NationStates Jolt Archive

I have submitted a repeal, this morning, of "Ban Chemical Weapons". I find it flawed in that it doe not exempt peace-time chemical 'weapons' such as tear gas, mace, and smoke ordinance--which chemical 'weapons' are very important to law enforcement and civilian security.

Here's a link to the proposal (on page 8): http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34863/page=UN_proposal/start=15 (Updated for Wednesday!)

Here is a text of the proposal:
Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the sentiment against chemical weapons, which can cause large-scale destruction, present in "Ban Chemical Weapons",

NOTING, HOWEVER the precedent of the UN to allow citizens in member nations a reasonable level of self-protection, as well as the precedent for member nations to encourage the preservation of order and lawfulness within their boundaries,

RECOGNIZING that tear gas and smoke ordnance, which are chemical ‘weapons’ used by some nations to justly enforce the law and preserve order, are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

REALIZING "Ban Chemical Weapons" unfortunately makes no differentiation between war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical ‘weapons’, affecting them all,

GRIEVING the loss to police enforcement and persons in urban areas (especially women in urban areas) of these vital chemical tools for law enforcement and self-protection:

REPEALS "Ban Chemical Weapons".

Please approve this repeal, and give our citizens back the right to defend themselves.

Thank your for your time.

Approved

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Approved

Approved

Our office is in favor of the repeal, and will vote for it should it reach quorum.

Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

agreed

We agree 100%. This is one more unfortunate case of a resolution failing to properly define its scope and having probably unintended harmful effects.

We'll ask our regional delegate to add an approval.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Approve

should this proposal go before the general membership for voting, my nation will readily approve it, and would like to applaud the nation of Powerhungry Chimpmunks for its initiative in this matter.

Approved

I'll jump on the bandwagon...approved :).

The Free Land of CTerryland has approved this resolution. We hope however that this resolution will be quickly replaced by a better resolution banning Chemical Weapons of Wass Destruction.

About freaking time one of us got this going.....

The Free Land of CTerryland has approved this resolution. We hope however that this resolution will be quickly replaced by a better resolution banning Chemical Weapons of Wass Destruction.
Wass Destruction?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

The Free Land of CTerryland has approved this resolution. We hope however that this resolution will be quickly replaced by a better resolution banning Chemical Weapons of Wass Destruction.
Well, replaced or not, I hope it's not done "quickly". I think that this issue would need a lot of debate and eventual compromise before a final proposal were finished drafting and submitted.

And, for the record, I have no personal intention of spearheading the resolution's replacement (should I be fortunate enough for this repeal to pass). There are several reasons: I am unsure that I want chemical weapons banned among UN nations I will be too tired (you know, all that post-coital exhaustion/euphoria ;)) I think that the replacement, if there is any, will do best to be begun by a different, more insightful voice than mine (i.e. I don't think I have many original ideas for chemical weapons regulations).

I'm aware that a majority voted For this resolution, and, thus, that there's a decent likelihood of a replacement being attempted. I'm aware that this repeal opens the door to more chemical weapons legislation, which will be passed an implemented upon the UN member nations. If that's the case, then I do think this repeal should contribute to those discussions, if possible: by bringing to light civilian mechanical devices, and perhaps acceptable war-time uses of chemical weapons.

Either way, I'm not hanging this repeal on the promise of a replacement. That's up to others to develop. If a replacement comes, I earnestly hope it comes about slowly, and "well-considered-ly".

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel agree that the Ban Chemical Weapons resolution should be repealed, but, once again,

we will not approve the repeal until the draft of a new resolution is ready

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel agree that the Ban Chemical Weapons resolution should be repealed, but, once again,

we will not approve the repeal until the draft of a new resolution is ready
Suit yourself. I really don't agree with that position, but you're entitled to your opinion.



I wish to sincerely thank the 72 other delegates that have approved this repeal attempt. Thank you! If you haven't approved it yet, please do!

http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/pin=84404733/page=UN_proposal/start=25

we, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, have now knowledge of a very serious draft about Chemical Weapons, then as we have said, we approve the repeal

we, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel, have now knowledge of a very serious draft about Chemical Weapons, then as we have said, we approve the repeal

The UN is a funny machine.

I disagreed with your proposal of the sexual education act, however I am in full agreement with you on this matter. Red Peril will add their vote.

Thanks so much to the 90 delegates who have approved the legislation: especially to Love and esterel and Red Peril!

Please approve it if you read this and haven't yet approved. Please?

quorum reach
congrats
we now hope the new draft we have read will be posted on the forum

Thanks so much to the delegates who have approved this! I sincerely hope this passes the floor.


quorum reach
congrats
we now hope the new draft we have read will be posted on the forum
Knowing how much of an eye for detail the nation behind the replacement has, I think you can rest easy tonight (so you can attack the problem all the more vigourously the coming day, that is ;)) knowing the proposal's in good hands.

I've seen a copy of it on the NSO board, and I think Ausserland also posted it on UNOG. I imagine its drafting on this board will come shortly. We also have the luxury of two proposals in queue ahead of it (the repeal up for vote now, and Venerable Libertarians's proposal)

ok thanks

I'm not entirely convinced that stuff like Mace is specifically banned by the current resolution, and I'm slightly bemused by the amount of respect that both the repeal and the draft resolution give to governments using tear gas against their own citizens, and that the draft specifically allows the use of defoliants. Do we really want people flying around dropping Agent Orange on each other? Those might be things to look at.

Apart from that, no big objections to the new draft (it's not too difficult to find if you know where to look). More thorough, no obvious loopholes, more effective. I think it's disappointing that Chipmunks put the repeal up having no desire to put a replacement chemical weapons ban in later; I think the vast majority of nations don't want chemical weapons, and that the repeal's position of seeming to want to re-allow them as national defence might count against it in the voting process. And as for "acceptable war-time uses of chemical weapons" - don't even go there. The voting on the current dolphin-based repeal shows that things perceived as sufficiently 'reactionary', or those based on close emotional involvement, will fail. At the risk of sounding patronising, people like dolphins, and they don't like chemical weapons. I don't think you'll have as easy a run as you did repealing 'national systems of tax', but time will tell. I don't think you've done yourself many favours with your position of apparently wanting to re-legalise chemical weapons though.

In the event that the repeal does go through, I'd support the replacement, and hope you would too. If it doesn't, it doesn't. I'll shed no tears either way.

I'm not entirely convinced that stuff like Mace is specifically banned by the current resolution, and I'm slightly bemused by the amount of respect that both the repeal and the draft resolution give to governments using tear gas against their own citizens, and that the draft specifically allows the use of defoliants. Do we really want people flying around dropping Agent Orange on each other? Those might be things to look at.

Apart from that, no big objections to the new draft (it's not too difficult to find if you know where to look). More thorough, no obvious loopholes, more effective. .
Well, since the draft replacement proposal has been mentioned here a couple of times, we thought we should explain its status. When the respected delegate from Powerhungry Chipmunks stated he did not intend to offer a replacement proposal, we thought we would give it a try. We prepared an initial draft and posted it in our regional forum and two organizational forums, hoping to refine it before posting the draft here for comment. We have already received two excellent suggestions and will be making changes accordingly.

We will be posting a draft in this forum within a few days for comment and criticism. We look forward to answering questions and objections then. But, since the honorable member from Bagdadi Georgia raised two specific concerns about the draft, we thought we would respond....

We believe that non-lethal lachrymatory agents ("tear gasses") have a valid and valuable role to play in law enforcement -- much to be preferred over riot batons and bullets. As for defoliants... We believe that defoliants, herbicides, insecticides and similar chemicals pose problems which go far beyond their very limited application (if any) in chemical warfare, and would best be addressed in a resolution which would properly consider the environmental implications.

We look forward to hearing more from the honorable delegate when the draft is posted here.

You're probably right about defoliants. We'll agree to disagree on tear gas. It's not a big enough issue to greatly affect an excellent piece of legislation.

What I'm not convinced about is that people will consent to repeal legislation banning chemical weapons for the sake of getting back their pepper sprays *when the repeal makes no mention of any future resolution re-banning chemical weapons*. It would be a great shame, and some irony, if a draft which you must have spent a substantial amount of time on fails to see the light of day because the person who commissioned it from you didn't bother to mention your efforts in his repeal text, which may then be rejected for this reason.

But I'm sure you know that. :D

You're probably right about defoliants. We'll agree to disagree on tear gas. It's not a big enough issue to greatly affect an excellent piece of legislation.

What I'm not convinced about is that people will consent to repeal legislation banning chemical weapons for the sake of getting back their pepper sprays *when the repeal makes no mention of any future resolution re-banning chemical weapons*. It would be a great shame, and some irony, if a draft which you must have spent a substantial amount of time on fails to see the light of day because the person who commissioned it from you didn't bother to mention your efforts in his repeal text, which may then be rejected for this reason.

But I'm sure you know that. :D

We appreciate your very kind comments, but we feel we should clear up a misconception or two....

When Powerhungry Chipmunks submitted the proposal, he was not aware that we intended to draft a replacement. It was only after the proposal was submitted that we contacted him and offered to help him write a replacement if he intended to do so. He replied that, for reasons of his own which we respect, he didn't intend to draft a replacement. It was only then that we started work on our draft.

And we would respectfully point out that the draft was not "commissioned" by anyone. It was purely an Ausserland initiative, for which we accept full blame. ;)

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Heh. Sorry for any misinformation, and good luck.

"Mace" (CN tear gas) or "Pepper Spray" (OC, or Oleoresin Capsicum), while formally classes as chemical weapons, are not weapons of mass-destruction (WMD).

What is required is a list of weapons-grade chemical agents, and classes of such agents that are considered within the category of banned materials; an exemption can be made for riot surpression, law enforcement and personal protection -- so long as such use is permitted by local law.

The definition of a 'weapon,' in terms of the ban, should also be made clear. While not exhaustive, it might describe what is, and is not, considered a banned weapon of war or terrorism, versus a legitimate weapon of law enforcement or personal self-defense. Quantity of material, scale of effect, lethality, persistence, and affect of suffering and damage (short-term, long-term or permament) due to exposure should be considered.

A small purse-sized cannister of pepper spray might not be considered a weapon banned by the provisions.

A crop duster filled with sufficient quantities to blind everyone in an Olympic stadium might be considered a banned weapon.

The UN resolution should not prohibit nation states to further control such agents by local law. In other words, no member state should be required to allow, say, pepper spray to be legal. They can make a further local ban if they desire.

This repeal should be quickly followed by a new resolution to continue to encourage global disarmament while ensuring domestic law enforcement and personal protection using non-lethal chemical agents.

Classification of defoliants (plant-killing agents) or exterminants (animal-killing agents) should also be made a special case if such materials were converted for use or actually used as weapons of war, such as to destroy crops, domestic herds, or natural ecosystems on a massive scale. The resolution should clearly specify the provisions necessary to verify claims of such conversion or use.

More generally, a resolution to ban chemical weapons would need to have provisions to report the destruction of chemical weapons stores by nations newly joining the UN. It would also have to have provisions for reporting instances of use.

It might also strictly, limitedly, permit nations to research chemical weapons for purely defensive purposes. However, manufacture of such agents on a significant scale, or their actual deployment or use, should have the gravest consequences, including international sanction and/or ouster from membership in the United Nations.

For more about the classes and effects of chemical agents, see this article on Chemical Warfare (http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Chemical-warfare).

Our Delegation states that the Ban Chemical Weapons resolution should STAND WITHOUT REPEAL until there is a new proposed resolution to clarify and specify what constitutes a military or terrorist weapon, and what is a legitimate law enforcement or personal defense product.

It may be quite possible a new resolution can simply clarify the original resolution, without requiring its repeal, simply by providing stricter definitions of what constitutes a banned chemical weapon, such as for military or terrorist purposes, and outline use cases and tests of whether new inventions or applications of chemicals qualify for the ban or not.

If a sufficient replacement proposed resolution was presented that required the repeal of the original resolution, we would support repeal of the original resolution in favor of the more clear language.

In a purely symbolic move, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel withdrawed his approval to the "Repeal 'Ban Chemical Weapons'".

We are FOR the repeal, and we have read a good proposition with the aim to replace the to be repealed resolution.

Without news from this proposition, we cannot approve anymore this repeal, as it will lead to a risk that some nations began to rebuilt their lethal Chemical Weapons arsenal, as these arms will not be baned for several weeks (at least 2 weeks as there are 2 proposition in queued)

We are very disapointed with the attitude of the repected Author of the repeal who stated few days ago:

Knowing how much of an eye for detail the nation behind the replacement has, I think you can rest easy tonight (so you can attack the problem all the more vigourously the coming day, that is ;)) knowing the proposal's in good hands.

No, we will not rest easy tonight, no we will not rest easy every nights for at last 2 weeks, as for a minimum of 2 weeks lethal Chemical Weapons arsenal will not be banned

We really hope this situation will stop soon, and that the new proposition will appear on the UN forum or be submited; or then we will campaign against the Repeal

In a purely symbolic move, The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel withdrawed his approval to the "Repeal 'Ban Chemical Weapons'".

We are FOR the repeal, and we have read a good proposition with the aim to replace the to be repealed resolution.

Without news from this proposition, we cannot approve anymore this repeal, as it will lead to a risk that some nations began to rebuilt their lethal Chemical Weapons arsenal, as these arms will not be baned for several weeks (at least 2 weeks as there are 2 proposition in queued)

We are very disapointed with the attitude of the repected Author of the repeal who stated few days ago:



No, we will not rest easy tonight, no we will not rest easy every nights for at last 2 weeks, as for a minimum of 2 weeks lethal Chemical Weapons arsenal will not be banned

We really hope this situation will stop soon, and that the new proposition will appear on the UN forum or be submited; or then we will campaign against the Repeal

We are dismayed by these comments from our distinguished colleague and friend from Love and esterel. We believe you do not have to "rest easy" on the comments from the repeal's proposer.

We explained in this forum our plans for our draft proposed replacement: to post it in our regional forum and an organizational forum for comment before a public airing here. It has been posted in our regional forum and two organizational forums. In addition, we gave you the opportunity to privately examine the draft to satisfy yourself that it was a serious effort.

The draft has been edited in accordance with comments received on those other forums, and we are hoping for one or two more suggestions. The draft will be posted here when the repeal proposal is brought up for a vote. If you doubt our word or our intentions, then there seems to be little more we can say.

And we would respectfully remind the honorable delegate that a replacement proposal could not be submitted for approval until and unless this repeal is passed.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

The draft will be posted here when the repeal proposal is brought up for a vote.

thanks a lot for your answer.
We appreciate very much that you will post the draft in this forum in few hours.
=> we approved back the repeal.


