[DEFEATED] Liberate NAZI EUROPE

[The Kelvian Regional Authority]

I must agree with many of the above nations. We must not allow a precedent to be set that will mean that no nation has the right to defend itself with a password. If a regions members do not agree with the password, it is up to them to remove the Delegate and change things themselves. We must not interfere with a regions inside activities simply because we disagree with their ideology.

The KRA disagrees with many nations overly-democratic ideals, but we would never encourage action against them simply because of that disagreement.

We urge all nations to vote this resolution down.

[Dehoytchland]

As WAD delegate of The Internationale, I am voting for this resolution. This resolution will allow for the removal of NAZI EUROPE, which is, of course, a good thing.*

*Sure you can debate it. But whatever.

Additionally, for those that believe that this is a test of precedence, it is. To my knowledge, this has not been done before. However, this is not intrinsically a bad thing; indeed, it's well within the bounds of the Security Council. As such, I see few credible reasons to oppose this resolution, none of which outweigh the benefits in this instance.

[Arthuriana]

The Arthurian delegation informally condemns Discoverian delegate for his logically fallacious and ideologically farcical speech. The concept that "tolerance has limits" is clearly only a way of comforting the delegate in his condescending, close-minded disapproval of any ideologies that do not match his own. Ideological tolerance, as implicitly defined by any famous peace activist in history, has no boundaries, and ideological expression is simply an extension of a person's right to free speech. We quote Voltaire; "I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to the death to defend your right to say it." Arthuriana is certain that all reasonable delegates who treasure the institution of human rights will join us in voting against this resolution. To interfere with a sovereign nation or region's rights, simply because of their political ideology on its own, is clearly identical to discrimination against individuals, but on a grand scale. As for the concept that it is morally correct to be intolerant, so long as one is intolerant of intolerance - well, the delegation invites all those present with the faculty of reasoning to consider the obvious contradiction present in the statement. Discoveria, we call you out as no better in terms of approach to freedom of speech and autonomy than those you condemn.

"In turn, I accuse the Arthurian state of condoning by its silence the fascist repression of the very human rights that Arthuriana claims to hold dear," said Matthew. "There is a reasonable tradition in philosophy of defending the position that we may refuse to tolerate intolerance.[1] Society has a reasonable right to self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance, and a group's freedom may be restricted if it becomes a threat to the liberty and security of the tolerant society.[2] I therefore reject most vehemently the misinformed claim that such reasoning is in any way illogical, farcical or contradictory.[3]"

OOC: Thanks to Wikipedia for this defence of Discoverian thought!
1. Karl Popper, 'The Open Society and Its Enemies' (1945). Vol. 1, Notes to the Chapters: Ch. 7, Note 4.

"Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

2. John Rawls, 'A Theory of Justice' (1971). p. 193.

"The conclusion, then, is that while an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger. The tolerant should curb the intolerant only in this case. The leading principle is to establish a just constitution with the liberties of equal citizenship. The just should be guided by the principles of justice and not by the fact that the unjust cannot complain."

3. See also: Gregory Koukl, 'The Intolerance of Tolerance' (2003).

"Tolerance of persons must also be distinguished from tolerance of ideas. Tolerance of persons requires that each person's views get a courteous hearing, not that all views have equal worth, merit, or truth. The view that no person's ideas are any better or truer than another's is irrational and absurd. To argue that some views are false, immoral, or just plain silly does not violate any meaningful standard of tolerance."

Arthuriana retracts its statement regarding the farcical nature of the statement, but maintains that it is immoral and illogical. The existence (tradition) of an ideology does not, of course, validate it, as the delegate will surely agree. It is also, of course, perfectly valid to disagree with some ideologies or concepts. We reaffirm our condemnation of fascist and Nazi ideology, but believe that the issue the "enlightened" delegate is failing to understand is the distinction between tolerating an ideology, and tolerating its actions. Arthuriana is proud to uphold freedom of speech and freedom of thought, as evidenced by our allowance of a recent Neo-Nazi demonstration within our borders (attended, we might add, by only two Arthurian citizens). However, we have never and will never permit them to act on their ideology in an illegal manner. By the same token, we are proud to support the humane treatment of animals, but will always prosecute any animal-rights activists who break the law, regardless of their ideology. Continuing this, while we vilify Nazi Germany's ideals, we uphold, as any humane nation should, their right to their own ideology and to their sovereignty so long as they do not act illegally. If it were to occur that they had attacked another nation or region, unprovoked, because of their ideology, we would eminently be behind a resolution to tactically liberate the region in order to bring hostilities to an end. Arthuriana will never endorse an unprovoked military action, regardless of possible strategic benefits. However, what we see here is, if not a declaration of war, then an RSVP, justified not by a casus belli, but simple ideological hatred. We oppose this resolution on the same grounds that we oppose fascist ideology; it attempts to demolish the rights of a people and a region to have their own creedo, for no material benefit than the satisfaction of its author and its cosignitaries. And by endorsing it, delegate, corny as it may sound, you lower yourself to the level of those you claim to vilify.
We also oppose the resolution on tactical grounds; the precedent set by the resolution is far too dangerous to allow it to pass, so any delegates not swayed by our appeal to human rights should oppose the motion on these grounds.

