NationStates Jolt Archive

(topic moved to International Incidents)

This is a suggestion to help the UN, though I do not want it to be voted down or hated. Chances are, it will fail, but here we go.

I know it is against the doctrines of Internation Federalism to have a United Nations military (OOC: It's against the rules). Though, it might be useful to just have a general 'force' just to help the UN, from time to time. For example, terrorism treatens many a nation, and we don't want terrorists to seize nations in coups. Plus, there are certain nations that may 'fail' to enforce important resolutions...(Slavery and the illegal Black Market for Guns, for instance), and we may have to help these nations enforce them. It seems that their police force is aduquate in some cases, and we will need to agument them. If criminals fail to support the resolutions, then the UN will lose power and infulence.

Therefore, instead of having a military, nations inside of the UN may vollentueray (OOC: I know I spelt it wrong) donate parts of their forces (armed or civilians) to help Nationstates in the UN enforce certain laws. These forces are under the contorl of the nation that 'donated' them, but these nations promise to use their forces to help the Nationstates out in any need. A first responder force, really. This will act as a little 'police force', though, hopefully, it will not be used often. There is no compesnation if a nation promises to use their forces to support the UN, though it is the right thing to do. A nation can opt out of this program if they so choose, at any time.

If we have enough forces that are donated to the UN, then it would be best to have these forces co-operate with each other for effiecny, though they co-operate as per nation dialouge, not by UN intervention. It should be made clear that this is not a UN military, but rather, an organization of national forces that plan to help the UN. The UN does not run these forces in question (the nation does), but the nations who donate forces should promise to uphold UN resolutions. This is entirely vollentueray, and nobody has to send forces if they want to. But, it is good to send forces out to help the UN, as a due to helping out the wonderful UN.

In order to help christen the event, I volunteer 1 platoon of Infantry to help out any UN nationstates (and may volunteer more if needed). I hope others follow in my footstep.

OOC: Yes, I expect this propsal to be trashed. But, this is part of my RP persona. OOC, I won't be suprisied if it fail, IC, I will. [Actually, I will be suprised OOC if this idea catches on, but heh...]

The Sultanate of Gruenberg is willing to provide small numbers of forces, as well as technical assistance and advice, on a case-by-case basis. We also extend our thanks to the people of SLI Sector for their promotion of this worthwhile initiative.

We also extend our thanks to The Sultanate of Gruenberg for their assistance.

Do anyone else want to donate forces?

the idea has merit and I will send details of this back to my government.

We will donate 10% of our forces to the UN. This will amount to:
525,000 Republic Guards (Army and Air Force)
140,000 Imperial Marines
35,000 Naval personnel

In addition, we will give the following materials:

1 Al-Haraam class assault cruiser (HUGE)
The remainder of our nuclear arsenal (6 40KT Amalek I and 2 1MT Amalek II missiles)
1,000 wheeled armored fighting vehicles
1,000 bipedal armored fighting vehicles

The United Nations is expressly prohibited from keeping a standing army.

What might be a lawful and appropriate situation is for there to be a formation of one or more UN Operations, where, for specific temporary or ongoing missions, UN member nations may pledge forces or economic contributions to help monitor or ameliorate the conditions of war (peacekeeping, POW treatment, access to medical aid for combatants), assist in response to natural disasters, to preserve internationally-held humanitarian laws and rights (in response to wide-scale acts of terror, genocide, refugee crises or other civil upheaval), to ensure imposition and monitoring of cease-fires and other pre-treaty or post-treaty conditions between participants in a conflict (such as repatriation of POWs or disarmaments), and to escort and provide protective forces for UN International Red Cross (IRCO) and other UN, GO and NGO humanitarian missions.

Even so, such might be limited in applications exclusively to conflicts, or geographic areas in which one or more parties are members of the United Nations, and one or more parties makes a formal request for UN intervention.

The UN should not be able to use the donation of forces to invade a location unilaterally, but it may, by invitation, respond to issues within the sovereign territory of UN member nations.

No nation should ever be mandated to participate in hostilities against its will, even by requirement of economic or other non-military services to sustain military activities on the part of other UN nations.

Donations must be strictly voluntary and self-sustaining. If a donation cannot find its own means of self-sufficiency, it must be withdrawn by the offering nation.

For instance, I cannot offer 1,000,000 troops, ship them over, and then require the host nation to feed, house, arm, and clothe them. Nor can I stick fellow UN member nations with the bill -- unless I have pre-arranged with one or more of them to voluntarily underwrite and sponsor the force deployment. I must also abide if they later withdraw that pledge. It would force me to either find a new source of funding, or withdraw the pledged force.

Each contribution of personnel, materiel or funds entering the sovereign territory of another nation must be declared by the donor and approved by the government of that nation. This is not an invitation to invade a neighbor, nor to sneak in hidden weapons or other substances, and each nation should be allowed to refuse assistance from particular donor nations, in part or in whole, for any reason. However, such exchanges can occur privately between governments for sake of security.

The United Nations is, ostensibly, the largest "alliance" in the community of NationStates. It is therefore consciousable to use that alliance to advantage as a network of self-defense.

A straightforward and clear means of requesting assistance, emphasizing simplicity and undeniability, is required for the process to be initiated.

Similarly, a way for pledges to be consistently and clearly made. Saying "I will help you," frankly, is not much help. There should be some bare minimum of required information provided on the role and scope of the operations, and what personnel and equipment are offered. Obviously, a mission requiring 400 personnel might be quite different (and simpler) than one requiring 400,000.

General capabilities (and limitations) might be noted by either the requesting host nation, or the donor:
Heavy Weapons -- tanks, artillery guns, missiles, fighters or strike aircraft
Light Weapons Only -- personnel carriers without main guns, machine guns, antipersonnel weapons, etc.
Personal Sidearms Only -- pistols and rifles only, with no explosives or incendiaries.
Disarmed -- some UN missions might require no weapons whatsoever, such as arms inspections or the witnessing of treaties or contentious elections.

Vehicles, whether ground, air or sea, might need to be noted. However, the type and quantities of these vary greatly. Therefore, there should just be a second for "Ground Vehicles," "Air Vehicles," "Surface or Submersible Vessels," and "Other Vehicles." Let each nation requesting assistance, or each donor nation, fill out what they wish.

For instance, I might have a nuclear submarine accident. To get donations of 3,000 trucks will not help me a whit. A rescue submarine and other rescue and salvage equipment, and nuclear safety response teams, might be crucial.

There also needs to be a terminal process, because forces may be withdrawn at any time by donor nations, or asked to leave by host nations.

Accountability and visibility. There may need to be, or desired to be, 1) an initial situational report -- I would think this a requirement before ANY forces are committed, 2) an ongoing report of operations by a non-participating nation (for independent review), and 3) a final report at the closure of an operation for the review of the UN community and to capture lessons learned.

OOC:

This is a friendly reminder.....