Even, if we have read the draft, and we thank you about it;
we want to say, we don't want to be the only "privileged" about it, because we don't care at all about posting on the forum for asking strongly.

We think the UN body is a democratic body, and not a body governed by some nations, who think they are superior to the others and who don't care to submit a repeal for secondary (even important secondary) reasons, whitout thinking about a new draft



And we would respectfully remind the honorable delegate that a replacement proposal could not be submitted for approval until and unless this repeal is passed.

We think, Maybe, the mods should also allow a proposal to be submitted, even if it's a duplication, in the only case the 3 following conditions are respected:
- there is a repeal of the duplicated resolution already submitted;
- the repeal mention the new proposition following and the new proposition mention the repeal; and
- the repeal and the new proposition are submitted the same day

=> then if the repeal failed, the new proposition will be deleted.


=> it will even be easier for nations trying to repeal+replace a resolution, as they will be able to submit them the same day, and have a single more efficient TG campaign for both the repeal and the new proposition

Thank you

Bear Pepper Spray (http://www.counterassault.com/Bear_Deterrent/bear_deterrent.html)

The bears (and other wild animals) that roam our Perilous Forest are quite aggressive, and it is illegal to poach them. Therefore, our tourists, their tour guides and our park service employees are in need of quality-tested products that are not lethal, but effective. It keeps our human and animal populations safe.

This is not a chemical weapon of mass destruction (WMD), and therefore we do not believe that these class of products should be banned, or truly fall under the UN resolution banning chemical weapons.

Right now, each country could argue what constitutes a chemical weapon and what does not. For Listeneisse: Sarin gas used by terrorists? Banned.

Cyanide gas used to exterminate minorities? Banned.

Tear gas used by police to dispurse crowds? Not banned.

Tear gas used by angry neighbors to disburse loud late-night neighbor's parties? Banned. (They should call the police. They'd be happy to do it for them.)

Pepper spray for self-defense? Not banned.

Bear pepper spray? Not banned.

Pepper spray or bear pepper spray used during commission of a crime? Severe criminal penalties.The latter is to show that while the product itself is not illegal, certain specific uses may be illegal.

What the original resolution lacks is a document to guide what is a 'chemical weapon' and what is not. And what the 'ban' entails, including production, storage, importation from other nations (such as non-UN states), transshipment of banned materials, and different situations and classes of use, and of course, effect (lethal, non-lethal, single incident, multiple incidents, accidental discharge, ailments, injuries and casualties, etc.).

The UN can also classify certain products as 'controlled' -- internationally reported and monitored -- because of their possible conversion and use as a weapon.

This is important to understand what we should do, as a United Nations, in case the ban is violated. What is the penalty for non-compliance? Surely differing cases of non-compliance should have radically different penalties, so that one nation's use of bear spray does not equate to another country's genocide.

A clarifying resolution can provide solutions without a full repeal.

This is not a chemical weapon of mass destruction (WMD), and therefore I do not believe that these class of products should be banned, or truly fall under the UN resolution banning chemical weapons.

True, but the resolution doesn't make any such distinction and bans all chemical weapons reguardless of how lethal or how much of an area they affect.

What the original resolution lacks is a document to guide what is a 'chemical weapon' and what is not. And what the 'ban' entails, including production, storage, importation from other nations (such as non-UN states), transshipment of banned materials, and different classes of use and effect (lethal, non-lethal, single incident, multiple incidents, accidental discharge, ailments, injuries and casualties, etc.).

A clarifying resolution can provide that without a repeal. It can also classify certain products as 'controlled' -- internationally reported and monitored -- because of their possible conversion and use as a weapon.Ah, but then you run into the possibility of violating the house of cards rule (and possibly the amendment rule), so it's probably easier to just go through the repeal and replace process to put these guidelines in place.

Of course, there's still the problem of nations (like myself) who will support the repeal but not the replacement but that the risk with the method for altering passed resolutions provided by the rules.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

A clarifying resolution can provide solutions without a full repeal.

thank you for opening the debate,
did the author of the repeal ask mods if the repeal was necessary before the new proposition was submitted?

may i remember the author of the repeal some event which took place few few weeks ago?

A coalition of UN members wanted to repeal 2 UN resolutions and replace them with a new one. We will not criticize this demarch of course. But one of their main argument was they were forbidden to propose the new one, as it was a duplication.

But as one of the repeal failed, they then asked mods, if they were allowed to
submit the proposition.
=> the mods agreed, as there was no duplication

Today, the new proposition has been voted, and no one of the 2 resolution to be repealed have been repealed.

thank you

thank you for opening the debate,
did the author of the repeal ask mods if the repeal was necessary before the new proposition was submitted?Actually,the author of the repeal (Powerhungry Chipmunks) had no intention of replacing it.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I think this repeal is pure nitpicking and a waste of time.

"Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"

The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the sentiment against chemical weapons, which can cause large-scale destruction, present in "Ban Chemical Weapons",

NOTING, HOWEVER the precedent of the UN to allow citizens in member nations a reasonable level of self-protection, as well as the precedent for member nations to encourage the preservation of order and lawfulness within their boundaries,

RECOGNIZING that tear gas and smoke ordnance, which are chemical ‘weapons’ used by some nations to justly enforce the law and preserve order, are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

REALIZING "Ban Chemical Weapons" unfortunately makes no differentiation between war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical ‘weapons’, affecting them all,

GRIEVING the loss to police enforcement and persons in urban areas (especially women in urban areas) of these vital chemical tools for law enforcement and self-protection:

REPEALS "Ban Chemical Weapons".

This is a dangerous suggestion. I cannot bear to think of the havoc it could cause by repealing a mostly sensible resolution that cracks down on often lethal chemical weaponry.

"RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”.

Do you really want to have citizens carrying mini-arsenals to defend themselves with? They could use these to aid in the commission of criminal acts, or as a weapon against law enforcement officials. They're as dangerous to the public's safety as guns and should remain banned. The solution to violent crime, is to establish a strong police presence on the streets and encourage sensible behaviour amongst the civillian population, with regards to putting themselves at risk from the crimes listed above.

"REALIZING "Ban Chemical Weapons" unfortunately makes no differentiation between war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical ‘weapons’, affecting them all."

By peace time, I assume you mean police chemical weaponry, (i.e. tear gas). Whilst I can see your point on this issue, it still strikes me that this should be the specific target of the repeal and not the entire chemical weapons resolution as a whole. Even so, we should not encourage law enforcement to use these aspects of their arsenals, as they could lead to severe injury and deaths amongst those they're used against.

I can see that this repeal is put forwards with good intentions. Yet the round to disaster is paved with such intentions and for the moment, I will perhaps err on the side of caution and vote against this repeal.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Agreed with above.

Also, adding onto it, if ordinary people can carry these 'defences' to protect themselves from being mugged/raped. What's to stop a mugger/rapist etc from also carrying these weapons to disable their victims?

Agreed with above.

Also, adding onto it, if ordinary people can carry these 'defences' to protect themselves from being mugged/raped. What's to stop a mugger/rapist etc from also carrying these weapons to disable their victims?

That's a good point, I hadn't thought of that. Thanks for mentioning it Starcara II.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Ausserland has written a good draft proposal. Listeneisse has sent a delegation to the grand City of Ankh Morpork to provide counsel and commentary on the language.

However, we would caution all about the 'wolf in sheep's clothing' regarding this proposal.

Those who wish to permit the law enforcement, civil and commercial use of non-lethal 'chemical weapons' such as OC and CN, yet maintain a ban on more lethal chemical weapons of mass destruction and genocide, such as sarin gas, phosgene, etc., should note that by repealing Resolution #107 "Ban Chemical Weapons," (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=106) any replacement resolution might face a far harder time unless it clearly addressed the recent UN Resolution #110, United Nations Security Act (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109).

It would be far easier to simply pass a resolution clarifying the intent of #107, defining specifically what a 'chemical weapon' was to be banned according to guidelines, such as WMDs, or chemical agents used to commit acts of war, genocide, terrorism, and so on. And differentiating these as utterly different from non-lethal, non-persistent agents used in legitimate self-defense, civil, commercial and law-enforcement applications.

Resolution #107 specifically resolves "to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence." A new resolution to bolster #107 with further clarifications and enforcement guidelines would do so.

Repealing it would be a step back, and away from its goals.

With this in mind, Listeneisse would still, as yet NOT SUPPORT this resolution to repeal.

If people use a chemical spray, just as they might use any other item during the commission of a crime, they can be subjected to criminal prosecution. You can stiffen penalties as much as you like for offenders.

Nation states can apply a tax on these non-lethal self-defense and law-enforcement products as much as you wish, track them as carefully as you want, regulate or not regulate their domestic markets, or ban them outright, if that is their desire.

Providing a clarifying resolution, declaring non-lethal protection products as a personal pepper spray in an entirely different class than a "chemical weapon," such as a phosgene-filled artillery shell, would achieve the aims of this resolution's purported intent.

It would do so without risking the possibility of UN nations wittingly or unwittingly providing terrorists with chemical agents, it would ensure no UN nation could operate gas chambers of genocide or conduct 'experiments' on individuals, and would prevent battlefields and civilian population centers from being strewn with the choked and gaping corpses of those who could not don protective suits in time, if they could afford them and had them to hand.

For the sake of all that is holy and sane, avoid this 'baby with the bathwater' proposal. Do not repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons."

Clarify. Clarify. Clarify.

Enn shall be abstaining on this matter until and unless either Lady Faren or Chief Justice Loreni give way. For either of those to happen, a platoon of flying pigs would have to block out the sun with their numbers, long enough for hell to freeze over.

no more news from the new resolution!!! :confused: :(
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel had vote AGAINST the repeal :fluffle:

should note that by repealing Resolution #107 "Ban Chemical Weapons," any replacement resolution might face a far harder time unless it clearly addressed the recent UN Resolution #110, United Nations Security Act.


you are right

=> this repeal is very dengerous :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :mad: :mad: :mad:

no more news from the new resolution!!! :confused: :(
The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel had vote AGAINST the repeal :fluffle:

A draft of the proposed replacement resolution has been posted in this forum.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

My nation has terrible crime problems. Are you saying that we cannot protect ourselves through small so-called "chemical" weapons? We must drop this resolution for a more effective and logical one dealing with war, not peace.

My nation has terrible crime problems. Are you saying that we cannot protect ourselves through small so-called "chemical" weapons? We must drop this resolution for a more effective and logical one dealing with war, not peace.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.

The Sultanate of Gruenberg naturally supports this repeal, acknowledging the appalling state of the original resolution.

Backgrounder on Chemical Weapons vs. Riot Control Agents (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9573384#post9573384)

Mention of the real-world Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and how it deals with this very issue.

Basically, persistent and/or high-toxicity 'chemical weapons' are entirely different than non-persistent, low-toxicity 'riot control agents'.

IRL, the CWC forbids riot control agents from battlefield use but otherwise does not prohibit or control them.

Vote with knowledge.

Clarify. Clarify. Clarify.

Greetings from the wonderful island of Andrea Potens.

As a new memeber of this body, we welcome the opportunity to voice our concerns over the current resolution being debated. As ambassador, I, Chico Dashing, would like to give our reasons for voting against the proposed resolution and hope that like-minding, peace-loving nations would follow suit:

1) Chemical Weapons are generally understood as tools to bring death or significant injury to those upon which it is used. Granted, chemical weapons are not properly defined in the previous resolution, which is why Andreas Potens would support a resolution to properly define the term chemical weapons, but strongly opposes any attempt to repeal this resolution.

2) A repeal of the previous resolution would give nations, such as the power hungry chipmunks, free reign to use the most offensive and terrible versions of chemical weapons until this body could pass a more precise resolution. Clearly, this is unacceptable, and even if another, more specific chemical weapons ban were to be immediately following in the queue, we would still have to vote against this resolution.

Thank you for your time, ladies and gentlemen. We very much appreciate this opportunity to make our voice known in this international institution.

Thank you.

Well, tough cheese.

'General understanding' just doesn't cut it in international law. BCW must be cleaned up to more clearly define its case. That cannot be done without a repeal. I suggest you look at Ausserland's proposed replacement here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936). If this repeal passes, then this proposal will be submitted.

I think you acknowledge that the original resolution is flawed. Improving it requires a repeal. And, you know what? We'll all promise not to be naughty in the interim period.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act:

DECLARES that all member states have the right to construct and utilize any and all weapons that are necessary to defend their nation from attack, except where previous legislation by this body that is still in effect has placed restrictions on that right.
So you're saying us nations under the UNSA and UNBCA, must defend ourselves from barbabrian mercianaries with pointed sticks? Or maybe we can poisen them, or is that prohibited in the Ban Chemical weapons too? I never voted on this Ban of Chemical Weapons, but from the sound of it, it was a load of hooey that seriously weakened nations' defense. And think about it... weakened defense --> Lower morale --> Less enthusiasm for volunteering --> No support for the recently passed bill, proposed by Love and esterel, which I did agree with and vote for.

Spoon Savers :cool:

So you're saying us nations under the UNSA and UNBCA, must defend ourselves from barbabrian mercianaries with pointed sticks? Or maybe we can poisen them, or is that prohibited in the Ban Chemical weapons too? I never voted on this Ban of Chemical Weapons, but from the sound of it, it was a load of hooey that seriously weakened nations' defense. And think about it... weakened defense --> Lower morale --> Less enthusiasm for volunteering --> No support for the recently passed bill, proposed by Love and esterel, which I did agree with and vote for.

In spite of this, I still support the repeal. My problem with the initial resolution is one of language and insufficient allowance for civilian use. I do not approve of military use of chemical weaponry.

Canada6 votes favorably to the repeal of the Chemical Weapons ban.
Canada6 feels that some form of resolution that controls and regulates CW's in one form or another is absolutely necessary. Be that as it may...
Canada6 believes that by repealing the CWB we are getting rid of a poorly written and considerably vague resolution, despite the fact that we support it's real goal.

The repeal does not need to be passed for a clarification to be defined of what constitutes a chemical weapon vs. a riot control agent.

However, from PSS's tone of voice and slippery slope fallacy of argumentation (if I cannot have VX nerve gas I can only use sticks to defend my nation), it is obvious some are giving little true thought to control of weapons that can be employed for genocide.

Moreover, looking at their national profile, where "the arms industry has been shut down in a surge of pacifism," they aren't the sort of nation likely to even be manufacturing plastic toy guns to defend their homeland, never mind lethal chemical agents.