[OOC: Stoutly reasoned, Discoveria. Also, NationStates; the only place you end up defending the Nazis while still being the good guy. :L]

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

As WAD delegate of [region]As such, I see few credible reasons to oppose this resolution, none of which outweigh the benefits in this instance.

You mean besides the fact that the natives don't want this Liberation? Or did you skip over that part? The SC (and this UDL-fueled ridiculousness in turn) have no right to tell NE or any other region they must remove their password.

[Dehoytchland]

As WAD delegate of The Internationale...As such, I see few credible reasons to oppose this resolution, none of which outweigh the benefits in this instance.

You mean besides the fact that the natives don't want this Liberation? Or did you skip over that part? The SC (and this UDL-fueled ridiculousness in turn) have no right to tell NE or any other region they must remove their password.

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

EDIT: Fixed my quotation.

[Retiefslaand]

While Retiefslaand's official stance is to jeer the proceedings of this organization behind closed doors (while putting on a straight face and chuckling only to ourselves when present), we not only condemn the proposal, but we must question the relevance of the Security Council for even allowing this proposal to come to a vote. The resolution, if passed, would be destabilizing to world security, which is antithetical to the principles to which we are signatory (even if we were inebriated at the time we signed).

The fact that this vote is even taking place undermines the stated purpose of this organization. Peace through force does have its place, the Generalissimo is no stranger to this, but where is the evidence in favor of force? There is no evidence, merely the ravings of anti-nazi ideological fanatics who hate nazi ideological fanatics. The only difference between the two factions of fanatics is whom they would see wiped out. The Generalissimo wonders if the Security Council would consider wiping them both out instead.

The real nazis here are those who have made a mockery of the Security Council in their cynical attempt to use it as a weapon of mass destruction against a region which poses no immediate known threat to world peace or security.

The Generalissimo, therefore, formally spits upon this resolution.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

You mean besides the fact that the natives don't want this Liberation? Or did you skip over that part? The SC (and this UDL-fueled ridiculousness in turn) have no right to tell NE or any other region they must remove their password.

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

You think the author, a UDL defender with a clear bias against this region and raiding regions in general, knows what's best for the region better than the natives of said region? I suppose I should tell you how to run your region, as well? That's absolute drivel.

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

You mean besides the fact that the natives don't want this Liberation? Or did you skip over that part? The SC (and this UDL-fueled ridiculousness in turn) have no right to tell NE or any other region they must remove their password.

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

On the contrary, the benefits (Nazi password stripped, NE well and truly stuffed because they can't hide any more) are very much outweighed by the costs, i.e. the dangerous precedent of allowing the SC to strip passwords from "unpleasant" or "bad" regions.

However, it's Nazis, and so despite the entirely logical reason to vote against this, I support it.

[Dehoytchland]

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

You think the author, a UDL defender with a clear bias against this region and raiding regions in general, knows what's best for the region better than the natives of said region? I suppose I should tell you how to run your region, as well? That's absolute drivel.

And here is where we, at least, disagree. I am not doing what's best for those natives. I'm doing what's best for the international community as a whole, using the security council as an engine for this, which is perfectly legitimate as per its description.

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

On the contrary, the benefits (Nazi password stripped, NE well and truly stuffed because they can't hide any more) are very much outweighed by the costs, i.e. the dangerous precedent of allowing the SC to strip passwords from "unpleasant" or "bad" regions.

However, it's Nazis, and so despite the entirely logical reason to vote against this, I support it.

I also partially agree that this sets a disturbing precedent. However, this is certainly bound to happen at some point or another, given its institutional legitimacy. That's a good a reason as any - someone will use it eventually, and it may as well be us.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

And here is where we, at least, disagree. I am not doing what's best for those natives. I'm doing what's best for the international community as a whole, using the security council as an engine for this, which is perfectly legitimate as per its description.