The UN cannot have it's own military. It's against the Game Mechanics.

shouldn't this be in the U.N. forum if it is going to be a proposal.

True. The UN cannot have its own military.

But, voluntarily, members of the UN can pledge to be of mutual assistance and benefit to each other -- on their own -- without violating this provision.

If they would wish to wear UN insiginia, or otherwise call it a "UN mission," they would need to likely pass a UN Resolution permitting this sort of behavior under UN auspices.

For now, the best they can do is declare that they are "UN Member Nations acting in cooperation," yet further admitting, "without the express knowledge, approval or assent of the United Nations."

They cannot say, without authorization, that such acts are acts "of the United Nations."

For indeed, they might only be a few of the many UN nations acting, and no sanction of their acts should be recognized by the UN as a whole.

If there was a UN resolution that described how they might be of mutual-benefit under time of war or other military crisis, it might severely limit what this type of UN-sanctioned activity could be called, to avoid the UN as being percieved as party to one or ther other side of a conflict.

For now, nations can already do this sort of thing without the United Nations regardless.

The question is, under what circumstance would the UN permit loan of its name and authority to the commitment of military forces by member nations for the upholding of its goals and resolutions?

It's not in the UN forum because it's not at the proposal stage yet.

It was actually locked there to be brought to II for discussion.

I am thinking of creating an International Peacekeeping Coalition. You would loan one or more units of your Military to serve with the IPC. I have yet to think of a way to have this RP'd, but I'm thinking.

Excellent! The selfish UN is not allowed any military forces. But leave it to the UN to swallow your nation from within as it takes your own country from your grasp!

The UN is a council of incompetence and inaction. The Empire refuses to partake in this proposal. If something needs to be done in the world we will do it ourselves, rather than rely on the whim of an obsolete political body.

Those who are not members of the UN are of course free to create whatever self-defense alliances and peacekeeping operations they wish.

This proposal, which is currently proposed for UN-member nations, would not preclude other nationstates from making similar defensive response organizations.

In fact, the Kingdom of Listeneisse is already a member of Warzone of the Defenders, which is an entire region pledged to respond to defense of other allied nations and regions under hostile attack. Not all WotD nations need to be members of the UN.

You can contact Consivania (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=display_nation/nation=consivania) if you wish to set up formal alliances with us, or post requests to our Forum (http://s13.invisionfree.com/Defenders_of_warzone).

This is a meritable idea, a protocol and pattern for requests-responses for aid which can be applied for many domains.

For instance, a similar proposal is before those meeting discussing the possibilities of an NS Red Cross.

The issue is to keep it professional and prompt, to avoid exacerbating rather than ameliorating the conditions of war.

Many non-UN nations are quite sincere and good members of the community of nations, and have genuine differences of opinion from the UN.

This might be a way to work with or besides UN states on cooperative goals, even if they have chosen to be outside the body of the UN for various purposes.

Most regions already face this issue, as usually only about a quarter of nationstates are UN members. Therefore, it would behoove the UN to not preclude the advice or assistance of non-member nations.

However, non-member nations might need to obey UN-mandated rules of engagement if they would wish to partake in the mission.

Again, this is not to preclude, delay or replace any defensive, or even offensive, military assistance outside the scope or collective interest of the UN.

Thank you.

Gentlemen, this idea is all well and good, but it is based on a fundamentally flawed basis:

It assumes the United Nations will actually DO SOMETHING other than issue statements about how upset they are with nation A's treatment of nation B. Have we forgotten so quickly?

In any case, Brettonian Military Industries believes that any of its Technology of Peace(tm) trusted to the use of United Nations endeavours will end up rusting in a warehouse somewhere.

While we are a member of the United Nations, the Kingdom of Listeneisse is far from pacifistic or passive. We already are presently active and engaged in peacekeeping and armed escort of humanitarian missions in many chaotic failed states.

Let's presume some sincerity and competency on the part of all bona fide offers of states. For instance, we might have to presume for sake of doubt that amazing (and affordable) weapon systems actually work, and claims of millions of 'well-trained troops' are better than narcissistic and nepotistic delusions.

However, the Kingdom of Listeneisse is not actually an official voice of the UN, and cannot mandate the UN act.

Nor do we need to act presently unless someone can provide a specific peace-keeping mission that is required to be responded to beyond those we are already aware of.

We can all throw wallets and revolvers on the table, gentlemen and ladies. That does not mean we have a solution to a problem.

While legislation through the UN takes time, is there any current known international incident where we might want to presently and expeditiously consider peacekeeping?

While this would not obligate any nation to respond, we might use it as a case for analysis, and walk through the process.

Ambassadors, esteemed national representatives, is there a case within your knowledge that you can present that requires armed intercession?
____________

REQUEST FOR MILITARY ASSISTANCE

1. Name of Conflict (for reference to the incident)

2. Identify and describe the parties (state or non-state actors) involved. Include all parties including present, past or expected allies or enemy forces.

3. If you are a party, identify the authorized requestor (name, titles, offices, ranks and location) and clearly affirm that you are interested in international military aid and assistance.

4. Describe the conflict:

a. General type of conflict or cause of instability requiring military intervention (internal civil war, revolt, international war, natural disaster, etc.)

b. Provide background of the conflict (including references to external articles if possible)

c. Describe the present state and condition of the conflict (alert level if still at peace, heavy fighting, sporadic fighting, cease-fire, pre- or post-truce/treaty, etc.)

5. General Permitted Level of armament for intervening forces (Heavy Weapons, Light Weapons, Personal Sidearms, Disarmed)

6. State specific desired assistance (please specify type and quantitative limits) in terms of:

a. Maximum forces permitted (number of personnel, types, skills or expertise)

b. Vehicles Requested or Prohibited

c. Other Military Equipment and Munitions Requested or Prohibited

d. Medical Equipment Requested or Prohibited

e. Food Supplies Requested or Prohibited

f. Other Equipment and Material Requested or Prohibited

8. Financial Contribution Requirement or Prohibitition (state specific purposes and general amounts)

9. General mission(s) of intervention (defense against invasion, peacekeeping/ensuring cease fire, police action for civil unrest, civilian population protection, refugee protection, border patrol, maritime patrol, protection of minority group/prevention of religious or ethnic violence or genocide)

10. Specific requests for initial action.

11. Specific requests for actions to be avoided.

12. Names, titles, offices, ranks and location of point(s) of contact for international offers of assistance.

______________

If you cannot fill out the above, you are not likely a government that is truly interested in international intervention in your nation. If you can fill it out, there may be more than one nation who would be willing to come to your assistance, even in an advisory capacity.

We have been asked by our national lawyers to include the following legal disclaimers.

Caveats and Notices: What is presented above is a DRAFT of a proposed military aid request document, and does not constitute any formal document for the Kingdom of Listeneisse, the Warzone of the Defenders, United Nations member states, the UN in whole or any other nation. It provides no implication, warrant, or guarantee of assistance or reply.