Or perhaps they are using plastic toy guns. After all, they have allocated absolutely no plastic spoons in their budget to buy real ones.

The emperor supports this anti-prohibitive measure, in the name of sovereignty and economic freedom.

In spite of this, I still support the repeal. My problem with the initial resolution is one of language and insufficient allowance for civilian use. I do not approve of military use of chemical weaponry.

I must question what use civillians would have for chemical weaponry. Please consider the dangers of removing the protections contained within the act and think of the consequences. The military could try and use 'civillians' as carriers for chemical weaponry and thereby get round any resolution. Vote against it, for a safer world and the good of humanity.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

I believe the esteemed representative from Gruenberg is referring to civilian use of 'riot control agents' such as OC (pepper spray), which can be found in commercial products such as 'Mace,' or as I cited elsewhere, 'Bear Pepper Spray' products.

No one who bought pepper spray to keep themself safe in a bad neighborhood should be jailed because they are suddenly in possession of 'a globally banned chemical weapon.' Because it is utterly misleading to classify it as such.

They bought a personal defense product which includes a riot control agent -- specifically in the case of pepper spray, 'OC' (Oleoresin Capsicum). Not a chemical weapon agent.

Hence why the term 'chemical weapon agent' -- a persistent and/or lethally toxic substance -- is not to be confused with a 'riot control agent' -- which is generally non-persistent and non-lethal.

The misleading language and logic of this resolution speaks volumes.

Most modern weapons use chemicals in them or their delivery systems. A bullet uses gunpowder to get forcefully discharged from a gun. An explosive shell may have various chemicals in its warhead. Rocket propellents. And so on. That does not qualify them as a 'chemical weapon.'

The term has a specific meaning in the realm of arms control.

To expand that term carelessly, as this resolution has done, is causing undo confusion and alarm to the global community.

If we are talking about poorly-worded resolutions, this repeal is horrendously badly worded.

The major problem with this bill is that it will encourage the manufacture of chemical weapons.

If this repeal is passed then companies will start manufacturing the equipment and people will use it. Remember World War I where people died in horrible pain from Mustard Gas? No one ever HOPES for world wars, but they happen and when they do, people use every tool in their arsenal.

Arms control, such as the prohibitions on manufacturing CHEMICAL WEAPONS makes sense because it prevents the creations of the tools.

Those of you who are afraid that Grandma won't be able to mace her mugger in your parks obviously have other problems. Solve crime by changing the other parts of your society -- don't arm your citizens.

Remember that "non-lethal" alternatives like CS gas and Mace are really dangerous to manufacture -- terrible for your country's workers. And they might not be all that "non-lethal" -- many cause cancer, and some can cause heart attacks or kill someone with asthma or emphysema.

Oppose this repeal!

Free People of Geebdeeblan

The repeal does not need to be passed for a clarification to be defined of what constitutes a chemical weapon vs. a riot control agent.Canada6 kindly requests Listeneisse to expand on this statement. Canada6 position on this repeal is somewhat based on limited knowledge of the workings of the current CW ban in effect. The Dominion of Canada6 might consider changing it's vote pending on the validity of the arguments presented here, and also in offsite forums.

However, from PSS's tone of voice and slippery slope fallacy of argumentation (if I cannot have VX nerve gas I can only use sticks to defend my nation), it is obvious some are giving little true thought to control of weapons that can be employed for genocide.Sharp knives can be used for genocide. The availability or ban of weapons will not be able to change ideologies, or political views. It can only serve to protect the safety and limit the damage that may be caused by warfare, genocide and other such events.

I must question what use civillians would have for chemical weaponry. Please consider the dangers of removing the protections contained within the act and think of the consequences. The military could try and use 'civillians' as carriers for chemical weaponry and thereby get round any resolution. Vote against it, for a safer world and the good of humanity.
I believe what Gruenberg meant was the use of such items as tear gas and smoke bombs, items prohibited by the original ban. These items would be used by police to protect civilians, not by the civilians themselves (for the most part :D ).

Spoon Savers

Backgrounder on Chemical Weapons vs. Riot Control Agents (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9573384#post9573384)

Mention of the real-world Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and how it deals with this very issue.

Basically, persistent and/or high-toxicity 'chemical weapons' are entirely different than non-persistent, low-toxicity 'riot control agents'.

IRL, the CWC forbids riot control agents from battlefield use but otherwise does not prohibit or control them.

My government has read both the repeal and the original resolution (which we supported), and finds that the repeals arguments are rather convincing. However, we'd like to hear the recommendation / position of the Listeneisse people before casting our vote.

I still find that Listeneisse is drawing an eminently admirable distinction between chemical weapons and riot control agents that IS NOT MADE in the original resolution.

I still find that Listeneisse is drawing an eminently admirable distinction between chemical weapons and riot control agents that IS NOT MADE in the original resolution.

*Upon hearing the Gruenbergian statement, Ambassador Katzman looks back at the original resolution and then the repeal.

Hmmm, I tend to actually agree. Given that the intent of the original resolution was likely to restrict weapons of mass destruction and that there is currently a proposed replacement that has been submitted here as a draft, I'm going to recommend to the Council of Mayors that we vote in favour of the repeal. However, that is not a firm opinion yet.

i believe that simple fact that the weapons have been banned will not change the views or ideologys of warlords, wars can still be caused without the weapons and genocide can still be commited without them so if you are willing to ban the chemical weapons you might as well ban all weapons are none at all

-republic of Dribdrib

The Federal Republic fully supports this repeal, and is appalled by some ambassadors seeking to breed mistrust in this august body by refusing to take the word of nations who are committed to replacing the existing chemical-arms ban with a superior one. We suspect that there are some nations in this body with little to no regard for national defense, and thusly any assurance from supporters of a disarmament repeal would not be good enough for them. Sadly, this seems to be the case with Love and esterel.

As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but would not "Clarify, clarify, clarify" be "Illegal, illegal, illegal"? So far as we know, existing resolutions cannot be amended; we are committed to the repeal process.

Why not just burn this chemical weapon ban and replace it with one that bans all lethal weapons but allows the use of mace and tear gas which only cause discomfort and burning. Think about it how would you like being chunked in jail for sprayin a mugger with mace before he could shoot you.

We support this repeal and hope to see a worthy replacement on the statute books as soon as possible.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

i believe that simple fact that the weapons have been banned will not change the views or ideologys of warlords, wars can still be caused without the weapons and genocide
Yeah, with pointed sticks. :p

The Federal Republic fully supports this repeal, and is appalled by some ambassadors seeking to breed mistrust in this august body by refusing to take the word of nations who are committed to replacing the existing chemical-arms ban with a superior one. We suspect that there are some nations in this body with little to no regard for national defense, and thusly any assurance from supporters of a disarmament repeal would not be good enough for them. Sadly, this seems to be the case with Love and esterel.

As a side note, and correct me if I'm wrong, but would not "Clarify, clarify, clarify" be "Illegal, illegal, illegal"? So far as we know, existing resolutions cannot be amended; we are committed to the repeal process.

Omigodtheykilledkenny, as we have said before, if it is possible, after the repeal of #107 is approved, for the new proposition to be submitted, considering the provisions of:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #110
United Nations Security Act
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/page=UN_past_resolutions/start=109

As the esteemed Kingdom of Listeneisse remarked on his post in the UN forum


=> Then we will fully agree with he repeal and the new proposition

What is so extraordinary in this position?

Approved; quickly and gladly. Gaungia aupports this proposal

Could you, for the sake of us stupid mortals, stop quoting the UNSA ad nauseam, and explain why exactly you feel a new resolution would be illegal?

Could you, for the sake of us stupid mortals, stop quoting the UNSA ad nauseam, and explain why exactly you feel a new resolution would be illegal?

we like the UNSA, we just want to be sure the new proposition will be legal, before approving he repeal, that's all

we like the UNSA, we just want to be sure the new proposition will be legal, before approving he repeal, that's all

BUT WHY WOULDN'T IT BE?

There must be a reason why you're so doubtful - and I just can't see it myself. I'm pleading: please lend me your glasses.

Tbe "Illegal, illegal, illegal"? So far as we know, existing resolutions cannot be amended; we are committed to the repeal process.

Omigodtheykilledkenny, please: may i remind you the following:

08-08-2005, Venerable libertarians

In order to have a legal and concise Proposal and Resolution this must be repealed or the New Resolution will not under current Proposal and resolution laws, protect dolphins if and when they become an endangered species.
Please support the resolution Repeal!

13-08-2005, The Most Glorious Hack

Well, let's take a quick look.



Okay, I'm assuming that you're primarily worried about running afoul of the Duplication and/or the House of Cards provisions. House of Cards is right out, as you aren't tying this to any previous Resolution.

I can understand your concern about duplication. However, Banning Whaling and Dolphin Protection are both rather toothless bits of law, and are also exceptionally specific, protecting only two groups of animals. Your bill on the other hand extends a much wider net (no pun intended) and deals with all endangered species.

This allows your Proposal to also avoid the problems that Banning Whaling ran into, specifically the question of RL to NS transferrance of any animals status as endangered. What animals are endangered is largely up to the individual nation.

While your Proposal is indeed redundant, when it comes to whales and dolphins, it is broad enough that it would be impossible to claim that it should be disqualified because of redundancy. Thus, it seems perfectly acceptable to me to have this Proposal submitted without first Repealing the other two Resolutions.

It should be noted, however, that should this Proposal become law, further Proposals geared towards specific animals would be redundant.

- The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

flat out approved

I Approve the appeal of this rule. Chemical weapons, however "unethical" it is, is a needed weapon in our arsonal. Whoever said war was suppose to be ethical has never been to the front lines as my country and (im sure) other countires as well. These are vital tools, not only in our millitary, but to our civillians, as Mace and pepperspray are considered "chemicals" by the UN. I am sure that the citizens of many nations need these to protect themselves from crinimals, but we can not let the stores sell them because of this law. The sooner this law is removed, the sooner the citizens of all nations can fell safer, knowing should anything happen, thier government(s) are that much more able to protect them.
----------------------------------------
semper fi to natura

as it appears that the proposition written by Ausserland is legal even if the repeal is voted

The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel is happy about that, have approved the repeal, and will approve the future proposition by Ausserland

congratulation to the nation of Ausserland for his work

we want to apologize for the mess we have created

I have been following the various facets of the discussion regarding the Replealing of Ban of Chemical weapons, though as always there are always two aspects of a debate. And the merit lies in the comprehensiveness of it. As a representative of my nation i do understand the "concerns" and as well as the viability of it. Chemal wepons as one puts it, revisits the horrors of man-kind. Imagine killing thousands with a abomb you can make it in less than 40$, imagine a world where children grow up without eyes, limbs ar may be totally insane, and thanks to the nerve gases. It reveists the time when humanity was at a crisis, when just because of color and ethnicity people where smoldered. And more than ever before imagine the risk of getting these wepon in the hands of "rouge" states or so called rouge entities, who dont have a face that you can call enemy. Though i appreciate the concern of some Nation that Chemical weapons should act as a deterent, but my Nation would also request you to consider the horrors attached to it. Imagine a world which grows on Anthrax, a Child who smells the smell of nerve gas... we are making our nation more powerful we are making it invincible... but at what cost. "An eye for an eye makes the world blind".
Though the intent of the author of this resolution is perfectly undersatndable, i'd like to say to you that rather than scrapping the Ban on Chemical weapons we can have an amendment which classifies what we use today and call as "Tear gas" or may be some non-lethal wepons used by our cops. I expect that i have put the view of my nation in this matter and my nation will appreciate further discussion on this matter.

Indian Subcontinent

Gravelbourg is voting AGAINST the “Repeal ‘Ban Chemical Weapons’” resolution.

One thing for which we’ll give the repeal credit: it recognizes that the current “Ban Chemical Weapons” resolution has flaws. The current chemical banning resolution doesn’t differentiate between peace-time and war-time chemical weapons. Powerhungry Chipmunks is absolutely right about that. The current resolution forbids pepper spray and mace, which the Gravelbourg Commission for Public Safety believes has a place in our police forces.

On June 11, 2005, Gravelbourg argued in its regional forum for the “Ban Chemical Weapons” resolution even though it failed to identify in a formal way certain groups of chemical substances for prohibition. We also felt that the resolution failed to outline a schedule for eliminating chemical weapons in UN member nations.

However, the Gravelbourg Parliament supported the call for a chemical weapons ban. And we still support the current resolution, even with its flaws.

Chemical weapons pose a tremendous danger to human health and safety. The current resolution – despite its weaknesses – bans the following substances:

• Nerve agents (e.g. sarin, used in the 1995 Aum Shinrikyo terrorist attack on the Tokyo subway)
• Blood agents (e.g. hydrogen cyanide)
• Vesicants or blister agents (e.g. mustard gas, which killed thousands in World War I)
• Pulmonary agents (e.g. phosgene gas)
• Lachrymatory agents (e.g. tear gas, which the sponsor of the repeal believes should not be banned – but we disagree)
• Incapacitating agents (e.g. BZ)
• Defoliants (e.g. Agent Orange)
• Incendiaries (e.g. napalm)

Our opinion in June was: “The benefits of banning these substances far outweigh the benefits of keeping them in our arsenals.” That is still our opinion.

If we repeal “Ban Chemical Weapons,” we eliminate the only legislation in the NS UN that addresses this issue and forbids these substances. We believe the current resolution could be improved, but that can be done by drafting a secondary piece of legislation. A repeal is not the answer.

So we vote AGAINST.

Chemicals that cause only burning and discomfort I think should not be banned by the UN.*
However, I believe that gases that cause death, lasting harm or extreme pain, or harm to the environment should be banned. My reasons:
Other readily availiable weapons, eg knives, may cause death but my concern is of gases being used for mass killing. In the way they are used they are generally more imprecise and are used for indiscrimanate killing.
As for civilians using chemicals to protect themselves, it's YOUR job as a government to protect your own citizens.
Some of these gases don't make for a pretty way to die either. A pretty torturous way, actually. I would have thought that would be something the UN wouldn't want to back.
And as for gases that cause blindness and madness: shouldn't the UN be improving the quality of human life?

It seems to me that the resolution should maybe be more specific. I'm voting for a repeal if I'd be seeing a resolution banning harmful gases threatening the quality of human life and the environment in it's place. :)

Is there a draft for a proposal to replace it? I'm tired so please don't start posting sniper smileys if it's only two posts up *cowers* :)


*As long as the chemicals that cause discomfort are used only for peacekeeping or self defense purposes.

Proposed replacement legislation would reinstate bans on every chemical you have specified, Gravelbourg. As it stands in its present, unacceptable form, BCW ALSO puts limits on chemicals that have legitimate peacetime applications.

