Proposal Now Before The United Nations

SlowwHand · January 17, 2003, 11:22

Assassination Authorization
A resolution to increase democratic freedoms.

Category: The Furtherment of Democracy
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: North Texas

Description: Seeks endorsement by United Nations members to authorize political assassination.
Rogue nations already have no qualms in regard to assassination, and we should have this option in place.
Assassination of a hostile leader could very well stymy an impending war, saving lives and loss of massive amounts of funds.
Any assassination would require passage by the U.N.membership.

Voting Ends: Mon Jan 20 2003

(page 33 of U.N. proposals)

reismark · January 17, 2003, 11:42

The Commonwealth feels this is the domain of individual nations and as such will not support such a proposal.

SlowwHand · January 17, 2003, 11:44

I could very well have left out the last part, about U.N. authorizing the hit.

Kassiopeia · January 17, 2003, 12:22

I can't see myself supporting this proposal. Assassination, and violence altogether, is not something the UN should bless or accept. There are better ways to do these things.

Alex · January 17, 2003, 12:47

Our country motto says it all: "Peace and Prosperity". Therefore, Tupan will not endorse this proposal.

Provost Harrison · January 17, 2003, 14:22

To depose an oppressive tyrant to stop war and the loss of life...East Yorkshire supports.

DeathByTheSword · January 17, 2003, 15:01

the president of sheathed word is outraged with this proposel and will not support it

DinoDoc · January 17, 2003, 16:16

Greater DinoDoc rejects this ill-concieved proposal in the strongest possible terms.

H Tower · January 17, 2003, 16:52

Nay

Drogue · January 17, 2003, 17:30

Akiria will vote against. It is inhumane. However, what happens if you cannot assassinate a countries leader (ie. if they are not flesh and blood)?

Jack_www · January 17, 2003, 17:55

If an assination has to be aproved by the UN, the person you are trying to take out will know right away and can take messures to protect themselves. Not only that if they were planing a war or some other thing it would only make them want to do it more make them do what ever you are trying to prevent faster. Also if they picked someone to seceed them, they would most likely carry on the old policy of the now dead leader.

This is a very stupid idea. Thankfull United States of Jackson is no part of the UN.

Giovanni Wine · January 17, 2003, 17:57

Wine votes No

Saluti

SlowwHand · January 17, 2003, 18:28

Assassination exists. That's why World Leaders have bodyguards.

Yes, all would know it was passed. Maybe that will have the positive impact I expect.

The other alternatives to meet aggression is retalitory aggression in mass, or nukes.

So ok. I'll do assassinations, and you Nay Sayers can waste your young.
How very odd this is turning out.

Provost Harrison · January 17, 2003, 19:18

I am aligned with Sloww, it is definitely the lesser of two evils here...

DinoDoc · January 17, 2003, 20:27

Quote:

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So ok. I'll do assassinations, and you Nay Sayers can waste your young.

The Dominion of Greater DinoDoc needs no UN approval to wage war in anyway we see fit. We refuse to give up sovereignty to the UN on this matter.

SlowwHand · January 17, 2003, 20:59

Not war, assassinations.
There has been no provision accepting it as a viable alternative.

And wtg, Harrison.

Urban Ranger · January 17, 2003, 23:02

Noosland rejects the silly idea of rogue nations.

GeneralTacticus · January 17, 2003, 23:51

Centralis considers this proposal to be ridiculous and will not support it. While assassination is a valid tactic in war, to hand over the power to authorize it to the UN is absurd.