The Kingdom of Listeneisse provides it without copyright as a public domain DRAFT to be filled out by nations with bona fide requirements for military assistance. Other nations are free to respond to requests using this document or through any other means without limitation or need of review by the Kingdom of Listeneisse.

Malicious and patently false applications put before the Royal Government of the Kingdom of Listeneisse can and will be brought to civil and/or criminal litigation on the grounds of falsification of requests for emergency assistance. A penalty of NS$10,000 per incident, reimbursement of all court costs, and/or imprisonment of up to 5 years shall be imposed in the case of severe violation of anti-hoax laws.

With respect to this idea, Anagonia would support such a thing. However, time will only tell if anything can be made of this, In-Game or Resolution-wise. It would be interesting to see a resolution come out of this, but that in itself is highly unlikely. Considering the fact that there are many alliances and willing Nations to help, the only good a Resolution would do would be to put a base fact in Role Playing a Peacekeeping Force, which I believe is against the rules.

Either way, whatever the outcome, Anagonia would support anything that comes of this.

*Ahem*

Although we still produce Nuclear Arms for our FT and MT forces....

*sing*Nuclear Anny, oh oh oh oh, Nuclear Anny!*sing*

*Ahem*

Anywho...

From the above, we can begin a method for making requests. Against those requests, we can then begin to record responses and pledges for assistance to meet the desired need.

Likewise, unanticipated offers of assistance (something the original requestor did not ask for) may be given. That needs to then be accepted or rejected.

Also, in a conflict, there may be a case for withholding assistance until more than one party in the conflict has been contacted. Even if it is a diplomatic warning, "We are coming in at the request of one of the parties in the conflict."

Generally, a peacekeeping operation should not be a "surprise attack."

Between the military organizations, and also with other GO and NGO relief organizations (such as the Red Cross), you will want to have the following instruments agreed to before interceding:

MOA (Memorandum of Agreement), or MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) - According to the Red Cross' use: "serve as the basis for coordination and defining the roles and responsibilities of the components involved according to the specific situation (e.g., conflict, natural disasters, and other large-scale emergencies, as well as peaceful contexts)." These are agreements with the host governments or warring parties to ensure that there is agreement on the international force's participation, role, scope, and limit in the situation. It would be inadvisable to begin a peacekeeping operation without an MOA, especially in a war zone or environment hostile to outside participation.


CA (Coordinated Activities) - The Red Cross defines these for their own use as, "a predictable framework for [Red Cross] Movement coordination of all [Red Cross] Movement actors in ICRC-led [International Committee of the Red Cross-led] operations." This is an agreement between the participating RC organizations on how they'll share or divide the duties and responsibilities for a particular relief mission. By analogy, an intervention force will use the term CA to define division of labor or task, location of operations, assigning roles of leadership, etc. If a number of nations are going to respond to a conflict, you need to know -- who is doing what, where, when, how, and for how long.


IP (Integrated Partnerships) or OP (Operational Partnerships) - Again, borrowing from the Red Cross model, these are rules for longer term operations in cooperation with organizations beyond the RC (NGOs, but possibly also GOs, or private sector entities) such as the UN. In real life, specifically the UN High Commissioner of Refugees, UNHCR, Korea's Red Cross working with UNICEF on disaster relief, the American Red Cross working with the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and local Health Ministry in Togo to eradicate measles, or even using a US DOD communications center to conduct Red Cross work. By analogy to military operations, it might mean a long-term agreement whereby one partner is providing military airlift or sealift capacity, reconnaisance and intelligence, air-to-air refueling, ground basing, logistical support, or other more coordinated activities beyond an individual mission.

ooc: I do apologize for the real-world references, and the Red Cross is not precisely the model for a military response system, but its international intervention processes are definitely something to consider.

Civil-Military Affairs

Non-military relations are also likely to be key issue for interventionists. If you go in and blow up the village you were trying to save, you've failed. Much of this should be detailed in the initial MOA, and additional MOUs can clarify points that come up along the way. They also need to understand the needs of non-military GOs and NGOs trying to provide humanitarian aid in the midst of the bombs landing.

Goals and Limits

Forces MUST establish goals and objectives regarding what limits they will place on their operations before they proceed into interventions -- What are their rules of engagement? When can they declare victory and go home? -- and who they need to keep in contact with to ensure military operations are not destroying any good they were meant to bring.

Basis for Future Framework

All of this is serving an initial basis for a future framework for effective military intervention under lawful and reasonable means for international conduct. The Kingdom of Listeneisse lauds the initial proposal again, and hopes other nations continue to contribute constructively.

Our hope would be that military intervention is required infrequently, if ever. A strong framework of an effective military-response system might provide deterrence for agressors, and may help spur self-resolution of conflicts between warring parties.

Most states do not wish to intercede in other nation's military conflicts, but will do so out of various political desires. Hopefully such a framework might deter some level of conflict, or ameliorate it rapidly, for the sake of civil populaces and the stability of functioning of necessary government institutions.

ooc: I am somewhat unconcerned about whether this goes through the UN or not, personally. If there is to be a vehicle to make international interventions more streamlined, it'll catch on, UN involvement or not.

If the UN does get involved, or I should say, UN member nations, they might place additional requirements or limitations on the participating nations - for instance, cite banning of use of landmines, biological weapons, etc.

UN member nation participation, even outside the auspices of the UN per se, does mean different rules of engagement. Those rules can be defined and kept updated as UN Resolutions pass or get repealed over time.

Again, we are not proposing a standing UN army, which is against the rules.

We are defining guidelines for how UN member nations can come to their mutual defense and respond to acts of war or other military crises. That is certainly allowable.

Again, UN membership does not mean you need to be a pacifist, or passive. Nothing in the rules prohibits players from self-organizing mutual defense systems even if they are a member of the UN. Being a member of the UN does not mean you have to be "stupid." Plus the UN has a resolution specifically stating that UN nations are allowed to have nuclear weapons and may use them for self defense. Stop beating those dead horses.

I know many of you people love to play joke-nations and paper tiger despots. This thread is somewhat sincere for more strategic simulationists (though of course, you can have plenty of fun making silly interventions to save the Easy-Baked Kingdom of Cupcakes from the Rabid Republic of Chocolate Eaters). While I cannot demand you stop zinging it IC, please do not invade it with cat-calls.

OOC: This 'idea' will most likely not go to a resolution, because the idea of UN countries donating armies to help out in times of crises is allowed, since there is no resolution against. A resolution supporting the idea, however, is illegal. As Listeneisse said, this is not a UN standing army, just nations donating forces to the UN to help out. The nations can withdraw their forces whenever they want, and it is not mandatory for them to donate.

And, an OOC thanks to all those that are donating forces. This will be a great way to start RPing and making the UN more infulencal in NS.

IC: Sector SLI's ambassdor to the UN, Vicki-Y thanks all those that has donated forces to the UN. We also thank Listeneisse for their ideas on organizing these donated forces. We hope this idea catches on and that more nations donate their forces.