The Delegate from Former Rome is of the opinion that the use of Tear Gas in riot control is a breach of the Declaration of Human Rights (specifically Articles 5, 19, and 20) and must therefore vote against this resolution. The Delegate from Former Rome would like to acknowledge the Delegate from Gravelbourg for making a similar and equally valid point.

Sorry, I couldn't find that one among the list of Passed UN Resolutions. Which number resolution is the DoHR? I'll have to check the exact text.

Thank you, Former Rome.

I'd be happy, Gruenberg, if proposed replacement legislation would deal with all categories of chemical agents. However, Powerhungry Chipmunks' repeal would open a door to a period of time during which all bets are off, and chemical weapons production could continue.

I say draft a proposal called "Expansion to 'Ban Chemical Weapons'" that keeps both pieces of legislation on the books.

As I understand it - and this is not an official opinion - that would not be possible. Amendments are specifically banned. An expansion proposal would - I think - be unlikely to be viewed as legal.

Approved

Hmm. I think you're right, Gruenberg. An expansion might be considered something akin to an amendment. A Minor Offence according to the mods. And I've seen nations expelled from the UN for less. I just have too much of a problem with the worst kind of chemical weapons that I can accept if mace and pepper spray get mixed into the prohibition.

OOC: I am probably obliged to now say 'you wouldn't say that if you were raped and couldn't mace them'. Actually, I'm not going to: and I think you're making a very intelligent choice. Nonetheless, I still support the repeal.

I should like delegates and members to bear in mind that even "non-lethal" chemical weapons, such as tear gas and CS gas, can have lethal effects on some people. For this reason, citing them as "non-lethall" is misleading and should be avoided.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Long live WMD free Compadria!

To clarify chemical weapons do not need to be lethal to be classified as such.

Chemical weapons, as defined, are either lethally or severely toxic, cause persistent effects and/or permanent harm.

For instance most mustard gas casualties survive. They are just, for 99.9% of the cases subjected to days, weeks or months of suffering and pain: inflamed skin and eyes, blisters all over their body, lesions, and so on. Effectively making them a casualty. En masse, overwhelming their nation's medical care systems. They can also suffer chronic health problems for the rest of their days, especially their eyes.

Riot control agents -- which are nowhere barred in the language of the original resolution -- are generally classed as non-persistent, non-lethal agents.

The original resolution is therefore not wrongly worded, but the vast majority of people fail to understand the specific language of arms control.

A chemical weapon, as classified by those with an actual understanding of military and arms control terminology, is not a riot control or self-defense product.

A chemical weapons agent is not a riot control agent.

Nowhere in the resolution are riot control agents mentioned as barred, banned or controlled in any way.

Therefore, a repeal on chemical weapons to permit the lawful manufacture and sale of riot control agents -- which are not even covered in the original ban -- is, even if unintentionally, facetious and duplicitous.

"as defined"...as defined by what? You? Yes. Your sources? Yes. Ban Chemical Weapons? No.

I don't disagree with your distinction. But it's one that is not made by the original resolution.

Actually, I believe the original resolution did indeed make a distinction.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Description : The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

Where?

Well it should be noted that when the resolution refers to all chemical weapons, it is referring to those that are routinely used in an offensive capability, as opposed to those that are used as a reactive measure in law enforcement.

Even if this were not the case, surely your law enforcement teams could control public disorder without resorting to such measures?

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Omigodtheykilledkenny: ... Would not "Clarify, clarify, clarify" be "Illegal, illegal, illegal"? So far as we know, existing resolutions cannot be amended.
Love and esterel: Omigodtheykilledkenny, please: may i remind you [of TMGH's approval of UNCoESB]?So what? Just because a mod approved one proposal over concerns about overlapping, it doesn't mean that all cases of overlapping are identical. You're comparing apples and oranges.

We applaud your decision to change your vote, which might have been more admirable had you not (as I read it) impugned the integrity of the resolution's proponents.I'd be happy, Gruenberg, if proposed replacement legislation would deal with all categories of chemical agents. However, Powerhungry Chipmunks' repeal would open a door to a period of time during which all bets are off, and chemical weapons production could continue.Well, that's the risk you take when you undertake to replace a resolution even you consider to be flawed.

Well it should be noted that when the resolution refers to all chemical weapons, it is referring to those that are routinely used in an offensive capability, as opposed to those that are used as a reactive measure in law enforcement.

How do you know this? We do not believe it is your place to impose your own interpretations onto binding international legislation where such views are not backed up by the original wording of relevant documents.

Unless you can point to a specific phrase or section of the original resolution differentiating between chemical weapons and riot control agents, we ask that you unequivocally retract your statement 'I believe the original resolution did indeed make a distinction'.

People also get killed by police billy clubs, but generally the item in question is classified as a non-lethal means of riot control. It can be used with lethal force or to lethal effect. It can cause death. But the general classification of a billy club is as a means to apply non-lethal force for law enforcement or riot control.

While generally-classed 'non-lethal' riot control agents such as CS (tear gas) can at times lead to respiratory arrest and death, they still fall short of the generally and professionally understood litmus tests to be considered a chemical weapon agent and only under unusual design or construction could they be devised into a 'chemical weapon.'

If the main point of the repeal focuses on the legality of CS, OC, CN and their ilk, it has no need to, if one simply reflects on the actual, specific, logical and technical definition of the term chemical weapon.

The existing ban would likewise not bar nations from manufacturing and transporting well-known commercially-available, but dangerous chemicals in tanker trucks, except if those vehicles were subsequently purposefully detonated to cause widespread chemical injuries -- because that would constitute its conversion and application as an unconventional chemical weapon.

Use italics all you want. The original resolution does not draw a distinction. Some riot control weapons clearly have the potential to be used as a weapon - a chemical weapon no less - even if not in a military context. The repeal and clarifying resolution is necessary.

I should like delegates and members to bear in mind that even "non-lethal" chemical weapons, such as tear gas and CS gas, can have lethal effects on some people. For this reason, citing them as "non-lethall" is misleading and should be avoided.
Please explain, I have never heard of lethal effects by these peace keeping agents, unless you simply inhale to much. But then, too much of anything will kill you.

Well it should be noted that when the resolution refers to all chemical weapons, it is referring to those that are routinely used in an offensive capability, as opposed to those that are used as a reactive measure in law enforcement.


We would very much appreciate it if the honorable delegate from Compadria could enlighten us as to the basis of this statement. We read no such distinction in the text of the resolution at issue. In fact, we see its basic flaw as a failure to properly define its scope of coverage.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The UN ambassador from New Commustan strongly supports this. If war should arise in New Commustan against a rouge nation, they will probably use chemical weapons, so we will need to fight back with equal strength. I support this repeal for our safety. Let freedom reign!!!

Banning Chemical Weapons from one-third of the world will not make safer. It will make it more dangerous for us.

Whether tear gas is included in the original resolution is unknown, however, the resolution fails to clarify, which is why I'm voting FOR the appeal.

EDIT: The same goes for pepper spray.

Honestly Chemical Weapons are not as bad as you think they are. However, if controlled by the wrong people/government, then something bad could happen. Here are a series of reasons why I think they should not be banned.
1.) They are extremley costly and are hard to concoct.
2.) If www.nationstates.net has War Codes then they can only be harmful to a certain degree. So Ebola, Anthrax and others would defiinitley be outlawed.


Emporer of Confutus Populus: Ryan H. Davenport

P.S. JOIN THE TriLateral Commission

So what? Just because a mod approved one proposal over concerns about overlapping, it doesn't mean that all cases of overlapping are identical. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Espically as in this case the two proposal and the resolution wouldn't be overlapping but instead contradicting one another, due to the resolution banning all forms of chemical weaponry, and the proposal legalizing certain forms of chemical weaponry.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I'm blind-posting at the moment - I'll probably read the thread some time tomorrow when I'm not half-asleep. But this ones simple - if a resolution doesn't give a specific definition of a word or phrase - such as "chemical weapons" - then the nation though forced to obey under Gnommish influence can still interpret said definition how he or she chooses (within reasonable limits). Therefore, while nations CAN interpret this resolution as banning pepper spray, they don't necessarily have to - here are some definitions as looked up on the uberGoogle.


# Gases and chemicals that are developed for potential use in wartime against enemy troops, populations, or eco-systems.
www.icons.umd.edu/pls/reslib/display_glossary

# any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical. Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with high killing power, meaning it requires small amounts of a chemical agent to kill large numbers of people. The most commonly feared agents include sarin, VX, mustard gas and lewisite. The most efficient way to spread chemical agents is through the air. A bomb or missile explosion, a crop-duster or other aircraft or small bombs or aerosol canisters released in crowded areas can successfully spread an agent.
www.sciencecoalition.org/glossary/glossary_main.htm

So, while banning chemical weapons always bans the ones that we definitely want out, it's the nations choice to interpret as to whether or not to ban the others. Making all the arguments stated in the repeal null.

Looking at these definitions, I'd still say there's a little conflict over Tear Gas, which could have been developed for wartime purposes at least in part. So lets make the argument about that. I say that there are plenty of healthier and probably more effective ways to disperse a crowd, but then I have crime rates higher than your mom (Zing!). Your thoughts?

Final note: nations that interpret the resolution as banning tear gas or pepper spray will just ban tear gas or pepper spray anyways.

While the Federation appreciates the reasons for the reapeal and lack of clarity within the original resolution, the Federation has three reasons for intending to vote AGAINST this repeal.

1) The need for an effective resolution banning chemical weapons has a greater public interest than allowing the use of "minor" chemical substances such as pepper spray, and the damage to human life is greater if the resolution is repealed than continuing to be endorsed.

2) There is no definition of "chemical weapon" within the resolution which leaves it to the reasonable definition of the courts/ruling bodies within member states. Thus the definition of chemical weapon in taking into account the spirit and context of the resolution is likely to intend that chemical weapons are indeed;

- weapons, made from chemicals, with the intent to cause mass harm, distress, death, or terror, in a single execution of the weapon.

Thus, quoting the resolution, banning;
all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

The intent is clearly based on weapons of mass harm, and the weapons noted in the repeal are thus not covered by the resolution.

3) The passing of the United Nations Security Act only allows nations to create weapons to defend themselves subject to CURRENT resolutions. This would make a replacement resolution problematic.

As a result DataGenesis votes AGAINST the repeal.

While some of the bigger nations may feel free to interpret UN rules, some of the smaller nations like mine are more wary, just in case. If I could give tear gas to my police, I could put down the strike with pain, thus keeping things as they are. Instead I am allowing the ungrateful rabbel to be sacked.

The smaller nations can not afford the weopans people fear and if you fear the bigger nations, something is very wrong.

Cuation will vote for the bill

The Ambassador of Listeneisse heartily thanks the words of sanity from his peers of the states of Pojonia and DataGenesis.

The smaller nations can not afford the weopans people fear


All the more reason for keeping the bill in place, wouldn't you think?

1.) They are extremley costly and are hard to concoct.
2.) If www.nationstates.net has War Codes then they can only be harmful to a certain degree. So Ebola, Anthrax and others would defiinitley be outlawed.

Sorry, point 1 isn't true: MOST of the chemical weapons can be produced VERY EASY and with LOW COSTS (you just need someone with the knowledge - believe me, I'm a chemist).

Nevertheless, I'm FOR the resolution, just because of the points like tear gas and pepper spray: We need a NEW resolution that distinguishes between strongly harmful and deadly chemical weapons (mustard gas, Lost etc. pp. which should DEFINITIVELY be BANNED), and chemical weapons that are more or less harmless and "non-killing" (such as tear gas and narcotics[remember the RL hostage in russia some years ago - I think a "non-chemical" way in cases like this would be more bloody and kill more innocent people]; they should be ALLOWED).

My concerns with chemical weapons as opposed to "conventional" weapons are this:
1. Chemical weapons effect the area in which they are used and can harm unintended targets.

2. Chemical weapons can be very persistent in their effects and can continue to cause harm long after the reason for their use has been resolved.

As far as touting the benefits of tear gas and pepper spray as being "non-lethal", I would say this:

Non-lethal merely means "not intended to kill". At the same time, non-lethal weapons encompasses weapons "designed to inflict pain and suffering", aka "torture devices". Thumbscrews would certainly be considered non-lethal, but I can't imagine anyone endorsing their use.

That having been said, I am in favor of leaving the ban in place. If there are going to be tools used for riot control, I would suggest looking into restraining devices and barriers.

The Constitutional Monarchy of Bernera considers both BCW and the repeal to be less than perfect. However, we have voted against the repeal for the following reasons;

1) The threat to civilian populations from 'military' chemical weapons, we believe, outweighs the danger to individuals from the banning of so-called 'non-lethal' weapons.

2) The use of riot police can, in some cases, exacerbate volatile situations (e.g. large protest marches that attract violent minorities) and that a less confrontational policing method can make such measures unnecessary.

3) The creation of a safe, stable society can be achieved without recourse to these means.

4) Concern has been expressed in the Parliament of Bernera that the UNSA, while having been formulated with the best intentions, may inhibit the creation of new legeslation, given that the UNSA states "that all member states have the right to construct any and all weapons...except where previous legislation from this body that is still in effect places restrictions on that right."

However, Bernera recognizes the right of all independent nations to act as they will within the framework of the NSUN, but merely believes that the current chemical weapons legislation provides adequete security for both NSUN members and their citizens.

Whether wartime or peacetime, chemical weapons should not be used. Besides, the danger of nations abusing the temporary allowance of chemical weapons when this resolution is repealed is too great.

We urge all to vote against this repeal.

While the Federation appreciates the reasons for the reapeal and lack of clarity within the original resolution, the Federation has three reasons for intending to vote AGAINST this repeal.

1) The need for an effective resolution banning chemical weapons has a greater public interest than allowing the use of "minor" chemical substances such as pepper spray, and the damage to human life is greater if the resolution is repealed than continuing to be endorsed.

Minor? Violent crimes occur every day. Murder. Theft. Assault. Rape. These, by their very nature impose themselves upon innocent people. National conflicts in which the horrors of war-time chemical weapons would be used occur sparingly, and usually upon voluntary combatants.

I think you have it backwards as to which is a "minor" problem and which is a "major" problem


2) There is no definition of "chemical weapon" within the resolution which leaves it to the reasonable definition of the courts/ruling bodies within member states. Thus the definition of chemical weapon in taking into account the spirit and context of the resolution is likely to intend that chemical weapons are indeed;Actually, that's not necessarily true. In fact, precedent of UN rules seems to says otherwise...

