from the game...period.
wait this isn't true becasue everyone calls someone a name we are the idoits you are the Leftist extreme is't and opal is the git all these Phrases have been used and no one banned. i know but if we remove it's point of existance and no problem no one will be a member and it will be a standing grave yard.

wait this isn't true becasue[b] everyone calls someone a name[b][insert period, begin new setence] we are the idoits[insert period, begin new setence] you are the Leftist extreme[-ist?] is't and opal is the git all these Phrases have been used and no one banned. [what?] i know[insert comma] but if we remove it's point of existance and no problem [what?]no one will be a member and it will be a standing grave yard.[mabye you didn't hear me the first two times: WHAT?!]

/me wishes that people who start forums could block other users from them. Another, new advantage to joining the International Union is that the IU does not tolerate poor spelling/grammar. I don't really even understand Dark Fututre's idea, but whatever he is trying to get across, it probably is a very good idea, it unfortunately, will never work, as he could never ever get it across to anyone.

By the way, the point of the United Nations is to strengthen diplomatic ties, achieve world peace, and improve life in general on the world. While they are farfetched and dreamy, those are in fact the ideals and the point of the existence of the UN. Now, by removing it's point of existence, as Dark Fututre says is the aim of the Anti-UN nations, you either 1) convince the entire world that diplomacy, peace, and a good life on earth is unneeded, or 2) have a magical ray-gun that will automatically turn the earth into a highly diplomatic, extremely peaceful, and great place to live...option one seems a little less far-fetched, and if that is the intent of Anti-UN nations, then no Anti-UN nations is in the position to criticize any nation as Anti-UN nations are anti-cooperation, anti-diplomacy (proven by their attempts at shooting down the IU), anti-peace, and anti-good. Anti-Good = Evil. Therefore, according to Dark Fututre's statements, Anti-UN nations are evil.