Thank you.

Moderation > UN-member nation military cooperation (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9796045#post9796045)

Posted for the moderator's review.

Let's see what they think.

ooc:

I think the issue, technically, is that we cannot loan them to "the UN."

But we might loan them to an "international mission of UN member nations obeying the rules of war and conduct as set forth by all UN resolutions and especially those related to national security, global disarmament, human rights and humanitarian relief."

The distinction is important.

We cannot claim that they are "the UN's troops." Even "on loan."

But we can claim that they are "troops of UN member nations on loan for an international mission of UN member nations operating in accord with UN resolutions regarding military conduct."

We might, if the mods allow it, let them fly the UN flag, mark vehicles "UN", and even be called "UN peacekeepers," but this would be a shorthand for something effectively very different in the NS world than the real world.

A "UN peacekeeper," according to the NS definition, is simply from a UN member nation following UN rules of war, acting by invitation of one or more parties of the conflict.

They are not, as they would be in real life, operating under any UN resolution for specific intervention, mobilized at the behest or approval of the UN Security Council, or are in any way acting with the authority, consent or even knowledge of the UN as a body politic.

2-3 people RPing in a thread cannot be said to be "representing the UN."

However, they can be said to be UN member nations defending each other.

We all realize that the UN officially does not have a military, as is stated in the rules. However that is the reason why NATO was created. It acts as a 'individual ' outside official UN control, yet acts as it partner.

Why not instead create a NationStates NATO?

Also I would like to pose another question. While the UN exists now, what of those players who use FT? Would you then somehow have an intergalactic *Future* UN? I can see the RL United Nations lasting maybe another 100 years or even less; but I can't see how its eddicts applies to those nations who use FT tech. Unless of course NS has a rule written that they have to, I can't remember off the top of my head, but then that it turn takes away the 'realness' of a good FT rp when you have an MT based UN trying to tell you what to do.

These just a few of the things you have to consider. Also, one more thing before I go. If you givethe UN an army, expect it to be fought; and perhaps beaten. Because to declare the UN infaliable then is to make a dictatorship of this entire game, and the whole 'rule your own country, your way' that NS implies in its home page is then made null and void and ain't worth a dime. I dunno about you guys, but I like my Sovereignty.

OOC:

We all realize that the UN officially does not have a military, as is stated in the rules. However that is the reason why NATO was created. It acts as a 'individual ' outside official UN control, yet acts as it partner.

Why not instead create a NationStates NATO?

Problem. NATO (North American Treaty Organization) was formed by the United States to fight the Soviety Union and Russia. Its enemy until the end of the Cold War was the Warsaw Pact. NATO was never created for the UN. In order to make NATO, we have to have an ideology against Commies, and that would be against UN members who are indeed Commies.

After the Cold War, NATO has adapted to become a 'partner' of the UN, though, Russia still get chills down her spine whenever a new nation joins it.

Still, the idea of a Nationstates NATO, while somewhat inaccurate, sounds, well, reasonable. It does look like, however, that this idea of 'donating' soilders to the UN and all the paperwork inside of it...that this idea IS turning into a NationStates NATO.

Also I would like to pose another question. While the UN exists now, what of those players who use FT? Would you then somehow have an intergalactic *Future* UN? I can see the RL United Nations lasting maybe another 100 years or even less; but I can't see how its eddicts applies to those nations who use FT tech. Unless of course NS has a rule written that they have to, I can't remember off the top of my head, but then that it turn takes away the 'realness' of a good FT rp when you have an MT based UN trying to tell you what to do.

I am actually a FT nation in the UN. I don't think most FT nations are in the UN, but I'm handling it as that I'm a nation with futuristic technolgy that is just opening to the Modern-Day world. My nation was isolated with itself, being paranoid, but then decide to branch "Outdoors", and soon came in contact. So my nation is new to the idea of UN and such.

(However, note that just because I'm FT that I will be not a godmodder. My lasers can explode, killing my own troops, experimental weapons that my government mandates be used for field-testing, well, don't work, and the SLI Sector's Military is known for being corrupt and leaving a battle in exchange for a 'bribe'. Chances are, a well-displinced MT nation can trounch my FT nation in battle...)

These just a few of the things you have to consider. Also, one more thing before I go. If you givethe UN an army, expect it to be fought; and perhaps beaten. Because to declare the UN infaliable then is to make a dictatorship of this entire game, and the whole 'rule your own country, your way' that NS implies in its home page is then made null and void and ain't worth a dime. I dunno about you guys, but I like my Sovereignty.

That is why I could see why the concept of a UN military is against the law.

However, note of rping. The UN army cannot godmod their way to victory, just like other nations, and hey, they are going to lose. The UN is composed of 1/4 of the nations in the world. 1/2 of those nations will be opposed to this resolution no matter what, and there is gatesville, who has their own national miltary and will surely trounch us in battle.

Plus, there is a preception that the UN is a bunch of toothless whimps. Maybe they are right. The UN has no real ideologies; it is just a union of nations. People from all spectrums belong to the UN and they will fight against anyone that forces their beliefs onto somebody else. I won't be suprised if two UN nations go in a war, and there will be two groups of alliances, each 'working' for the UN, each attacking each other.

Why not instead create a NationStates NATO?The mods have ruled that we cannot technically create other organizations that serve as a "Junior United Nations" (See Rule #25 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275323)):
"Everything in the lines of another UN alike global organisation will not happen. WTO, EU, NATO etc etc."

Technically we cannot add such to the game. We are, of course, allowed to roleplay whatever alliances or organizations we happen to form. They are just not part of the game's mechanics.

In effect, we already have these sorts of alliances. The above would be a possible way to help roleplay them with more formalism. It would not be required, and it would not preclude other methods players may wish. It is not 'official' for NS play.

Also I would like to pose another question. While the UN exists now, what of those players who use FT? Would you then somehow have an intergalactic *Future* UN? I can see the RL United Nations lasting maybe another 100 years or even less; but I can't see how its eddicts applies to those nations who use FT tech.
It already does apply to FT, but many of the present resolutions don't make sense. For instance, you can ban fossil fuels, but who cares if you run your nation on clean solar power and fusion?

Unless of course NS has a rule written that they have to, I can't remember off the top of my head, but then that it turn takes away the 'realness' of a good FT rp when you have an MT based UN trying to tell you what to do.Hence, you can do what people do in other forums and ignore what you do not like.

Really, what the FT players of the UN gain is the benefit (or penalty) of the UN resolution changes to their government. Their economies will rise or fall, and their freedoms will expand or decrease, as the UN passes resolutions.

Mechanically, that is something that you can apply to your FT nation. Simply translate things to what is appropriate.

Remember that past-tech or fantasy nations also have to do similar translation of terms.

It's not the text then that becomes important.

Who cares if you ban landmines in a world that hasn't invented gunpowder?