Feel free to explain what this means any time. How is this (removing the national sovereignty of a region via SC force) the best for the international community? NAZI EUROPE isn't hurting anyone, and they haven't for a long time. They have been a peaceful and quiet region for a long, long time. What, exactly, are you protecting the international community from by voting for this proposal? Please explain.

[Cormac Stark]

Feel free to explain what this means any time. How is this (removing the national sovereignty of a region via SC force) the best for the international community? NAZI EUROPE isn't hurting anyone, and they haven't for a long time. They have been a peaceful and quiet region for a long, long time. What, exactly, are you protecting the international community from by voting for this proposal? Please explain.

As has already been explained numerous times, NAZI EUROPE poses a continued threat to other founderless regions -- as demonstrated by their military mobilization in Groom Lake as recently as last month. Given your track record, I'm well aware that you don't think raiding is a threat to interregional peace and goodwill, but given that NAZI EUROPE has destroyed regions in the past I don't think the Security Council should take the fact that they're still militarily active lightly.

[GOLTZBORG]

Shadowlandistan has voted AGAINST this resolution.

Facism is a horrible ideology and should be contained through all diplomatic channels possible.

It seems the greatest problem with this legislation is that no one is reading it.

This is meant to open up NAZI EUROPE to invasion.

Not liberate them.

So, if you want to help contain fascism, please vote in favour!

This act will strike down NAZI EUROPE's password, allowing nations to move in and attack the fascist region!

Greetings Ladies & Gentlemen !!

Both sides present valid reasons for and/or against this resolution.....

Just offering a few things to think about....not meant as a means of pouring petro on anyone's fire.

Does anyone really believe that unilateral or multilateral attacks against any Region, somehow justifies a means to an end ?

Does the idea of being able to invade another Region really support the high ideals commonly attributed to, and associated with, NationStates ?

In other words.....do we not become what we wish to destroy, by redefining the concept of evil or tyranny ??

Regards.

[Lysandrion]

That's a good a reason as any - someone will use it eventually, and it may as well be us.

By doing so, you simply clear the path for the others and actually eradicate the public image of the SC by turning it into a tool of war and aggression - which is exactly opposite to its original purpose. You know, Cicero also thought that such things can be done in "just cause" and that benefits will outweigh the costs, that such a hypocrisy will have no negative impact on the public morality. And guess what - they had him simply decapitated, as nobody cared about law and order anymore .

As has already been explained numerous times, NAZI EUROPE poses a continued threat to other founderless regions

Just like you do, with this outrageous proposal.

[Bazella]

I only have one comment with this issue:

"NOTING that NAZI EUROPE is one of the oldest remaining fascist regions in the world and that it promotes the insidious ideology of National Socialism by its very existence"

I Do want to know what tree the guy who wrote this lived under.

because this first sentence shows 2 different ideals, in one.

Fascist is NOT Socialist.

Fact: They are on the exact opposite diagrams of the spectrum.

Fascist is as far right as you can so, while Socialist is as far left as you can go.

Socialist is pure good, while fascist is pure evil.

(Also, do not confuse Russia with Socialism. Russia is Communist, not socialist.)

Socialism is a totally different spectrum. Socialist is places like Finland and Norway And Denmark.

Just for future reference, never call anything that's not Socialism, socialism.

Though other then that tidbit, i support this revolution.

[Dehoytchland]

And here is where we, at least, disagree. I am not doing what's best for those natives. I'm doing what's best for the international community as a whole, using the security council as an engine for this, which is perfectly legitimate as per its description.

Feel free to explain what this means any time. How is this (removing the national sovereignty of a region via SC force) the best for the international community? NAZI EUROPE isn't hurting anyone, and they haven't for a long time. They have been a peaceful and quiet region for a long, long time. What, exactly, are you protecting the international community from by voting for this proposal? Please explain.

I think that this is a demonstration to the international community that hate is bad, mmkay? But more seriously - and I should be serious, as the WAD of a large region - it is a way to demonstrate to that those views are not desirable in any way, shape or form. This cat-and-mouse game of invasions, defensive maneuvers, and refoundations is the expression of this. And you can disagree with me, at that's fine. And they can disagree with me, and that's fine. Finally, they can always found a new region from the ashes of the fully-capitalized/abhorrently-named NAZI EUROPE to still express their views and have a home, to which I believe that everyone has a right.

As has already been explained numerous times, NAZI EUROPE poses a continued threat to other founderless regions -- as demonstrated by their military mobilization in Groom Lake as recently as last month. Given your track record, I'm well aware that you don't think raiding is a threat to interregional peace and goodwill, but given that NAZI EUROPE has destroyed regions in the past I don't think the Security Council should take the fact that they're still militarily active lightly.