The intent is clearly based on weapons of mass harm, and the weapons noted in the repeal are thus not covered by the resolution.What? How do you come to that conclusion? There isn't a single qualitative statement made about chemical weapons anywhere in the quoted portion.


3) The passing of the United Nations Security Act only allows nations to create weapons to defend themselves subject to CURRENT resolutions. This would make a replacement resolution problematic.
The ban on biological weapons had no trouble getting through...I'm certain Ausserland will take the necessary measure to ensure his proposal is not M0dzapped while in the list.


Nevertheless, I'm FOR the resolution, just because of the points like tear gas and pepper spray: We need a NEW resolution that distinguishes between strongly harmful and deadly chemical weapons (mustard gas, Lost etc. pp. which should DEFINITIVELY be BANNED), and chemical weapons that are more or less harmless and "non-killing" (such as tear gas and narcotics[remember the RL hostage in russia some years ago - I think a "non-chemical" way in cases like this would be more bloody and kill more innocent people]; they should be ALLOWED).
According to UN rules, there cannot be a replacement until after there is a repeal. We cannot replace this unless my repeal goes through.


1) The threat to civilian populations from 'military' chemical weapons, we believe, outweighs the danger to individuals from the banning of so-called 'non-lethal' weapons.

This suggests, to me, 2 things about you: 1) that you're male 2) that you do not live in an urban setting.

I can probably count the number of times, in RL, that chemical weapons have been used in major armed conflict in the past score of years, on just my hands. However, I could never count the number of rapes, murders, and other violent acts that occur daily, even on 50 peoples' fingers and toes. I hardly believe that a few instances of genocide and military misjudgment outweigh the hundreds of thousands who suffer at the hands of criminals.

PLUS: there's a replacement already being drafted to again ban war-time chemical weapons. It can't go through if this repeal does not go through.

2) The use of riot police can, in some cases, exacerbate volatile situations (e.g. large protest marches that attract violent minorities) and that a less confrontational policing method can make such measures unnecessary.

Yeah, and the use of riot police can also institute law and order among a violent mob. Just like pepper spray can be abused in road rage. Any positive peace-time chemical device can be misused.

And beyond that, it is the policies of the police that determine whether they will abuse their mandate of "riot contol" on peaceful displays. The banning of their chemical weapons does little to deter them. Bad cops are bad cops: Whether they wield a 9mm or a CS canister dispenser. If you're worried about bad cops, perhaps you should draft legislation against them. just don't throw the baby out with the bath water because of them.


4) Concern has been expressed in the Parliament of Bernera that the UNSA, while having been formulated with the best intentions, may inhibit the creation of new legeslation, given that the UNSA states "that all member states have the right to construct any and all weapons...except where previous legislation from this body that is still in effect places restrictions on that right."And that concern is unjustified. Remember, the ban on biological weapons replacement passed after UNSA. Proposals banning weapon-types are still viable, if they must be slightly more carefully written.

That having been said, I am in favor of leaving the ban in place. If there are going to be tools used for riot control, I would suggest looking into restraining devices and barriers.1) barriers and restraining devices? those only work when a riot is anticipatable. What about mobs that crop up unexpectedly (such as, in RL, in New Orleans)? And 2) What about individual victims of violent crimes? Do you recommend they use restraining devices and barriers, too?

There's a better resolution being drafted by Ausserland as we speak. The repeal is not against banning wartime chemical weapons. It's just against carelessly disregarding potential victims of violent crimes.

Whether wartime or peacetime, chemical weapons should not be used. Besides, the danger of nations abusing the temporary allowance of chemical weapons when this resolution is repealed is too great.

We urge all to vote against this repeal.Really? Too great?
Let's remember that, in the game sense, the only conflict entered into is a consensual conflict (I.G.N.O.R.E. Cannons protect from RP-rape/non-consensual RP). So, the only conflicts in which these weapons could be abused are UN RPs (consensual) started between the repeal's passage and the replacement's passage.

Also, lets remember the limits of the original resolution:
RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.That's it, as far as active phrases. Do you see anything about banning the use of chemical weapons? No, of course not. War-time chemical weapons that were stockpiled before the ban was put in place have been used in conflicts since...which would mean that a replacement is all the more necessary.

To reiterate, I feel: There is no substantial "increased" risk of chemical weapons being used in armed conflict if this repel is passed, as chemical weapons previously stockpiled are already being used in armed conflict as we speak.

Minor? Violent crimes occur every day. Murder. Theft. Assault. Rape. These, by their very nature impose themselves upon innocent people. National conflicts in which the horrors of war-time chemical weapons would be used occur sparingly, and usually upon voluntary combatants.

I think you have it backwards as to which is a "minor" problem and which is a "major" problem

I can probably count the number of times, in RL, that chemical weapons have been used in major armed conflict in the past score of years, on just my hands. However, I could never count the number of rapes, murders, and other violent acts that occur daily, even on 50 peoples' fingers and toes. I hardly believe that a few instances of genocide and military misjudgment outweigh the hundreds of thousands who suffer at the hands of criminals.

And I think you are not realising with the legalisation of your chemical weapons for use as protection you are leaving it open, as I have said before, for the rapists, murderers and other things you can't count on 50 people's hands and toes to use the same weapons against the people you are trying to protect. No one can decide who deserves and does not deserve protection

This repeal doesn't help stop crime, it helps it to advance as they now have their own protection to use against anyone. So if this repeal passes, expect crime rates to increase. For sure.

Powerhungry Chipmunk's comments have been noted. In view of the confirmation that the UNSA will not affect any future legislation, Bernera now supports the repeal. This was our primary concern. As already stated, both the original BCW and the repeal required futher deliberation, and we now understand that that is indeed possible.

And I think you are not realising with the legalisation of your chemical weapons for use as protection you are leaving it open, as I have said before, for the rapists, murderers and other things you can't count on 50 people's hands and toes to use the same weapons against the people you are trying to protect. No one can decide who deserves and does not deserve protection

This repeal doesn't help stop crime, it helps it to advance as they now have their own protection to use against anyone. So if this repeal passes, expect crime rates to increase. For sure.

Ok. Gruenberg votes for the repeal.

Remove the ban of chemical weapons? That will allow aggresive and fool states to produce them ans use them in wars -or aganist their population-, and THIS IS AN ATROCITY that crashes with Human Rights.

The excuses to remove it are quite silly:

* They can be used to self-protection: AN ACTUALLY THEY CAN. The Ban Resolution does not ban the simple ones (mace and pepper sprays). Is pepper a chemical product? It's not.

* The police need it: IT DOESNT. Police has lots of methods to be effective protectin citizens and the most of them doesnt cause any injure, other issue is how much the Member States are using police funds.

CHEMICAL WEAPONS are not peace weapons. WE CAN'T ALLOW FOOL DICTATORS TO HAVE THEM, 'CAUSE ONE OF US COULD BE THE PROVING GROUNDS FOR THAT TERRIBLE WEAPONS. Warfare is enough cruel without chemicals.

I do not trust dictatorships or weapons.


Laietània has a VERY STRONG position AGANIST that proposal. And any Catalan State shoudn't vote anything but AGANIST.

You're RIGHT!
When this debate first started someone said that the original ban included such peacekeeping agents such as mace and tear gas. In delving through the Ban's wording, I could not find any clause which stated this. I am sure I could be wrong though, if anyone has info for me on this, it would be much appreciated. Anyhow, my vote remains for, for a myriad of other reasons discussed previously in this debate. :D

The original resolution does not specifically exclude riot control agents. I dislike the current trend for telling us what international legislation 'really means'. It means what is says: in this case, that's too vague to be kept on the statute books.

Gruenberg is correct this legislation was way to vague to leave on th ebooks as i read it to mean things like pepper spray, mace and CS gas are banned under it despite them not causing injury if used correctly.

They can be used to self-protection: AN ACTUALLY THEY CAN. The Ban Resolution does not ban the simple ones (mace and pepper sprays). Is pepper a chemical product? It's not.

We believe the honorable delegate from Laietania has been misinformed about the nature of these products. "Pepper spray" does not spray pepper. The active ingredient in pepper spray is capsaicin, which is a chemical derived from pepper plants.

The original MACE product consisted of 1% CN (chloracetophenone) in a solvent of sec-butanol, propylene glycol, cyclohexene, and dipropylene glycol methyl ether. There are variations on this original formula now.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Thanks. :D

It is truly amazing to witness the tremendous obfuscation of this issue by those on the left in this debate: When they're not twisting themselves into semantic knots, trying to find some phrase, any phrase in 110 that would allow law enforcement to use tear gas or private citizens to use pepper spray (which incidentally does not spray pepper; thanks, Ausserland :D ), they're propping up some hypothetical, and most likely illegal, resolution to "clarify" (or "modify," or whatever word you want to use) the standing resolution.

I for one would like to hear some honesty from the honorable ambassadors opposed to this repeal, because in truth they don't care if the current resolution hampers law enforcement efforts or not, and have no intention at all of submitting any (illegal) "clarification" or "modification" proposal. They just want to keep the ban on chemical weapons in effect, no matter how bad it is, because they do not want to take the chance that once a repeal is passed, a replacement may not prove successful, and in that vein they imply that they do not trust those committed to proposing replacement legislation.

The standing resolution is simply not effective, and needs to be replaced. You cannot get around it with creative interpretation or some (illegal) modification (which I have yet to see from anyone opposed to this repeal). The current resolution needs to be repealed, so that a more effective one can take its place.

The Federal Republic applauds the efforts of Powerhungry Chipmunks to repeal this faulty bill, and of Ausserland to replace it.

When the UN can adequately explain how it is their business to tell member states what weapons they can produce and use then I'll listen. Repeal this travesty of overreaching.

I for one would like to hear some honesty from the honorable ambassadors opposed to this repeal, because in truth they don't care if the current resolution hampers law enforcement efforts or not, and have no intention at all of submitting any (illegal) "clarification" or "modification" proposal. They just want to keep the ban on chemical weapons in effect, no matter how bad it is, because they do not want to take the chance that once a repeal is passed, a replacement may not prove successful, and in that vein they imply that they do not trust those committed to proposing replacement legislation.

The standing resolution is simply not effective, and needs to be replaced. You cannot get around it with creative interpretation or some (illegal) modification (which I have yet to see from anyone opposed to this repeal). The current resolution needs to be repealed, so that a more effective one can take its place.

I am being honest in opposing this bill by saying I do care about law enforcement. And I would suggest that the speaker watch his words before assuming that UN members who oppose the repeal don't care about law enforcement because you are more than wrong.

And why should we, the ones opposed to this repeal, write up a new resolution if we do not intend for this repeal to pass? No, that would be the job of those who want the repeal passed.

And while we're on the topic of not caring about law enforcement, one such as yourself should look in the mirror and realise that any who want to inflict harm can use these newly legalised chemical weapons against victims as well as against law enforcers.

Thank you,
Starcra.

When the UN can adequately explain how it is their business to tell member states what weapons they can produce and use then I'll listen. Repeal this travesty of overreaching.
It's called "trying to achieve world peace". The fewer countries with chemical weapons, the better.

However, tear gas and pepper spray are considered chemical weapon agents. These are vital in riot-control and other extreme situations. Instead of an outright repeal, may I suggest an amendment allowing for the use of mild lachrymatory agents such as tear gas and pepper spray. The use of such agents are restricted to a country's police force and military.

Besides, pepper spray goes quite well with pastrami and mustard on rye.

Pojonia is disheartened by the amount of people who fail to properly respond or even pay attention to the argumentation presented. As I said before, this resolution only bans things such as tear gas and pepper spray if the nations who interpret it WISH to ban tear gas and pepper spray. Any legal definition of chemical weapons will contain WMD's, wartime weapons and such - but not all definitions contain the lesser weaponry at their disposal.

This resolution is vague (and a vague resolution is a sovereign nations best friend) but not so deliberately obtuse as to exclude the original intent. Those nations who jump to its side screaming "I interpreted the resolution this way!" should simply look at the resolution again, rework their legal interpretation a tad, and then ban just chemical weapons. It's not impossible. But to even temporarily disable a ban on larger chemical weapons is folly, and for such a useless issue as domestic weapons a double folly.


---Divided into parts for those with woefully short attention spans---


And to those who still think that the interpretation is absolute despite the descending weight of logic pressing down upon them, I have this to say to you: Buy a bloody taser. Pepper spray is intended to blind, cause excruciating amounts of pain, and hopefully deter anything not wearing ski goggles. A taser will simply knock the mofo out. Do you think that there aren't already a hundred different alternatives to pepper spray and tear gas that were developed on the spot the instant YOUR* weapons industry was informed by YOUR government they couldn't sell them anymore? I certainly don't.

If you jump straight to this second point and ignore the main argument again, I will in turn jump straight for your throat. Arr...

*and I emphasize YOUR because I still use pepper spray as a defence mechanism and a spice - a fire-breathing chicken needs lots of spice... Come to think of it, I'm a chemical weapon in meself... this went on a tangent, better seperate it from the rest.

However, tear gas and pepper spray are considered chemical weapon agents. These are vital in riot-control and other extreme situations. Instead of an outright repeal, may I suggest an amendment allowing for the use of mild lachrymatory agents such as tear gas and pepper spray. The use of such agents are restricted to a country's police force and military.

No you may not. Amendments are explicitly banned by the Rules For UN Proposals (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465). A repeal and a new resolution would effect the amendment you seek, however.

However, tear gas and pepper spray are considered chemical weapon agents.

Says you. (points upward)

And I think you are not realising with the legalisation of your chemical weapons for use as protection you are leaving it open, as I have said before, for the rapists, murderers and other things you can't count on 50 people's hands and toes to use the same weapons against the people you are trying to protect. No one can decide who deserves and does not deserve protection [emphasis added]

Yup, since so many criminals rape women at mace-point...:rolleyes:

But, seriously, mace and pepper spray are not viable offensive tools. They are short-ranged, and only carry the threat of pain, not death. Handguns, knives, explosive devices, which this repeal and the legilsation have no bearing on, in contrast are viable as offensive weapons, not mace and pepper spray, because they have the ability to leverage the threat of death against the victim. I think most assailants with a mace bottle would be laughed at rather than heeded.

I'm not saying that mace and pepper spray are not possibly misused, I'm just noting the infintesimal minority of occurences of actual use of them in assaults, rapes, etc. Whereas guns and knives are repeatedly used as tools to rape and steal and harm. If you really want to protect people, I personally think you should focus on keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, not heavy-handedly taking pepper spray and mace because they might, in one or two cases a year, be used by criminals.