But, perhaps, there might be a prohibition against sorcerous booby traps in dungeons. Some archmage came down and said, in effect, "play nice with explosives."

These just a few of the things you have to consider. Also, one more thing before I go. If you givethe UN an army, expect it to be fought; and perhaps beaten.
Correction -- it will NOT be a UN Army. It is NOT a UN Army.

Repeat that with me, please.

It is the armies of UN member nations responding to an international incident, applying the rules of war as defined by standing UN resolutions.

But yes, that does not guarantee victory. Your point?

Because to declare the UN infaliable then is to make a dictatorship of this entire game, and the whole 'rule your own country, your way' that NS implies in its home page is then made null and void and ain't worth a dime. I dunno about you guys, but I like my Sovereignty.
So do we.

Furthermore, this is not an "us" versus "UN." Anyone who tries to make it so is probably going to come out losing.

Because any UN member nation can also have non-UN friends, just as non-UN nations can. There is no reason why any nation might "only" have to accept UN assistance. And there can be cases where nations unilaterally take their gloves off and pound the snot out of someone, regardless of UN rules.

What happens in the UN resolutions mandatorily affects your government, but there are nations that roleplay violations of those rules all the time.

Just as in the real world there are some powers who violate UN rules and get to face strong words of recrimination, and... that's about all.

Also remember that a nation can leave the UN. There's no reason it has to fight with one hand behind its back if it really doesn't want to.

The thing is that UN nations generally purport to, and ideally should, uphold certain humanitarian laws that seek to ameliorate the conditions of war for civil populations, and in cases may refuse to use certain weapon systems deeming them unnecessary for national defense.

They can still put up a tremendous fight, and use nuclear weapons if they want.

Landmines and bioweapons are banned. Illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons are likewise prohibited, though open, 'lawful' sale is permitted.

There are rules for treatments for POWs, civilian populaces, children, and the like. Any civilized nation likely already does most of this in good faith and conscience.

Not much else is off the table.

So, again, avoid the UN-bashing. This can be something everyone can use in their own alliances and circles, and the UN under certain conditions.

Initial Mod Ruling -- "UN Peacekeeper" term seems okay to use for RP

In fact, in an initial ruling by the mods (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9796045#post9796045) said we can call ourselves "UN peacekeepers" to roleplay if we wish. The "UN Army" restriction is for UN resolution submission.

I will help/join, so long as I don't have to post vast amounts of RL copy & paste every post.

I will help/join, so long as I don't have to post vast amounts of RL copy & paste every post.

Thanks. I don't like the idea of having RL references in NS, so in any designs, it would be nice to plagrizie the concepts of RL as your own, just to present the illusion.

But first, let get some more UN members to 'donate' their forces.

It looks like we got ourselves a nation in trouble. A terrorist group is attempting a coup on an innocent and small nation...Zodno-Pomorskie. I told him about this program and I gave him the application. He filled it out, below:


1. Name of Conflict: Vigilant Hunt (Couldn't think of one better)

2. Wilk(Wolf): A group of those who despise democracy and wish to become a Communist state. With a group of 700,000 and growing, they pose a dangerous threat for the world.

3. Well, I am interested, but as for ranks, titles, locations, et cetera...I have no real clue.

4. Describe the conflict:

a. Revolt, for now. The enemy has a grip of coastal land, and is well-prepared for war. They have much money from foreigners and have many connections through which they could acquire equipment. No sources are known of.

b. This started as only a faction, and it elvoved into fighting in cities and rural areas.

c. Sporradic city fighting, heavy rural fighting in small areas.

5. Mostly light forces needed, some heavy forces in rural areas.

6. Defense, stabilization, and reconassance

a. 50,000 at most. Standard troops with Urban Training, Airborne, Mountain Infantry, and possibly troops for rural areas. Have cold weather gear. It never gets above 80 degrees (Fahrenheit) here.

b. Armored Attack Vehicles(Humvees, Jeeps), Light Tanks, Helicopters, Some light naval forces, transport, some air support. IF you would like, bring Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.

c. Cold Weather Gear, Chemical and Nuclear radiation protection gear.

d. Bring enough for many civilian casualties and enough for your troops. Also bring as much as you see fit for any other need you see.

e. See above.

f. Building materials, baby food, water, and milk. Generators also.

8. There is no real need for finances, other than a small cushion of any reasonable amount of cash in order to supply anything we'll need within the future. Reimbursment funds may also help as there will be heavy damage.

9. Basic stabilization and bolstering patrol through all areas. Police action is secondary, and selected only for some areas.

10. Bring in forces little by little. Subtlety is the key, as we do not want to provoke all-out war. Try to have your men learn the language, though most of our population speaks English. Also bring engineers as soon as possible.

11. Try to treat the situation as carefully as possible. Not all know about the Wilk organization, so have all of your staff keep their mouths shut.

12. Me

Anyone willing to help?

Gruenberg is a warm country; we lack the sort of cold weather training needed. We will observe.

I will be assisting this nation out, because this is a threat to world peace...and we have to start somewhere.

More importantly, however, we should start getting UN members to donate more forces out. Is it okay to start a TG campagin to raise interest?

I will be assisting this nation out, because this is a threat to world peace...and we have to start somewhere.

More importantly, however, we should start getting UN members to donate more forces out. Is it okay to start a TG campagin to raise interest?

Mmm...difficult to say. Unsolicited TGs can be construed as spam. Let's see how it develops, just to start with at least.

OOC:

Just a little fact...The UN can and does have Armies, technically. The Coalition in the Middle East? United Nations. Not Peace Keepers. They are armed and kill.

Also, with the huge amount of posting...one must remember that the maker of this game was not Kofi Anan and that we are not a Security counsel. We make of it what we can.

IC:

Yes, help out. The United Nations is notorious for not doing so, but in doing this, you will save a huge Arms sales industry.

OOC: We're talking about the NSUN, not the RL UN.

IC: We welcome your offer of support, and hope that SLI Sector will accept this in similar manner.

OOC: UN can and does have armies IRL.

In NS however, it is illegal. That why we have to work around with donating forces.

IC: Thank you Zodno-Pomorskie. I know that you are currently in a conflict, but hopefully, when this conflict is resolved, you can donate your forces to help prevent similar conflicts and chaos to occur in other nations.

Non-UN forces are allowed to donate forces to help us out, since we are here to allow for peace and intervention in civil wars. And we'll need all the help we can get, with the countless conflicts and slaughtering of innocents that is going on all around the world.

OOC: Yeah, I know...Kinda bad-ish.

IC:

Thank you, and I shall. I have already formed an International Division, which will be trained in many terrain types and with all types of equipment and weapons so that in any case whatsoever, you can count on a few good men.

Zodno-Pomorskie (http://nseconomy.thirdgeek.com/nseconomy.php?nation=Zodno-Pomorskie) has a population of 6,000,000.