Also, I second this.

[Arthuriana]

I said reasons that don't outweigh the benefits. I understand that the natives have certain views in contradiction with this resolution. I still think this resolution would bring more good than harm - a very utilitarian position, in the sense of moral calculus.

On the contrary, the benefits (Nazi password stripped, NE well and truly stuffed because they can't hide any more) are very much outweighed by the costs, i.e. the dangerous precedent of allowing the SC to strip passwords from "unpleasant" or "bad" regions.

However, it's Nazis, and so despite the entirely logical reason to vote against this, I support it.

"... So you freely admit that you're being irrational? Well, that's certainly very... brave of you." One of the younger members of the delegation mutters something to the the translator sitting next to her, and is swiftly shushed by the rest of the delegation, and then blushes, staring at her feet when the prince turns to stare at her pointedly.

[Discoveria]

*snip*

"Then we shall agree to disagree. Your separation of ideology from action, while quite sensible, tends to ignore the obvious issue that beliefs tend to guide actions. Discoveria regards certain beliefs, particularly those destructive to society, as falling within the purview of the state, but we are aware that this approach is not shared by the majority of liberal nations. We do not think that a nation should be allowed to cause extreme harm to its citizens and then claim immunity from foreign intervention by appealing to national sovereignty. [OOC: @Goltzborg - This is exactly what the RL UNSC is supposed to be preventing, so why not the WASC?]

Furthermore, while the motivation for this proposal could be characterised in a simple fashion as 'ideological hatred', I would like to point out that the Security Council already made it its mission to "[Spread] interregional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary". Fascism is incompatible with peace and goodwill. It's clear that ideologically-motivated SC action is permissible, at least. In that sense, there is no new precedent being set here. The tactics do concern us all, but obviously a sword can be turned upon its owner, so this concern is really nothing new."

OOC: Thank you . In RL I used to defend unlimited free speech, but my views have changed since then. I do understand where you're coming from though.

How very easy to be so grandiose and righteous in public when your target is a dying Nazi region. This resolution is a half-baked afterthought attempting to capitalize on the enormous controversy in the SC over NAZI EUROPE's condemnation, the end to which I orchestrated. I won't see that controversy revived and I'm not afraid to risk being labeled when I oppose this liberation; it's simply a lazy attempt to add an SC resolution to one's personal pile and to subsequently pursue an irrelevant military conquest. It will be a sad day when the WA begins accepting shitty resolutions that took five minutes to write and even less time to think up in a silly crusade against every Nazi-themed or fascist region.

The fact that the author of this resolution is trying to encourage members of the WA to act not on reason but on emotionally-driven impulse, which is something I worked hard to deter when I was actively writing for this body, makes me downright angry. If this resolution passes I will repeal it simply on this premise.

...

I don't care about what happens to NAZI EUROPE. I do care about what happens to the WASC. This resolution is an insult to the body's integrity and a promotion of anti-intellectualism and I therefore despise it and will fight it with whatever power I have.

Your anger surprises me, because looking at the resolution you authored, I note the following:

RECOGNIZING NAZI EUROPE as a region with a history loaded with particularly heinous acts of hostility and intolerance,

NOTING that NAZI EUROPE has initiated the invasion and destruction of numerous regions and tends to target regions with a predominant Communist ideology,

So... NAZI EUROPE is intolerant of and hostile to communism...

DISFAVORING the acts of inhospitality and intolerance made by nations of NAZI EUROPE towards their own subjects and towards other nations in the world, and recognizing some of these acts...

...the WA doesn't like this intolerance...

BELIEVING these actions to be especially abominable and to be in utter opposition of the WASC's goal of spreading interregional peace and goodwill,

...which is opposed to the WASC's own ideology.

It seems clear to me that, in addition to the actual examples of hostile acts by the region, the motivation to vote for your condemnation was also an ideological opposition to fascism. So why would you characterise the same motivations in the current debate as being "an insult to the body's integrity and a promotion of anti-intellectualism"?

Furthermore, I can assure you that my views on this resolution are not really being driven by emotion, at all. Maybe others' views are, I wouldn't know.

[Skyrim Diplomacy]

As has already been explained numerous times, NAZI EUROPE poses a continued threat to other founderless regions -- as demonstrated by their military mobilization in Groom Lake as recently as last month. Given your track record, I'm well aware that you don't think raiding is a threat to interregional peace and goodwill, but given that NAZI EUROPE has destroyed regions in the past I don't think the Security Council should take the fact that they're still militarily active lightly.