-snip-

I'll just repeat what another poster dutifully expressed: Gruenberg is correct this legislation was way to vague to leave on th ebooks as i read it to mean things like pepper spray, mace and CS gas are banned under it despite them not causing injury if used correctly.

Even if you do not believe the ban on chemical weapons affects mace and pepper spray (which I continue to believe it does), why promote and protect vague legislation? Also, why promote legislation that still allows for the use of chemical weapons? Any nation that has chemical capabilities can massively stockpiled its weapons stores before joining the UN or before the resolution came into effect--and still use chemical weapons in wartime.

"Ban Chemical Weapons", I feel, protects criminals: It protects everyday criminals from the threat of peace-time chemical devices It protects war criminals in still allowing them to use chemical weapons.

Why protect it? Why vote Against?

But to even temporarily disable a ban on larger chemical weapons is folly, and for such a useless issue as domestic weapons a double folly.

Well said.

It is truly amazing to witness the tremendous obfuscation of this issue by those on the left in this debate: When they're not twisting themselves into semantic knots, trying to find some phrase, any phrase in 110 that would allow law enforcement to use tear gas or private citizens to use pepper spray (which incidentally does not spray pepper; thanks, Ausserland :D ), they're propping up some hypothetical, and most likely illegal, resolution to "clarify" (or "modify," or whatever word you want to use) the standing resolution.

Your ad hominem is getting steadily cleverer, Kenny, but I twist myself into no semantic knots. I know quite well that on an issue of legal definition, when a definition is not supplied the nation in question can supply its own within reasonable limits. I said this specifically, it's not too hard to discern or at all complicated on the issue.
I for one would like to hear some honesty from the honorable ambassadors opposed to this repeal, because in truth they don't care if the current resolution hampers law enforcement efforts or not, and have no intention at all of submitting any (illegal) "clarification" or "modification" proposal.
Brutal again, and yet quite true. I don't care if this resolution hampers law enforcements ability to disperse tear gas because A) it doesn't and B) for any nation that does, this resolution has been on the books long enough to develop new weapons that do the same thing, non-chemically. I also don't care to submit a clarification resolution because A) If it ain't broke, don't fix it and B) It's Illegal as all hell.
They just want to keep the ban on chemical weapons in effect, no matter how bad it is, because they do not want to take the chance that once a repeal is passed, a replacement may not prove successful, and in that vein they imply that they do not trust those committed to proposing replacement legislation.

Again, I accede the point because it means exactly what I said. A new ban on chemical weapons has a chance of failing. It also has a chance of being worse than the previous. It also has a chance of being too strict on the definition, and hence far too narrow to do good. It also has a chance of doing literally nothing different from the previous one. No matter what happens, it definitely drops a ban on destructive, horrible weapons for a matter of at least a week, only to clear up an issue of domestic violence that isn't even an issue. Why should I put my trust in the writers of a replacement when they put so little trust in my ability to think critically about what they're writing?

The standing resolution is simply not effective, and needs to be replaced. You cannot get around it with creative interpretation or some (illegal) modification (which I have yet to see from anyone opposed to this repeal). The current resolution needs to be repealed, so that a more effective one can take its place.

Pojonia has enough prior argumentation put forth ignored to stand on said arguments and simply say "Lies". Cross apply, cross apply, cross apply.

But to even temporarily disable a ban on larger chemical weapons is folly, and for such a useless issue as domestic weapons a double folly.
Again, as I said to Groot Gouda, there is no increased risk of war-time chemical weapons use if this resolution were repealed. I'll quote, again, the active clause in the resolution:

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

There is no provision against possession and use of chemical weapons. Powerhungry Chipmunks could still have very large stores of war-time chemical weapons from stockpiling occuring right before the passage of "Ban Chemical Waepons". My nation could still use chemical weapons in conflict.

What is the increased risk if we repeal this sucker?

And to those who still think that the interpretation is absolute despite the descending weight of logic pressing down upon them, I have this to say to you: Buy a bloody taser.
I'll summarize your points as (1) "Nations interpret resolutions omitted meanings", and (2) tasers are safe and can replace mace.

To (1), though I've long been an advocate for nations deciding things, I should note that you do not have "the descending weight of logic pressing down upon" you opponents. The Most Glorious Hack (a mod, one of those most involved in the UN), I believe, has said that he interprets the UCPL as a warrant for the UN to rewrite all the laws in every nation. In the case of the UCPL, it simple says that a uniform copyright/patent law must be adopted and it does not specify which (much as this proposal does not define what is and is not a "chemical weapon"). According to that interpretation of UCPL, it could easily be extrapolated that what is a "chemical weapon" in the resolution "ban Chemical Weapons" is up to the UN. I'm not a fan of that, nor am I certain it to be true. But, there are many who believe that way.

(2), is, in my opinion, a copout. First, tasers are likely to inflict just as much pain as a mace. They are not the "safe" option, in my opinion, as I'm pretty sure there have been documented cases of them causing heart failure and arithmias, etc. I'm not advocating the banning of tasers, but I surely do not see them as a "safe alternative" to the "unsafe" mace sprays.

But to even temporarily disable a ban on larger chemical weapons is folly, and for such a useless issue as domestic weapons a double folly.
Well said.
I agree it is a cute turn of phrase (and, thus, "well said"), but I think it's very innacurate.

In short, if Powerhungry Chipmunks and Bagdadi Georgia were to go to war tomorrow, my nation could wield chemical weapons: without having to leave the UN.

If there is no risk of increased chemical weapons use (since chemical weapons are already possible to use in UN nations), there is no folly in repealing this resolution, however temporarily. Again, there is no substantial control over chemical weapons in the UN that is being "disabled", as Pojonia assert, by the repeal of this resolution.

In fact, if you care for a ban on the use of chemical weapons, you should support the repeal so a replacement can be passed.

You know, I said a lot of serious things in the last three arguments I presented. I'm pretty sure, however, I didn't say "-snip-". Your complete non-response is fully unappreciated.

Even if you do not believe the ban on chemical weapons affects mace and pepper spray (which I continue to believe it does), why promote and protect vague legislation? Also, why promote legislation that still allows for the use of chemical weapons? Any nation that has chemical capabilities can massively stockpiled its weapons stores before joining the UN or before the resolution came into effect--and still use chemical weapons in wartime.

Or, for that matter, they can massively stockpile while the resolution is repealed. Hurrah for all these opportunities.

I understand what you're thinking, Chipmunks, but what you're presenting is a problem and your repeal is not a solution. Let me suggest an alternative:

Since you can't amend the resolution, propose a parrallel, non-overlapping resolution, decommissioning chemical weapons still in existence. Not as an addendum, but as a seperate resolution in itself. You even have the precedent to do so - the resolution itself says, in a non-active clause, "take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence."

All you have to remember is that a resolution banning production and sale of chemical weapons is different from reducing the amount of weapons in existence - therefore, not illegal. What you're doing right now is adding to the problem and then creating a solution that I frankly worry will not work. A resolution does not have to cover every side of an issue, regardless of the non-amendment rule.

If you don't believe me, at least give it the litmus - write up the resolution and submit it to the mods first. You'd save me a lot of worry.



I find it irritating that you slipped this in so very casually, but here it is by itself:
It protects war criminals in still allowing them to use chemical weapons.

True, but war criminals would use chemical weapons regardless. Still, it seems more likely that they would use less illegal weapons to kill people if they were easier to get - and it's not as though they have a real advantage over non-criminal nations considering the vast array of other weapons we have.

You know, I said a lot of serious things in the last three arguments I presented. I'm pretty sure, however, I didn't say "-snip-". Your complete non-response is fully unappreciated.

Please don't patronize me for saving forum readers a complete repost of your post. I respect you enough to believe you know what you said, and "-snip-"'s are common practice on these forums.

And, if I remember correctly, you were just lecturing another poster on not using ad hominem attacks. So, please keep your focus on the arguments I present, not on me or my posting styles.

I understand what you're thinking, Chipmunks, but what you're presenting is a problem and your repeal is not a solution.
Why is it not a solution? I'm not going to focus on your suggestions, since they have neither a draft, nor a telegam campaign, nor are they up for vote. The repeal is. The replacement is in draft. And it will have a telegram campaign. There are often very limited opportunities to put in place legislatoin, and those opportunities typically only come after a large amount of effort. Why waste this one because the grass is greener on the other side?

Allow us to see what exactly UN nations will be allowed to do that they will be able to do in the interim between repeal and replacement (should both pass) that they weren't able to do before:
produce chemical weapons traffic chemical weapons

Now, the question we must ask is, will a short period of time of these two being allowed increase the use of chemical weapons? The short answer is No. At least, not really. If nations already have a huge supply of them from their stockpiles, and have always been allowed to use them, then they're already using them, without much care for their supply. Also, all a nation must do is leave the UN for a day to restock its chemical weapons. This repeal is likely not to change the use or quantity of chemical weapons much should it pass.


If you don't believe me, at least give it the litmus - write up the resolution and submit it to the mods first. You'd save me a lot of worry.
No. If you think it's a good alternative you should submt it to the mods. I have neither the time nor the will to do this. But, since you seem to be convinced it's the best possibility, I'm sure you have enough of both of those to spare to present a draft to the mods.

Besides that, I think it's fairly unlikely to get a clear enough multi-mod approval for it until after this repeal is finished being voted upon.

I find it irritating that you slipped this in so very casually, but here it is by itself:It protects war criminals in still allowing them to use chemical weapons.
True, but war criminals would use chemical weapons regardless. Still, it seems more likely that they would use less illegal weapons to kill people if it meant they would draw less attention
I still don't see how a replacement which does prohibit the use of chemical weapons would not deter war criminals much more than the current resolution.

If Power-Hungry Chipmunks is content to respond to the question of whether or not he has the desire to write up a resolution, by replying that he has "neither the time nor the will", then may I ask why he put forwards the repeal in the first place.

"I still don't see how a replacement which does prohibit the use of chemical weapons would not deter war criminals much more than the current resolution."

Compadria has only one thing to say to this:

"Huh?"

Are you trying to say that any prohibition is useless, because it will be violated anyway, or that the resolution needs more specifics so that it can prevent the use of chemical weapons more effectively? A clarification here would be welcome.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Please don't patronize me for saving forum readers a complete repost of your post. I respect you enough to believe you know what you said, and "-snip-"'s are common practice on these forums.

For whom? Ignoring an argument completely and then rewriting it on your own terms is not just irritating, it's unethical. Respond to what has been said, rephrase if you feel it needs clarification, but don't ignore a person completely. You didn't respond to my first post, either.
And, if I remember correctly, you were just lecturing another poster on not using ad hominem attacks. So, please keep your focus on the arguments I present, not on me or my posting styles.
I'm attempting to draw your attention to the fact that you aren't presenting arguments, just taking what I say and fragmenting/distorting it. It's not your style I'm concerned about, it's your refutation. An ad hominem focuses entirely on your personal character as a way of diverting attention from your arguments. I'm saying (albeit in an annoyed and sarcastic manner, for which I apologize) that you aren't refuting my arguments - that's different.

Why is it not a solution? I'm not going to focus on your suggestions, since they have neither a draft, nor a telegam campaign, nor are they up for vote. The repeal is. The replacement is in draft. And it will have a telegram campaign. There are often very limited opportunities to put in place legislatoin, and those opportunities typically only come after a large amount of effort. Why waste this one because the grass is greener on the other side?
I do not see this as being a limited opportunity - in my experience, any resolution that is well thought out, given a solid campaign (even one person can do it, if he has the time), and not terribly contraversial ("Hey, using chemical weapons is bad!") then it will at the very least go to vote and more likely pass.

The "Grass is greener" argument is yours, not mine. I wish to stay on what ground we have, not repeal the argument for the concept of greener grass. At best, I hope to cultivate what we have with other resolutions, not destroy it completely in an attempt to regrow. Don't shove words down my throat, I'll simply return them to you somewhat chunkier.

Allow us to see what exactly UN nations will be allowed to do that they will be able to do in the interim between repeal and replacement (should both pass) that they weren't able to do before:
produce chemical weapons traffic chemical weapons

Now, the question we must ask is, will a short period of time of these two being allowed increase the use of chemical weapons? The short answer is No. At least, not really. If nations already have a huge supply of them from their stockpiles, and have always been allowed to use them, then they're already using them, without much care for their supply. Also, all a nation must do is leave the UN for a day to restock its chemical weapons. This repeal is likely not to change the use or quantity of chemical weapons much should it pass.

A week is a very long time, especially if you consider that nations have been sitting on these weapons since the resolution was passed. It's not hard to draw up the paperwork (whatever paperwork there is) now, sell massive quantities in a week, and then cease moving them at the end of the week. Indeed, it makes the nations who don't use the weapons lots and lots of money, and it gives the weapons to the nations that do. So, yes, it is going to change the use of weapons quite considerably, if not the production. But then, how long does it take to make a chemical weapon, especially if you have all the materials ready and at hand?

No. If you think it's a good alternative you should submt it to the mods. I have neither the time nor the will to do this. But, since you seem to be convinced it's the best possibility, I'm sure you have enough of both of those to spare to present a draft to the mods.
This I will consider, though I am a bit on the lazy side (Ha! Ad hom - wait...). Altogether it sounds like a bit of fun. But I'm actually dead certain that a parrallel resolution would work if worded properly, so I would rather just submit it directly as a proposal.

Besides that, I think it's fairly unlikely to get a clear enough multi-mod approval for it until after this repeal is finished being voted upon.
Which is fine by me. I don't mind stepping carefully for now.


I still don't see how a replacement which does prohibit the use of chemical weapons would not deter war criminals much more than the current resolution.
But what I'm saying is that the problem is not solved by this repeal, and can be solved in other ways. It's not an issue of whether or not I want to deter war criminals more, it's an issue of how best to do it.

Yup, since so many criminals rape women at mace-point...:rolleyes:

But, seriously, mace and pepper spray are not viable offensive tools. They are short-ranged, and only carry the threat of pain, not death. Handguns, knives, explosive devices, which this repeal and the legilsation have no bearing on, in contrast are viable as offensive weapons, not mace and pepper spray, because they have the ability to leverage the threat of death against the victim. I think most assailants with a mace bottle would be laughed at rather than heeded.

You're making an RL reference here. In our nations it is possible criminal rape women at mace point BEFORE the resolution 'Ban on Chemical Weapons' passed. Erasing that and making chemical weapons available to the public opens up new possibilities.

Ah yes, isn't pain much worse than death? And wouldn't injuring another making it easier to kill, rape, mug etc?