Wilk (Wolf), with 700,000 persons, therefore represents a significant percentage of ZP national population: 11.67%.

Are these all adult combatants? Or does this represent all persons of a politically-defined population including combatants, non-combatants, and perhaps even children?

If they represent all combatants, then this is a serious uprising which the government will be hard-pressed to deal with, at best. If it a general percentage of the population in the territories under revolt, then the situation is significant but less dire.

As per the results of a recent poll, recorded in EconomyStatistics (http://www.sunsetrpg.com/economystatistics.php), loyalty rate towards the government is moderate, but less than majority at 41%.

Which means 47.33% of the population is dissaffected with the government (and perhaps Wilk also) yet generally neutral in the conflict.

Unemployment rate of 11.48% and a lack of even basic spending on education, healthcare, social welfare, social equality, transportation and the enviroment likely leads to an exacerbation of conditions. While the nation currently is environmentally stunning and lush, it is rapidly degenerating.

Literacy rate is projected at only 6%. That seems egregiously low. It may mean the percentage of those who speak the official language of the government.

The trade deficit is significant, representing 3.64% of GDP. However government waste is low.

In terms of mobility of force, lack of transportation spending likely indicates poor road conditions, and inadequate airport and port facilities. Expect many parts of the nation to be difficult to access, and for petrol supplies to be sporadic.

Defense spending as of this report is set at 16% of government budget, law and order at another 25%, with a base income tax rate of 28% on a GDP per capita of $4,772.57.

Expect both a large police or paramilitary force as well as regular army.

Calculations estimate Zodno-Pomorskie military at 40,000 - 45,000 personnel and police or paramilitaries of another 60,000 - 70,000.

________

Kingdom of Listeneisse Pledge of Force

Kingdom of Listeneisse Zodno-Pomorskie Force (KLZPF) (13,800 total)

2nd Air Mobile Division* (8,400)
Towed Howitzers, 105mm: 36
SP Mortar Carriers, 120mm: 40
Towed Mortars, 120mm: 24
HMMWV: 420
Truck, 2.5T: 104
Truck, 5T: 24

KLZPF Provisional Air Group (2,400)
UH-60L Blackhawk: 150
AH-64D Apache Longbow: 24
OH-58D Kiowa Warrior: 24
C-130: 12
Light Transport Aircraft (1, 2 engine prop): 24
UAV, Attack: 40
UAV, Tactical Recon: 24

2nd Armored Cavalry Squadron (1,000)
M2A2 Bradley IFV: 24
M2A3 Bradley CFV: 21
HMMWV LOSAT ATGM: 30
HMMWV: 60
Truck, 2.5T: 30
Truck, 5T: 16
Truck, 10T: 16

Lord Marshal's Military Police Battalion (1,000)
M2A2 Bradley IFVs: 14
Towed Howitzers, 105mm: 8
Towed Mortars, 120mm: 4
HMMWV: 48
Truck, 2.5T: 40

Knights of the Order of the Temple of the Holy Grail (KOTHG)* (880)
LAV-III: 48
UH-60G Pave Hawk: 24
HMMWV: 60
Truck, 2.5T: 30
Truck, 5T: 16
Truck, 10T: 16

3rd Heavy Construction Company (120)
Various earth movers, road maintenance, bridging & mineclearing vehicles: 36

* Unit includes Mobile Field Hospital

Memorandum of Agreement
Air base with 3500m+ landing strip, JET-A, J8 fuel will be available.
Port facility capable of handling "panamax"-sized LO-LO and RO-RO vessels required for logistical support.
Additional strategic air transport and fleet supply ships are based out of Kingdom of Listeneisse in support of the mission and are not listed here.
Must confirm rebel force does not possess military aircraft and does not pose air threat to force. Therefore no SAM units or fighter aircraft deployed. If an air threat exists, it shall be made known to KLZPF which may thereafter choose to deploy additional surface-to-air missile (SAM) defenses.
Must confirm heavy weapons available to Wilk forces. If Wilk possesses Main Battle Tanks, heavy howitzers, rockets, or other signficant materiel of war, KLZPF may revise force structure in response.
Must confirm this is a peacekeeping operation observing cease-fire between government and insurgents. If no cease-fire is in affect, must confirm with Wilk of immanent arrival of KLZPF, and revise MOA for agreement to all parties. If no MOA can be obtained from Wilk, then KLZPF reserves the right to change force structure and may sign MOA with government of Zodno-Pomorskie (ZP).
The government of ZP agrees to abide by all UN resolutions related to rules of war, humanitarian law, and disarmament during time of operations of KLZPF. To wit: no landmines or chemical weapons shall be deployed against Wilk forces.
KLZPF is primarily goaled for the upholding of international humanitarian law, specifically seeking to offer civil protection of non-combatants and refugees, maintaining self-protection of force, and providing protection of Kingdom of Listeneisse and other nations' GO/NGO relief workers who may enter and operate in areas of conflict.
KLZPF shall not enter into hostilities unless fired upon, in which case it reserves the right to act with all necessary means for self-defense.
KLZPF is neutral, not partisan to the government of ZP nor to Wilk. However, it is being invited into the nation at the request of ZP government which may lead to the assumption of partisanship. The Kingdom of Listeneisse reserves the right to change it political stance due to attack or hostilities shown to it over course of time, but shall likely only do so in the case of concerted aggression, unprovoked beligerence and violation of the rules of war and humanitarian laws.
KLZPF shall provide 2 Mobile Field Hospitals capable of trauma care, as well as other medical personnel trained for the provision of eyecare, dentistry, OBGYN, pediatrics, pharmacology and GP medicine.
KLZPF shall provide a heavy construction company for repair of infrastructure damaged by insurgency and terrorist attacks.

I like very much to have this as an example of how to handle an International Incident. Yet after a while we might move from an "IDEA" thread to have it on it's own dramatic/plot thread, so that discussion of how to handle this as a policy or procedure can occur side-by-side with roleplayed scenes.

Let's let it go a bit more, but I hope others would agree and eventually we'll split ZP to his own thread.

Comments welcome.

The mods have ruled that we cannot technically create other organizations that serve as a "Junior United Nations" (See Rule #25 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=275323)):
"Everything in the lines of another UN alike global organisation will not happen. WTO, EU, NATO etc etc."
1
Technically we cannot add such to the game. We are, of course, allowed to roleplay whatever alliances or organizations we happen to form. They are just not part of the game's mechanics.

In effect, we already have these sorts of alliances. The above would be a possible way to help roleplay them with more formalism. It would not be required, and it would not preclude other methods players may wish. It is not 'official' for NS play.


It already does apply to FT, but many of the present resolutions don't make sense. For instance, you can ban fossil fuels, but who cares if you run your nation on clean solar power and fusion?

Hence, you can do what people do in other forums and ignore what you do not like.

Really, what the FT players of the UN gain is the benefit (or penalty) of the UN resolution changes to their government. Their economies will rise or fall, and their freedoms will expand or decrease, as the UN passes resolutions.