The fact that they have had "military mobilization" once in the past month is hardly what I would call a threat to the world nor anything nearly worthy of invading the region to lay down some law. Furthermore, it's a pathetic excuse on the way to justifying what is essentially a full-blown attempt to remove the password on the region so you and the trigger-happy UDL can go in and impose defender ideals on these heathenistic raiders. The very fact that you are trying to pass this Liberation to remove a password the natives are using to "protect NAZI EUROPE from potential invasion" is pathetic, especially coming from someone in an organization that preaches "Freedom, Justice, [and] Honor."

[Arthuriana]

I only have one comment with this issue:

"NOTING that NAZI EUROPE is one of the oldest remaining fascist regions in the world and that it promotes the insidious ideology of National Socialism by its very existence"

I Do want to know what tree the guy who wrote this lived under.

because this first sentence shows 2 different ideals, in one.

Fascist is NOT Socialist.

Fact: They are on the exact opposite diagrams of the spectrum.

Fascist is as far right as you can so, while Socialist is as far left as you can go.

Socialist is pure good, while fascist is pure evil.

(Also, do not confuse Russia with Socialism. Russia is Communist, not socialist.)

Socialism is a totally different spectrum. Socialist is places like Finland and Norway And Denmark.

Just for future reference, never call anything that's not Socialism, socialism.

Though other then that tidbit, i support this revolution.

The prince sighs. "The term 'Nazi' is a colloquial shortening of the German for 'National Socialist Party.' The delegate who submitted the resolution, while in the wrong, is not confusing anything - he simply has a better knowledge of history than you."

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

On the contrary, the benefits (Nazi password stripped, NE well and truly stuffed because they can't hide any more) are very much outweighed by the costs, i.e. the dangerous precedent of allowing the SC to strip passwords from "unpleasant" or "bad" regions.

However, it's Nazis, and so despite the entirely logical reason to vote against this, I support it.

"... So you freely admit that you're being irrational? Well, that's certainly very... brave of you." One of the younger members of the delegation mutters something to the the translator sitting next to her, and is swiftly shushed by the rest of the delegation, and then blushes, staring at her feet when the prince turns to stare at her pointedly.

"Yes, I'm not afraid to admit that I'm voting for this purely on the basis of my deep, visceral hatred of Nazism, rather than on any well-defined logical platform. In fact, I can recognise the stupidity and myopia of my position, but it's MY POSITION, DAMNIT, and I won't back down!" roared His Noodly Apastle McManus before sitting down and swigging some gin from a poorly-concealed hip-flask.

[Christian Democrats]

"Due to my nation's strong opposition to Nazism, I have voted in favor of this liberation proposal."

[Greater British Columbia]

Has anyone heard about the trial of Socrates? He came up with a new government leadership idea called "dictatorship." Socrates believed that all people could be persuaded into believing in the same thing. People didn't like this idea of believing such nonsense and they put him on trial. Everyone else believed in was peoples individual thoughts and ideas should be respected. Socrates was found guilty and was sentenced to death.

Socrates has beliefs of his own. Nobody respected his beliefs and as a consequence he was put to death. But was that trial now putting Socrates beliefs into practice? Isn't that what they were fighting for in the first place?

So you see now, we must do nothing. If we put this through, we will become what we're fighting against.

[Priory Academy USSR]

It seems as if many people are opposed to this as it will set a precendent to start invading other regions with minority viewpoints, if this resolution is a decisive success. However, since the SC is a democratic organisation, a majority of WA nations must approve it, no? Surely that would suggest that if the only reason to want to invade this region was their opposing ideology rather than any region destroying intent by the 'liberated' region, few would vote for it and so the hypothetical resolution wouldn't pass?


OK guys, this is my first real WA debating post. It's probably crap, so don't judge me too harshly.

[Cromarty]

As WAD delegate of [region]As such, I see few credible reasons to oppose this resolution, none of which outweigh the benefits in this instance.

You mean besides the fact that the natives don't want this Liberation? Or did you skip over that part? The SC (and this UDL-fueled ridiculousness in turn) have no right to tell NE or any other region they must remove their password.

This really has nothing to do with the UDL, a number of it's members, including its head, are against this resolution. As far as I know, of the UDL membership, only myself and Cormac support it.

[Lysandrion]

"Due to my nation's strong opposition to Nazism, I have voted in favor of this liberation proposal."

“He casts out demons by the prince of demons.”