<opinion>I understand what you're trying to say however, and the base for your repeal is a noble one, but it greatly lack the acknowledgement of possible backfire. </opinion>

Cheers ;)
Dgdg

I'll summarize your points as (1) "Nations interpret resolutions omitted meanings", and (2) tasers are safe and can replace mace.

How very kind of you to summarize in 12 words the position I've been expanding and clarifying for several hundred. How about I resummarize, and strengthen a little:

1) In the case of a U.N. proposal affecting Nations laws, where a definition is not given or is unclear, Nations have the right to apply their own legal definitions in interpreting the resolution within reasonable limits. This resolution provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.

2) In the event that a ban on chemical weapons does, by a misinterpretation or a fluke logical loop that I have missed, ban pepper spray and tear gas, alternatives have likely already been developed that are non-chemical and likely safer. Even if this is not true, alternatives are already in existence can be substituted (Tasers).

3) The repeal of a Chemical Weapons ban creates a window of opportunity for massive sales and hasty, even unsafe production of chemical weapons, in addition to creating the chance that a replacement resolution will fail, have a loophole accidentally put in place, or be too narrow to properly protect.

4) Anything the previous resolution missed in banning can be outlawed through other means, via a parrallel resolution (not an amendment). Said resolution is a safer method of testing whether or not nations will vote on a resolution banning the use of chemical weapons in addition to the production and sale of said weapons.

5) Stuff I already forgot.

Don't take little pieces of my ideas and attempt to expand them into my argument, it's misrepresenting what I say and it makes me snippish.


According to that interpretation of UCPL, it could easily be extrapolated that what is a "chemical weapon" in the resolution "ban Chemical Weapons" is up to the UN. I'm not a fan of that, nor am I certain it to be true. But, there are many who believe that way.

Now this is a fascinating argument because it directly copies, on a larger scale, my first point. If it's entirely up to the U.N. (I.E. us) what a chemical weapon is, then why not simply say that it does not, in fact, include pepper spray and tear gas? The U.N. voting down this repeal would be a particularly good way of saying exactly that. Either way, it's an RP instance, and what you RP doesn't necessarily affect me. You can, for example, say that you just launched all of your nuclear weapons at me (I've had this happen once or twice). That doesn't mean that the little speck of pocket dimension I'm in suddenly goes up in a whiff of smoke and I lose a billion peeps. On the same note, what you interpret the resolution as saying doesn't affect me, and I'm saying that you can interpret the resolution to your own advantage as opposed to presenting a one-perspective repeal. That's why I vote on deliberately vague resolutions.

(2), is, in my opinion, a copout. First, tasers are likely to inflict just as much pain as a mace. They are not the "safe" option, in my opinion, as I'm pretty sure there have been documented cases of them causing heart failure and arithmias, etc. I'm not advocating the banning of tasers, but I surely do not see them as a "safe alternative" to the "unsafe" mace sprays.
Copout? Got it in one. This is another of those fine loopholes that essentially says "So what?" to your repeal - Argument 2. So we accidentally banned tear gas and pepper spray, the primary argument of your repeal (And, as a necessary addendum to prevent twisting, point 1 maintains we didn't). So what? We don't care. There's other weapons around that are just as effective if not more. I don't really care to debate whether or not tasers are safer than pepper spray - one burns your eyes with chemicals and the other gives you an electric shock, both of which are unhealthy and hard to measure against each other - but I am saying that the primary argument of the repeal means nothing. And that stands true regardless of which is safer.

UNR#107:

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

To avoid an amendment of #107, or a 'House of Cards' violation in regard to it, and to avoid the perception of a necessity to repeal #107, Listeneisse would work towards the following:

Create a parallel, stand-alone resolution for the creation of a new standing UN Committee, the Chemical Weapons Compliance Commission (CWCC), empowered to:

a) interpret clearly for UN member nations what constituted a 'chemical weapon (CW),' and what did not fall under such provisions,

b) abide by all standing UN resolutions covering chemical weapons (CW), including but not limited to, their development, production, domestic or international sale or trafficking, stockpiling, accidental or purposeful use, destruction or decommissioning, and any regimes to monitor, control or ban CW-related materiel or facilities.

c) create a schedule of what substances or materiel were to be clearly ruled as CW, and what substances or material were to be ruled as CW-convertible because of their dual-use (civil and weapons-grade) nature,

d) establish a program to catalog and track existing CW production facilities and stockpiles in nation states, and

e) compile evidence, conduct investigations, and otherwise monitor and report to the UN on the invention, development, production, instances of accidental discharge and purposeful use of CW,

f) report to the UN TPP on cases of CW used for genocide,

g) work with nations to develop programs and schedules for the safe destruction and decomissioning of CW in compliance and accord with any UN resolutions in effect.

It would not change the wording or effect of #107, it would be able to survive stand-alone whether #107 stood or was repealed, or whether new CW-affecting resolutions came along. But would indeed further #107's goals and concretely fulfill its wording to "take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence."

Thank you very much, Listeneisse. I would suggest that we move it off to a seperate thread to avoid horrendous confusion.

The Nation of Dor Eryn applauds the desire to make sure all UN resolutions are carefully worded so that they have no unintended side effects. While Dor Eryn will vote in favor of this proposal, I would like to make the suggestion that in future correctional proposals of this type the author places a commitment to passing an alternative version of the bill to be repealed in the proposal.

Alexander Fisher
Ambassador to the UN
Dor Eryn, Locus Crustulorum Multorum

As I see this very possibly not passing, we need an AMENDMENT allowing the use of Pepper Spray and Tear Gas. Not allowing our citizens, especially women, to carry these non-lethal means of protecting themselves is irresponsible and careless. Do the members of the UN prefer bullets breaking up rioting crowds over Tear Gas? I would hope not.
I believe most people are against this repeal because is it a COMPLETE repeal of ALL chemical weapons, which I am also against. I believe what we truly need here is an AMENDMENT to allow these much more safe and practical forms of protection. Many women each year stop rapists and other attackers with Pepper Spray, I do not wish to see the people of Canditas fall victim to these criminals when there is something that could be done about it.

Hrmph. Newbies. Grumble, grumble.

If I have read the rules correctly, amendments are illegal.

It is not possible to directly amend UN Resolutions. They can only be repealed and new ones passed.

However, that said, it is quite possible to define resolutions that complement other resolutions which do not overtly refer to each other. This is to avoid the 'House of Cards' violation for UN Resolution writing.

Both of these restrictions were foremost in my mind when authoring the following:

DRAFT PROPOSAL: Chemical Weapons Compliance Commission (CWCC) (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=442259)

It does not in of itself require #107 to stand or be repealed.

If #107 stands, it would support its enforcement.

It expressly clarifies and affirms the rights of nations to use non-lethal, non-persistent substances (pepper spray or tear gas) for legitimate civilian use, such as riot control, law enforcement and personal defense, while acknowledging they may be considered dual-use if enhanced, modified or applied as CW -- in which case, such modification or application would be banned under #107.

If I have read the rules correctly, amendments are illegal.
You have, and they are.

A quick hush falls on the floor as The Prime Minister of the Capitalist Wing, King Hassan the Chop of The City by the Live Sea walks to the podium accompanied by a zit-faced costumed super hero--Some whisper in awe "the Spleen...."

My fellow members of the UN:

This can be a very momentous occassion. The end of the lefty controlled rule of no chemical weapontry within this dessimated walls. For standing by my side is the very famous super hero, The Spleen, who has the amazing ability to incapacitate anyone with just one pull of his finger.

Scince the original ban of chemical warfare, The Spleen has been taking Beano and Alka seltza continuously. Little old ladies have been mugged and taken advantage of in their own neighborhoods. And underdeveloped third world nations have been dictated to by socialist liberal nations without being able to defend themselves.

What is worst yet is that these lefty socialists have denied The Spleen of his ability to earn a living at what he does best. For now the spleen is janitor at the Champion City livestock pavillion.

Sooooo What I am saying is that a vote of yeah will help protect the weak...Not just from criminals but also from YOU you left winged socialist pieces of garbage. :mad:

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
--by my own Hand

---As the Prime Minister and The Spleen walk down the aisle way, just after passing the positioning of the delegate from Canada6, King Hassan the Chop trips on the rug and as he goes to fall down accidentally reaches out for help from The Spleen and consequently pulls his finger...

Sooooo What I am saying is that a vote of yeah will help protect the weak...Not just from criminals but also from YOU you left winged socialist pieces of garbage. :mad:The ban on chemcial weapons does not serve to limit wars based on diferences in ideologies, (no resolution could) but rather to limit, the damage done to human life when those wars happen.


---As the Prime Minister and The Spleen walk down the aisle way, just after passing the positioning of the delegate from Canada6, King Hassan the Chop trips on the rug and as he goes to fall down accidentally reaches out for help from The Spleen and consequently pulls his finger...Amusing... :rolleyes:
By the way... in case you can't read... I voted in favour of this repeal.

You're excused.

If Power-Hungry Chipmunks is content to respond to the question of whether or not he has the desire to write up a resolution, by replying that he has "neither the time nor the will", then may I ask why he put forwards the repeal in the first place.
Because (1) regardless of the legislation that may or may not replace it, this resolution, I feel, is causing harm to UN nations. Every moment in which it's passage would be delayed by the drafting of a replacement beforehand, and every crime that would occur during that time, I would feel personally upon my head.

(2) There is as much urgent need for a replacement as there has always been. The original resolution does not stop UN nations from using or possessing chemical weapons. War-time weapons are being used, as we speak, in UN conflict. Thus I feel there is little or no danger in any delay between repeal and replacement.


"I still don't see how a replacement which does prohibit the use of chemical weapons would not deter war criminals much more than the current resolution."

Compadria has only one thing to say to this:

"Huh?"

Are you trying to say that any prohibition is useless, because it will be violated anyway, or that the resolution needs more specifics so that it can prevent the use of chemical weapons more effectively? A clarification here would be welcome.

Yes, I am saying that the original resolution is useless. I'm saying it's useless because it does nothing to stop the use or possession of chemical weapons. It claims that chemical weapons are dangerous, and many voted For the resolution under the aegis of increased humanity in war-time, or greater overall peace. However, the resolution has not stopped the use or possession of chemical weapons, just the trafficking and production of it.

I'm sorry, but the atrocities people use as cases against chemical weapons do not occur because a nation produces or trafficks those weapons: they occur because of use.

There are those who are worried that there will be a threat to general peace during the interim between repeal and Ausserland's replacement. I'm simply correcting them that they will only be in as much danger to chemical attack from UN nation as they've always been. Since chemical weapons and the "atrocities" that result from them are already fully (and legally) used, I say that the interim between repeal and replacement will carry no substantially greater risk of chemical weapons use than the period before and since the "Ben Chemical Weapons" resolution was passed.

That having been said, I am in favor of leaving the ban in place. If there are going to be tools used for riot control, I would suggest looking into restraining devices and barriers.
1) barriers and restraining devices? those only work when a riot is anticipatable. What about mobs that crop up unexpectedly (such as, in RL, in New Orleans)? And 2) What about individual victims of violent crimes? Do you recommend they use restraining devices and barriers, too?

Chemical weapons, when used for riot control, only serve to move the disturbance from one location to another. They do not reduce the level of violence as much as displace it. It seems like a very NIMBY way of thinking. Restraints, however, will reduce the level of violence. Granted it may take two or three law enforcement officers to hogtie a rioter with zip strips, but they are out of action until they can be dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is greater accountability for law enforcement. In the minds of some law enforcement officials, there is this idea that if a weapon is non-lethal, it's ok to use on anyone for any reason. After all, it's not going to kill them, right? At least when a law enforcement officer cracks someone over the head with a riot baton, there's intent, reasonable control over the amount of force used, and accountability after the fact. A law enforcement officer that shoots a tear gas cannister into a crowd is not going to expect, or be expected, to be held accountable for the damages that result from such an action.

As far as individual victims of violent crimes, non-lethal weapons will only make criminals that learn from their mistakes. A stilleto to the groin is much more effective at stopping a rapist than pepper spray. In cases of violent crimes, there is a legitimate reason to expect mortal peril and in such a case, use of deadly force is acceptable. Crime victims are not trained law enforcement professionals, so they are permitted to be a little careless in worrying about the safety of their attacker.

Finally, I can see somewhat of a "slippery slope" going on with permitting chemical weapons to be used for riot control. So, we say lachrymal agents are ok. They make people cry. What's to say that we couldn't use diuretic agents? It would definitely make rioters easier to find afterwards. Just follow your nose. Hell, why not just use very weak nerve agents? After all, law enforcement officers can start injecting people with atropine if it looks like they got too much of a whiff.

Chemical weapons are a genie that should remain corked in its bottle

For whom? Ignoring an argument completely and then rewriting it on your own terms is not just irritating, it's unethical. Respond to what has been said, rephrase if you feel it needs clarification, but don't ignore a person completely. You didn't respond to my first post, either.

Are you talking about "snip", or some other perceived injustice? "-snip-" is common forum protocol when one doesn't want to re-post a whole post.

I do not see this as being a limited opportunity - in my experience, any resolution that is well thought out, given a solid campaign (even one person can do it, if he has the time), and not terribly contraversial ("Hey, using chemical weapons is bad!") then it will at the very least go to vote and more likely pass.
Well, I do. I’ve worked hard on this campaign, have had discussions about this repeal on and off the forum since the resolution was first passed (which I notice no one who is now saying there’s no need for a repeal joined in on), and have now served as the impetus for Ausserland to write his or her own draft (which is stellarly written, in my opinion).

Maybe, in hindsight, a parallel resolution would be better (though I remain unconvinced of this), my point is that in the end the goal is the same, and this repeal is the option up for vote, not a parallel resolution.

The "Grass is greener" argument is yours, not mine.
That's how I interpret it. Suggesting something like "this non-repeal resolution is a better option" seems a lot to me like a "grass is greener" argument.

Don't shove words down my throat, I'll simply return them to you somewhat chunkier.
:rolleyes: I thought you just apologized for responding sarcastically to me...


A week is a very long time, especially if you consider that nations have been sitting on these weapons since the resolution was passed. It's not hard to draw up the paperwork (whatever paperwork there is) now, sell massive quantities in a week, and then cease moving them at the end of the week. Indeed, it makes the nations who don't use the weapons lots and lots of money, and it gives the weapons to the nations that do. So, yes, it is going to change the use of weapons quite considerably, if not the production. But then, how long does it take to make a chemical weapon, especially if you have all the materials ready and at hand?
The sale of chemical weapons is going to increase its usage? How? If all the UN nations have chemical stockpiles (or have the option of having them if they but quit a day and stockpile them), how will nations buying more into their stockpiles increase use?