Mechanically, that is something that you can apply to your FT nation. Simply translate things to what is appropriate.

Remember that past-tech or fantasy nations also have to do similar translation of terms.

It's not the text then that becomes important.

Who cares if you ban landmines in a world that hasn't invented gunpowder?

But, perhaps, there might be a prohibition against sorcerous booby traps in dungeons. Some archmage came down and said, in effect, "play nice with explosives."

2
Correction -- it will NOT be a UN Army. It is NOT a UN Army.

Repeat that with me, please.

It is the armies of UN member nations responding to an international incident, applying the rules of war as defined by standing UN resolutions.

But yes, that does not guarantee victory. Your point?

3
So do we.

Furthermore, this is not an "us" versus "UN." Anyone who tries to make it so is probably going to come out losing.

Because any UN member nation can also have non-UN friends, just as non-UN nations can. There is no reason why any nation might "only" have to accept UN assistance. And there can be cases where nations unilaterally take their gloves off and pound the snot out of someone, regardless of UN rules.

What happens in the UN resolutions mandatorily affects your government, but there are nations that roleplay violations of those rules all the time.

Just as in the real world there are some powers who violate UN rules and get to face strong words of recrimination, and... that's about all.

Also remember that a nation can leave the UN. There's no reason it has to fight with one hand behind its back if it really doesn't want to.

The thing is that UN nations generally purport to, and ideally should, uphold certain humanitarian laws that seek to ameliorate the conditions of war for civil populations, and in cases may refuse to use certain weapon systems deeming them unnecessary for national defense.

They can still put up a tremendous fight, and use nuclear weapons if they want.

Landmines and bioweapons are banned. Illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons are likewise prohibited, though open, 'lawful' sale is permitted.

There are rules for treatments for POWs, civilian populaces, children, and the like. Any civilized nation likely already does most of this in good faith and conscience.

Not much else is off the table.
4
So, again, avoid the UN-bashing. This can be something everyone can use in their own alliances and circles, and the UN under certain conditions.

Initial Mod Ruling -- "UN Peacekeeper" term seems okay to use for RP

In fact, in an initial ruling by the mods (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9796045#post9796045) said we can call ourselves "UN peacekeepers" to roleplay if we wish. The "UN Army" restriction is for UN resolution submission.


1) I was merely using NATO as an example, it however is the orginization now-a-days that works very closely with the UN. Bosnia comes to mind (however EU troops have taken over peacekeeping operations there). I perfectly realize and know what the NATO orginization was created for, so please do not think to lecture me on that point.

2) You were taking my terminology too seriously. I KNOW that the UN cannot have an army or military, even though they do in RL. I was mearly saying that those nations who are hoping for a military 'arm' to help out or be formed for UN purposes would face challenges in enforcing UN eddicts.

3) Again, I realize all this, and thankyou Captain Obvious.

4) My post was not meant in a manner to 'Bash' the UN or make it a 'us vs the UN' type scenario. I was merely posting several difficulties the UN would have in trying to create this armed forces that would be under nominal indirect UN command. I personally have nothing against the UN, their efforts in RL have been somewhat productive even if they themselves are slow on the go. And please, just please Listeneisse, do not purpose to lecture me on a topic I already know; and now which I have told you I know.

To: Thrashia
From: Listeneisse

Suggestion: Let's bury the issue and move on.

Question: Do you wish to assist in the situation in ZP?

I would be willing to supply FT small arms and perhaps even a force of clones to the UN.

I like very much to have this as an example of how to handle an International Incident. Yet after a while we might move from an "IDEA" thread to have it on it's own dramatic/plot thread, so that discussion of how to handle this as a policy or procedure can occur side-by-side with roleplayed scenes.

OOC: The Current revolt is being played out here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449605

IC: SLI Sector has sent one 1 platoon of Infantry to help out ZP and other donated UN forces in the area on the mission to mantain peace and stop the terrorists.

EDIT: Link corrected.

I made us a forum, at http://s14.invisionfree.com/NSUN_Peacekeeping. There we can discuss the mechanics of it all.

(bump)

ooc: SLI Sector: That's a link to this thread above, not to the ZP 'Revolt!' incident (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=449605); you might want to edit.

I read this thread, and I thought "I was planning on writing up something along the lines of this not too long ago".

Anyways, IC:

"This is Force Commander James Ackvick. We have been waiting for this type of oportunity in the UN for quite some time now. We have already worked on stablizing the world without UN help, and now that some UN members are willing to work on a coalition of sorts, we are ready for this commitment. We are willing to donate the usage of our entire army except the home defense units to this force. That counts as 48 million military personnel across all services, access to our navy as a base of operations and for bombardment support, access to our large airforce with our heavy lift transports, VTOL transports, three large mobile command post aircraft, as well as our army which has some of the latest technologies implimented.

We are also willing to give military contracts at a special discount for UN member nations to help modernise the UN peacekeeping forces."

The current situation here is not hectic, though it is something to reason with. The Wilk organization only has control of a tiny area in the south, two cities to be exact. Neither of these are major production areas, and they have no access to major acts of terrorism (cutting electricity, draining water supply, shutting down plumbing) and are only killing people, which is still bad!

Only a section of these people have actually served int he military, and the rest will not be granted Prisoner of War status unless former service papers are found. Otherwise, they will be treated as detainees and treated as such. So far, there are no major losses. Our republic will send this committee a readout of the physical reasonings in Sodno-Pomorskie.

Pawel Rudzic, Delegate

Hello, I am the Nation of Assatru. My nation is a small nation of 7,000,000 people and I would like to loan my troops on a case by case basis to the United Nations, as a 'UN peacekeeper' if so necessary.

We accept your offer. Thanks. Please recurit other nations (UN or non-UN) to help out in peacekeeping. The more people we have, the more we can enforce peace!

Are there any areas that need troops for a UN 'donating' mission, or a non-member mission.

I am sure I can get the nations of ALbertiana, Guerdania, Anzyria, all UN members to donate troops if a mission arised.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9923460&posted=1#post9923460

A UN nation, N Y C is invading Neoma...in an attempt to take over land and property. I suggest peacekeeper forces be brought into the area to defend Neoma. I'll be drafting the Request For Action form soon.

I would send soilders myself, but we're tied in a present revolt. I hope it ends soon. Until then, can you send soilders?

I have had a natural disaster but I believe that I can send several hundred to several thousand soldiers 'donated' to the UN. I will also ask my region and ask if they can spare a few soldiers. Just let me check on some calculations.

S L I, your reaction is rediculous. Our alliance with Kahanistan is purely to stop the genocide, we have a no occupations policy that we will not abandon, and have never made any suggestions to the contrary. It is bizzare you are upset we are trying to STOP mass killings. I repeat: WE DO NOT OCCUPY, and we don't go to war except to stop events such as the ones in Neoma

The United Socialist States of Assatru will enter this conflict as peacekeepers. We will be able to send 2,000 under General Roman Drehen, and like stated in the conflict, they will only get involved if they have to defend themselves, if its in the mandate, and to protect civilians.

