Now, I know many NSers are tired of seeing the "Axis of Evil" repeal proposals in the UN queue... however, I do believe the reason behind that is because none of them, thus far, have been well-written or actually arguing against the resolution itself.

I'm here to change that, hopefully, please let me know what you think of my proposal to repeal "Axis of Evil" from the UN legislature:

The following elements must be taken into consideration in the repealing of “Axis of Evil” from United Nations legislation:

“As the world become a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace.”

First, and foremost, the United Nations is not a body of international infiltration. By spreading the interests of “peace” without defining what the UN sees as the epitome and state of peace at any given time, any nation within the body can claim to seek peace in a given place within the world and attempt to both infiltrate and impose a lifestyle that is not in the interest of the people of said nation.

Therefore, the initial submission of this proposal – now current resolution – remains ambiguous and open to interpretation by each individual UN member rather than agreed upon by the entire body as a whole.

“This means, of course, building lots of new weapons.”

Second, since an “Axis of Evil” was never defined as specific targets, why does a nation and the UN as a whole, need to build a vast quantity and quality of weapons to deflect a target not even identified?

By builiding “new weapons,” as the resolution says, the UN is effectively engaging in an arm’s race that has the potential to create more conflict between members than it does in subduing potential, undefined, “evil” targets.

“Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.”

Third, snother undefinable characteristic, per se, that the UN has ubiquitiously thrown out to disguise that many nations just want to build weapons and spend money on there military for no other purpose than to have a standing military that might be considered among the great.

Instead of promoting peace and stability, the UN is instead forcing its body into an arm’s race that has the potential to cause hostility, instability, and quite possibly war in the long run between UN nations and non-UN nations if not eliminated from legislation.

Arms race, not arm's race.

I'd mention something about the historic vehement opposition of the NSUN to any centralised military force, and possibly add something about how while the UN can legitimately encourage cooperation in international security, blah blah blah, its ideal role should not involve commanding everybody to build up their militaries.

The third reason is kind of tangential; I'd avoid discussing the wider implications of arms buildup, so as not to alienate too many militarists. Basically, I'd stick with the central message that this doesn't really have a reason to exist.

This proposal is so derided that I don't imagine it'll be too hard to dispose of, though I'm not familiar with how easy it is to get a repeal through the system. Its repeal would certainly be good for Rehochipe's prospects of re-entering the UN.

I don't know how much room you have in the text, but you could also add a section that criticizes the rhetoric of the phrase "Axis of Evil." Despite it's popularity among [certain] politicians and their flunkies, the phrase is a cornucopia of dehumanizing rhetoric. Let's see if I can simplify this.

First, let's examine the effect of the language.

A. Of all the connotative words in the English language, "evil" carries the largest amount of moral and emotional baggage. During the process of socialization, children are taught that "evil" things must be rejected on face simply because they are "evil". In movies and books, it is always seen as just and right for a hero or heroine to do whatever it takes to eliminate the "evil" thing, often because the object in question poses some unimaginable threat to humanity.

B. These subliminal meanings are carried along as baggage when you apply the word to nations. If all things "evil" are to be eradicated and swept away, then these nations surely deserve the same fate, right? Because of the attatched meaning, we are now equivocating the people of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea with the nebulous concept of an ultimate threat to the human race.

C. This, effectually, legitimizes violence against the indiginous people of these nations, and serves to justify their dehumanization. When you cease to recognize people as humans and instead view them as objects, it becomes easy to shrug off any moral quandries that might arise from a war effort. During WWII, both the Nazis and Americans used this to their advantage. Hitler managed to convince the German people that the Jews were a plague of vermin. Once detatched from their humanity, the Jewish people were no longer privy to the rights we associate with human dignity. The same thing came from the Americans, only our rhetoric was targeted at the Japanese and Germans. We villified them as "japs" and "the hun" as a way to numb the shock that might otherwise arise when we firebomb their cities, burning churches, hospitals, and blocks upon blocks of homes.