If Assatru forces see government forces killing civilians we will intervene. If we know that N Y C and allies forces are killing civilians we will intervene.

It has been clear that genocide is going on, as evidenced here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9893781&postcount=1)

I have read about the killing of civilians practicing their religion.

And with the deployment of Assatru troops underway. If anything happens like that in areas that are under Assatru protection, the Assatru forces have the right to defend civilians.

My nation sees it that, there has been a genocide. Yes, no one is doubting it. I agree that there may be a mad man in that country. But instead of having people kill each other over it, there are other ways to do it and deployments of peacekeepers will see too it.

Early on in the thread, peacekeeping offers were rejected.

SLI Sector has still passed the action resolution for a peacekeeping proposal by forces 'donated' to the UN. We will just follow the SLI orders until further advised.

SLI Sector has still passed the action resolution for a peacekeeping proposal by forces 'donated' to the UN. We will just follow the SLI orders until further advised.

OOC: It's not a resolution, it's a request for aid. Same difference.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9923460&posted=1#post9923460

A UN nation, N Y C is invading Neoma...in an attempt to take over land and property. I suggest peacekeeper forces be brought into the area to defend Neoma. I'll be drafting the Request For Action form soon.

I would send soilders myself, but we're tied in a present revolt. I hope it ends soon. Until then, can you send soilders?

A note: Any firing upon Civitas Americae forces, regardless of whether it is under the guise of UN peacekeeping or not, is an act of war and may be followed up with a declaration of war against the guilty nation.

A note: Any firing upon Civitas Americae forces, regardless of whether it is under the guise of UN peacekeeping or not, is an act of war and may be followed up with a declaration of war against the guilty nation.

I doubt peacekeepers would fire. After all, I asked for them to have personal firearms. They are there to keep peace.

Here's a note: Any firing upon UN Peacekeeprs, regardless of whether it is under the guise of 'preventing genocide' or not, is an act of war and will be followed up with a delcaration of war against the guilty party.

I doubt peacekeepers would fire. After all, I asked for them to have personal firearms. They are there to keep peace.

Here's a note: Any firing upon UN Peacekeeprs, regardless of whether it is under the guise of 'preventing genocide' or not, is an act of war and will be followed up with a delcaration of war against the guilty party.

Do you expect us to take that threat seriously? Don't get in our way and you won't be hurt. Get in our way, and its your own fault.

This move shows the hypocriscy of the invading forces. They claim to stop genocide, but they also think themselves as superme despots, willing to boss people around.

I really hope more UN peacekeepers join, in order to bring peace to Neoma.

This move shows the hypocriscy of the invading forces. They claim to stop genocide, but they also think themselves as superme despots, willing to boss people around.

I really hope more UN peacekeepers join, in order to bring peace to Neoma.

It's more of a "You're not even a quarter of our size, declaring war on us is not in your best interests."

It's more of a "You're not even a quarter of our size, declaring war on us is not in your best interests."

I'm not going to declare war on you. I'm just saying that you can't just go out and shoot peacekeepers.

You are overconfidient if you can think you can invade me. We may be weak, but if you do invade us, then we will call for a UN Peacekeeping Operation to defend us. You cannot dicate other nations what to do...that is against National Soverignity. You cannot threaten to commit genocide on our people. That is the most ironic thing in this whole matter.

This move shows the hypocriscy of the invading forces. They claim to stop genocide, but they also think themselves as superme despots, willing to boss people around.

I really hope more UN peacekeepers join, in order to bring peace to Neoma.
OOC: SLI, do you really think we meant to RP as hypocritical despots? Read the entire thread over again.

OOC: SLI, do you really think we meant to RP as hypocritical despots? Read the entire thread over again.

OOC: No.

I'm MEANT to RP as a hypocritical despot. To cover my hypocrisy, I accuse you of being hypocrites. I think you are hypocrites, my nation thinks you are hypocrites.

Does that mean you are hypocrites? Nope. It's what my nation thinks of you. To cover up their own lies and half-truths.

just checking, wasn't very sure...I need a nap.

I'm not going to declare war on you. I'm just saying that you can't just go out and shoot peacekeepers.

You are overconfidient if you can think you can invade me. We may be weak, but if you do invade us, then we will call for a UN Peacekeeping Operation to defend us. You cannot dicate other nations what to do...that is against National Soverignity. You cannot threaten to commit genocide on our people. That is the most ironic thing in this whole matter.

What makes you think that we'd engage in genocide against your people other than a probable ignorance of what the word means?

And national soverignty makes for a nice phrase, but it doesn't mean anything in the face of a superior military.

I'd advice you to keep the accusations of genocide or desiring genocide to a minimum, as in nil. Keep accusing us of either committing or desiring to commit genocide and we're liable to teach your diplomatic service some lessons in why it is important to be diplomatic.

What makes you think that we'd engage in genocide against your people other than a probable ignorance of what the word means?

And national soverignty makes for a nice phrase, but it doesn't mean anything in the face of a superior military.

I'd advice you to keep the accusations of genocide or desiring genocide to a minimum, as in nil. Keep accusing us of either committing or desiring to commit genocide and we're liable to teach your diplomatic service some lessons in why it is important to be diplomatic.

Let the Special Military Tribunal decide if genocide indeed occur. There will be no comments on the matter until the SMT has released its findings.

However loable I believe the creation of a UN force, it goes agains UN rules. I thereby propose the creation of a Coalition of UN States. They could have a force, which would not break the established rules. If someone is interested, reply to this, and I'll start a new thread for it.

I would be interested.

I would be interested.
Alright I'll start a new thread.

We'd point out that there was no such thing as a UN force in existance, but that nations had peacekeeping operations. THe idea of donating forces has morphed into having peacekeepers.

However, we are interested in this Colation idea. Will it preside over peacekeeping operations? If so, we can use the UN Peacekeeping Forces' fourm to help out, as well as the Request for Assistance forms for those wanting UN peacekeepers to halt conflicts.

We'd point out that there was no such thing as a UN force in existance, but that nations had peacekeeping operations. THe idea of donating forces has morphed into having peacekeepers.

However, we are interested in this Colation idea. Will it preside over peacekeeping operations? If so, we can use the UN Peacekeeping Forces' fourm to help out, as well as the Request for Assistance forms for those wanting UN peacekeepers to halt conflicts.
The new thread has been created. It is called Coalition of Pro-UN Nations. If you wat to post a link there to your forum you are welcome to. Also, the specifics of the Coalition's functions are yet to be determined and so is its relation with the Peacekeepers. However, the general idea is that any nation (member, of course) seeking UN assistance may apply for aid from the coalition, and that if there is a serious complaint of breach of UN law an application may also be made for the aid of the Coalition.