But there's more. The phrase also serves to homogonize three ethnic groups that are completely unrelated, robbing them of their identity.

A. Once used, the buzzword replaces the individual names of the nations involved. There is no longer an Iraq, N. Korea, or Iran, only their collective group. This effect is multiplied as it seeps through the chain of human communication and people mention "Isn't Iraq part of the Axis of Evil?" in a conversation. Before long, the three entities have been merged into a group.

B. This also serves to strip three seperate nations and peoples of their individual cultures and beliefs on two seperate levels. First, it assumes that all citizens of a nation are identical to their leaders. We generalize that all North Koreans are rabid communists who hate America, religion, and freedom, while similarly assuming that all Iranians are Muslim fanatics bent on waging Jihad on innocent American citizens and troops. Neither of these are true, of course, but the buzzword never allows us to make it to that level. Second, it further eliminates any kind of seperation by forcing the "godless communists" into the same group as the "radical terrorist theocracies." This is a double-dose of homogenization and dehumanization.

C. The implications of this rhetoric are identical to those of the word "evil." When groups are stripped of their identity as invidiuals or even nations, it becomes even more tolerable to commit atrocities against them. You are no longer attacking a group of people, you're attacking an idea or a perceived system, neither of which accurately reflect the diverse populations within.

Does that help?

I do like this addition and shall keep it in mind when I rework this draft into its predecessor.

Noted.

This is what I get while writing these things on a spur of a moment kick.

I'd love to do so, as it's a very good point. Do we have any sort of links to forum topics where I can get direct evidence to correlate to this point? I can do some preliminary research later to maybe find a few topics to back this up.

Good point; that'll be stricken in the next draft.

If you have any questions or need me to clarify something, feel free to PM me or if you have any of the messenger services to find me there. I doubt you'll have trouble with it, but I'm around if you do.

We have nearly as much as in a proposal.

Basically repeals *are* proposals, but they are being treated as watered-down proposals.

Like I've advocated in the forums, what really should be done is a telegram should be sent to each UN Delegate (use the list generated from either the Hamsters or my resolution) saying,

"My government believes if we can get 100 nations to agree to endorse a repeal for the first resolution "Fight the Axis of Evil" that we can finally tackle this repeal, but in order to do so, the effort must be coordinated. Would your nation consider endorsing such a repeal if we would promise to telegram 100 other delegates that have expressed a similar interest to support such a proposal?"

Each of us could telegram 20 nations, and in reality we will need about 150-200 nations on board.

I've reworded the repeal, please, take a look at my second draft - I'd like to try and submit the proposal this weekend, if possible, as I'll have extensive time to spend telegramming Delegates and the like as I have a four day break from classes... enjoy!

The following elements must be taken into consideration in the repealing of “Axis of Evil” from United Nations legislation:

“As the world becomes a more dangerous place, UN member nations must act swiftly in the interests of peace.”

First, and foremost, the United Nations is not a body of international infiltration. By spreading the interests of “peace” without defining what the UN sees as the epitome and state of peace at any given time, any nation within the body can claim to seek peace in a given place within the world and attempt to both infiltrate and impose a lifestyle that is not in the interest of the people of said nation.

Therefore, the initial submission of this proposal – now current resolution – remains ambiguous and open to interpretation by each individual UN member rather than agreed upon by the entire body as a whole.

“This means, of course, building lots of new weapons.”

Second, since an “Axis of Evil” was never defined as specific targets, why does a nation and the UN as a whole, need to build a vast quantity and quality of weapons to deflect a target not even identified?

By building “new weapons,” as the resolution says, the UN is effectively engaging in an arm’s race that has the potential to create more conflict between members than it does in subduing potential, undefined, “evil” targets.

“Only by massively increasing military budgets world-wide will we be able to restore peace and global security.”

Third, another indefinable characteristic, per se, that the UN has ubiquitously thrown out to disguise that many nations just want to build weapons and spend money on there military for no other purpose than to have a standing military that might be considered among the great.

The term itself, “Axis of Evil,” advocates that this resolution defines certain entities as being “evil,” and as such, should be blacklisted by the United Nations as a whole; however, the original resolution does not even deal with the idea of an axis of evil, instead, it merely is a mask for defending itself from a “more dangerous place” in the world.

That looks good.

But my advice is to telegram like "heck". For a cheap and easy spam list, copy the pro and con nations to my proposal. Sort that list alphabetically and send the first two letters of delegates a note saying that you would like them to read and review your repeal. Ask them for feedback, as most of them will be very polite about it. Cross out each nation after telegramming them.

The day before the proposal fails, copy the list of prior endorsers. Move to the next two letters in the delegate list.

The idea is to capture new delegates and old ones at the same time.

Why not just spend the next three days telegramming all the UN delegates?

I'll post up a request for support in the RLA forum, that should be good for a few endorsements (DU is already on board). I'll also contact some of the ADN delegates that I'm on good terms with.

Thanks, Goober!

I do believe I'm going to submit it tonight - a bit later. I'll telegram you all when I do so and begin my campaign as well.

Thanks for all the support!

The repeal has been submitted to queue, and my telegramming has begun, ladies and gentlemen. All help and support is appreciated!

Telegram "fatique". I'm convinced it not only exists, but slowly builds up resentment. You saw some of it from MikesHope / MikesWill on the UN forum. Frankly he was tired of me asking for endorsements / support from a "Pro-UN" region.

With the exception of the Epidemic proposal that is moving like it may reach the UN floor, most proposals need either to a large support base. The problem with your repeal isn't that it doesn't have that support base, but it is like the California Governors race last year ... too many alternatives.

We need a link to your direct proposal, and it would have actually been smart to put some easily recognized proposal near your repeal in the queue. Think the coat tail effect.

I played around with that by putting my Alcohol Tariff Reduction proposal behind the then Global Disaster Assitance proposal. The GDA was strong enough to ride on its own, but it cared probably an additional 20% of the endorsements that the ATR saw. Just my guess of course.

Eh, a telegram a day makes friends all the same.

I love telegramming, it's a great way to make new friends in the game and more importantly new allies. It's a UN Delegate's duty to accept these telegrams, go through the proposal list, and vote accordingly; thus, I'm just making there job easier by directing them to it.

I don't know how to directly link to my proposal, but the telegram links them to the forum for debate, which is more important.

This isn't about getting the proposal to vote, this is about getting UN nations into the throng of things about how to write a proper resolution, which has been my goal from the start.

Telegramming worked for me last time, and I'm a diehard telegrammer, so, I'm not sweating doing things my way.

Please, continue to spread the word, comrades.

Actually if your goal is just to illustrate what a quality repeal is like, then I think you are doing a wonderful job.

And yeah, I'd green light a massive telegramming campaign with that in mind. Also telegram each UN Delegate that is repealing the same proposal and offer to "swap", since you both are doing the same thing. When they view your proposal, they'll see the advantage of that.

BTW, I think your theory on what being a UN Delegate entails is very admirable. :)

If you visit the IDU forum (should be in my signature) you can find some Contact and Do Not Contact lists. Feel free to use them. If somebody asks you to be not contacted, pass that along to me. If they are really mean, we can add them too.

And if people ask to be contacted again, I'd love to add them to the contact list. Anyway, the list is there for all to use.

I plan on writing a guide over the next few days highlighting how to write a proper appeal, as well, from this experience.

:P

I've posted a request for support in the RLA forum.

Thank-you kindly, sir!

Went thru the proposals list today. Great Googly Moogly, there must have been 10 or 12 Axis Repeals among the 55 posted proposals. Tuesday / Jaime / Melissa, I think yours may get swallowed by the muck of the overzealous and illiterate. I'd be real hesitant to mount a TG campaign about it at this point.

Yeah, I've been hitting the list on and off, but, we'll see what happens.

Oh well, the proposal was eaten by the update; nevertheless, I'm going to begin writing a guide on how to properly write a repeal proposal.