Now this is a fascinating argument because it directly copies, on a larger scale, my first point. If it's entirely up to the U.N. (I.E. us) what a chemical weapon is, then why not simply say that it does not, in fact, include pepper spray and tear gas?
No, I think you misunderstand. When I say "the UN", I mean the UN Gnomes, the Compliance Ministry, et al. In fact, the interpretation of UCPL that I cited is the opposite of the argument you made.

Copout? Got it in one. This is another of those fine loopholes that essentially says "So what?" to your repeal - Argument 2. So we accidentally banned tear gas and pepper spray, the primary argument of your repeal (And, as a necessary addendum to prevent twisting, point 1 maintains we didn't). So what? We don't care. There's other weapons around that are just as effective if not more.
My point is that we shouldn't be banning, purposefully or accidentally any devices which can help protect people reasonably well. Maces fit into that: as doing it reasonably well.

I mean, if the UN "accidentally" banned the having of two legs, there'd still be ways we could get around it (hopping on one leg, crutches, prosthetics), some of which might be better than the original bipedal construction (robotic legs). Why don't we pass the "Ban Two Legs" resolution?

Chemical weapons, when used for riot control, only serve to move the disturbance from one location to another. They do not reduce the level of violence as much as displace it. It seems like a very NIMBY way of thinking. Restraints, however, will reduce the level of violence. Granted it may take two or three law enforcement officers to hogtie a rioter with zip strips, but they are out of action until they can be dealt with properly. Furthermore, there is greater accountability for law enforcement.
As much as restraints and barriers may work in some circumstances, they will not work in all. Why tie the hands of my police officers because war-tme chemical weapons are "inhumane" (as is more or less argued by "Ban Chemical Weapons"). It smells a lot like oversight and bad government to me.

I mean, in the end, police officers could just shoot everyone and end the riot. Or police officers (enough of them) could end riots without any weapons or shields at all--fighting a la Muhammed Ali. Even though both these solution could work, why don't we make them a reality?

As far as individual victims of violent crimes, non-lethal weapons will only make criminals that learn from their mistakes. A stilleto to the groin is much more effective at stopping a rapist than pepper spray. In cases of violent crimes, there is a legitimate reason to expect mortal peril and in such a case, use of deadly force is acceptable. Crime victims are not trained law enforcement professionals, so they are permitted to be a little careless in worrying about the safety of their attacker.[emphasis added]

I'll be sure to tell all the rape victims in my area that it was their fault they were raped. Because they didn't wear the right heels.

Sorry, but I really don't see this as a legitimate argument.

Chemical weapons are a genie that should remain corked in its bottle
I take serious issue against this. Chemcial weapons, including VX nerve gas, Mustard Gas, etc., are not "corked in [their] bottle" with this resolution". Nations which have existing stockpiles of weapons (which are super-easy to obtain, just by quitting the UN for a day) can use those weapons in any sitaution. This resolution does nothing against them being possesed or used.

My apologies for the confusion. The stiletto I was referring to in my previous post was
http://www.switchblades.it/images/interi/1_itst_5_49.jpg

not

http://img.nextag.com/imagefiles/big/000/000/670/791/67079101.jpg

At any rate, I can see repealing this amendment will do more harm than good. It seems possible to create another amendment to include the text of this one and add on stricter provisions, or does that violate the amendment rule?

This should be repealed and a new law should be instated that bans the use of chemical weapons like the ones Mr. Bush thought Hussein had.

It's called "trying to achieve world peace". The fewer countries with chemical weapons, the better.

However, tear gas and pepper spray are considered chemical weapon agents. These are vital in riot-control and other extreme situations. Instead of an outright repeal, may I suggest an amendment allowing for the use of mild lachrymatory agents such as tear gas and pepper spray. The use of such agents are restricted to a country's police force and military.

Besides, pepper spray goes quite well with pastrami and mustard on rye.


One would hope that member states got that utopian idealism out of them in college. Here in the real world disarming yourself in a world of fools is folly and irresponsible to your nation's citizens. If your nation wants to ban chemical weapons within your borders do that. Be that peacenik pansy. Do not however demand that all states must abide by your wish or vision. The UN should not attempt to push world peace through fantasy but through force and rationality. The secure states are armed states.

At the end of the day the ban on chemical weapons is wrong. It is something that should be left to the individual members to decide whether or not they want any kind of weapons. Repeal this travesty of hippie useless utopian idealism.

Why can't a nation arm itself as it sees fit?

The original resolution does not stop UN nations from using or possessing chemical weapons.This is a facetious argument.

You do not need to repeal the original proposal to pass a new proposal to ban their use or possession.

UNR#107 "RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence."

So where in that would there be a conflict to make a new resolution declaring a ban on their use by UN member nations?

Or another resolution calling for a specific timetable for the reduction or entire destruction of stockpiles?

This is a misdirected argument based on a false dilemma. Arguing for a repeal of something that it covers (production and trafficking) rather than actually ask for what you are suggesting in a new proposal (use and reduction or elimination of inventories).

This is a facetious argument.

You do not need to repeal the original proposal to pass a new proposal to ban their use or possession.

UNR#107 "RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence."

So where in that would there be a conflict to make a new resolution declaring a ban on their use by UN member nations?

Or another resolution calling for a specific timetable for the reduction or entire destruction of stockpiles?

This is a misdirected argument based on a false dilemma. Arguing for a repeal of something that it actually covers cover (production and trafficking) rather than actually ask for what you are suggesting in a new proposal (use and reduction or elimination of inventories).

Must... resist... urge to hug...

All the more reason for keeping the bill in place, wouldn't you think?

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner however any who use Chemical weopans in war wil have to prepare to face many a strong nation invading, prentending to be grabbing land for morale reasons. Bad publicity will be the least of the problems of Mr Chemical, the small nations should seek protection from big nations as I have done.

Do you not trust the big nations?

The resolution attempting to be repealed:

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #107

Ban Chemical Weapons
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.


Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Mayakovskia

Description: The United Nations,

NOTING the positive consequences of Resolution 16, "Elimination of Bio Weapons", to global security and human welfare;

NOTING ALSO the precedents set by the following Resolutions: 40 (Banning the use of Landmines); 51 (Children in War); 57 (Reduce Black Market Arms Sales); 75 (The Nuclear Terrorism Act); 83 (The Eon Convention on Genocide); and 92 (Humanitarian Intervention) and their positive contributions to global security and human welfare;

REGRETTING that, although there are specific laws banning the trafficking and use of biological and nuclear weapons, there are as yet no such laws on chemical weapons;

BELIEVING that the world should be free of chemical weapons, as it now is of biological weapons;

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

Votes For: 10,006
Votes Against: 7,109

Implemented: Wed Jun 15 2005

The repeal attempt:

Repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"
A proposal to repeal a previously passed resolution


Category: Repeal
Resolution: #107
Proposed by: Powerhungry Chipmunks

Description: UN Resolution #107: Ban Chemical Weapons (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The United Nations,

UNDERSTANDING the sentiment against chemical weapons, which can cause large-scale destruction, present in "Ban Chemical Weapons",

NOTING, HOWEVER the precedent of the UN to allow citizens in member nations a reasonable level of self-protection, as well as the precedent for member nations to encourage the preservation of order and lawfulness within their boundaries,

RECOGNIZING that tear gas and smoke ordnance, which are chemical ‘weapons’ used by some nations to justly enforce the law and preserve order, are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

RECOGNIZING that mace and pepper sprays, which are vital chemical mechanisms for innocent civilians in defending themselves from dangerous criminals (especially in cases of robbery, assault, and rape), are banned by “Ban Chemical Weapons”,

REALIZING "Ban Chemical Weapons" unfortunately makes no differentiation between war-time chemical weapons and peace-time chemical ‘weapons’, affecting them all,

GRIEVING the loss to police enforcement and persons in urban areas (especially women in urban areas) of these vital chemical tools for law enforcement and self-protection:

REPEALS "Ban Chemical Weapons".

Votes For: 3,197

Votes Against: 3,645

[Delegate Votes]

Voting Ends: Wed Sep 7 2005

My conclusions:

1. UNDERSTANDING portion: Fluff material, of no importance to the presented text. In no way actually assures the reader that the author understands or intends to understand.

2. NOTING portion: Misinformation. Precedent is not established. The established precedent is for the UN to be rid of defense mechanisms it views as bad or unnecessary and protect the ones it views as necessary. This conclusion comes from a reading of NSWiki and reading past discussions on weapons bans. In simplicity: This portion of the repeal attempt is false.

3. First RECOGNIZING portion: A chemical weapon is one utilized for military purposes. The mace you find your typical police officer using is actually a crowd control or criminal subduing weapon. Logically, they are not banned. This portion of the repeal attempt is false.

4. Second RECOGNIZING portion: This is a redundant portion, already covered by the preceeding portion. As such, it is a waste of space and effort to read. See #3 for the rebuttal. This portion of the repeal is false.

5. REALIZING portion: This is merely a redundant continuation of the first RECOGNIZING and could have easily been included in that portion. Thus, see #3. This portion of the repeal attempt is false.

6. GRIEVING portion: This is a continuation of the first RECOGNIZING portion and is a waste of space. See #3. This portion of the repeal attempt is false.

Sample statement from the author that I feel summarizes their entire reason for wanting this repealed:

The original resolution does not stop UN nations from using or possessing chemical weapons.

Statement from the original resolution in regards to that:

RESOLVES to ban all production and trafficking in chemical weapons, and to take steps towards the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence.

Conclusion: The author's defense of the repeal attempt is based on not knowing the actual resolution, or the fact that it's last portion allows fully for resolutions to be passed to do the purpose of stopping the use of chemical weapons. In simplicity, the author is basing their discussion on a problem that is easily remedied by passing further legislation.

Secondary Conclusion: The repeal effort is based on falsehoods and misinterpretations. Some of these stretch back to erroneous discussions made at the time of the ban. Further study of the actual resolution should be made before this is attempted again.

Minor? Violent crimes occur every day. Murder. Theft. Assault. Rape. These, by their very nature impose themselves upon innocent people. National conflicts in which the horrors of war-time chemical weapons would be used occur sparingly, and usually upon voluntary combatants.

I think you have it backwards as to which is a "minor" problem and which is a "major" problem


I am referring to the weapon as minor, not crime.


Actually, that's not necessarily true. In fact, precedent of UN rules seems to says otherwise...


Where? At least research it first before making a blanket statement.


What? How do you come to that conclusion? There isn't a single qualitative statement made about chemical weapons anywhere in the quoted portion.


You and the resolution maker are also making statements that these substances are chemical weapons wtihout having a qualitative statement made. The INTENT of the resolution is to ban those that are weapons of mass harm.


According to UN rules, there cannot be a replacement until after there is a repeal. We cannot replace this unless my repeal goes through.


Read the UN security resolution.


This suggests, to me, 2 things about you: 1) that you're male 2) that you do not live in an urban setting.


That is rather presumptuous of you, yes, I am male, however I do live in an urban setting and do know of the crimes of which you speak. This further however validates these arguments that these weapons are chemical weapons but are instead deterrents of everyday use.


I can probably count the number of times, in RL, that chemical weapons have been used in major armed conflict in the past score of years, on just my hands. However, I could never count the number of rapes, murders, and other violent acts that occur daily, even on 50 peoples' fingers and toes. I hardly believe that a few instances of genocide and military misjudgment outweigh the hundreds of thousands who suffer at the hands of criminals.


Forgive me for being presumptuous as you have been, however, if you had experienced beyond the "urban setting", over the last 50 years, one would see the effect chemical weapons have on the world, certainly more than a "few".

Criminals can be handled by appropriate law enforcement policies including these deterrents which are not chemical weapons.

Why are chemical weapons unnecessary?

If you are a member of a small nation, threatened by invasion of a large nation, you have the following recourse:

1. Ask for national or regional allies to intercede against the nation provoking hostilities.

2. Ask for a defender region (such as Warzone of the Defenders) to intercede to defend and stablize your region.

3. Ask for the UN to intercede through a resolution if the conflict continues and escalates.

All this can be done even if you are being invaded by a non-UN nation.

Non-UN member nations can avail themselves of UN member nations individually if they so desire, or have UN member nations sponsor to make pleas and resolutions on their behalf.

You have many choices to avail yourself of long before reaching for the XV nerve gas.

What if you are attacked with chemical weapons? Having chemical weapons does not in any way deter chemical weapons from being used against you.

In none of these provisions are chemical weapon defenses prohibited. Nor is chemical weapons defense research or funding.

However, the only way to truly ensure that you are safe from chemical weapons attacks is to prevent nations from building them in the first place.

If you are a small nation, say, of 5 million to even 50 million inhabitants, there are nation states out there that can field military forces greater than your entire population. Their budgets for defense easily dwarf your budget to acquire chemical weapons.

Rely on a friend like that long before you begin down the path of weapons designed to cause harm of unmitigated cruelty.

It also limits nonlethal chemical weapons intended for military use, which can effectively end a nation's ability to fight without loss of life. Such weapons are quite useful and not dangerous.

Vohteria votes against the repeal, as there seems to be no concrete plan, or promise to rebuild what the repeal would take away.

Vohteria

If you had read the early debates, you would know that already a replacement plan is ready as soon as the old flawed one is kicked out.

You do not need to repeal the original proposal to pass a new proposal to ban their use or possession.
Call me old-fashioned, but when a resolution fails in doing what it is supposed to do, I do not want to reward the author with keeping it on the list. This opinion of your would have been great when this repeal was in discussion. However, now that the repeal is on the floor, I'm not about to let it just fail so because you're second-guessing its need.
This is a misdirected argument based on a false dilemma. Arguing for a repeal of something that it covers (production and trafficking) rather than actually ask for what you are suggesting in a new proposal (use and reduction or elimination of inventories).
I don't understand what you're saying in this. If you're attacking the fact that I argue for maces and sprays in the repeal text and have largely concentrated on use and possession here, I really don't see your point. All repeals must have a multiplicity of arguments. Otherwise they fail. My experience tells me that only a multiplicity of constituencies produce a majority in the UN. For me that includes those who interpret the resolution to ban maces and riot devices, and those who want to repeal it so it can be replaced with a better, more explanative resolution.

If that's not what you're talking about, I'm not really sure what to say (since I don't know what you're saying.)


Where? At least research it first before making a blanket statement. I think (if I'm remembering what I wrote that in response to), that I was referring to Hack's ruling on "UCPL": that the UN Gnomes and the Compliance Ministry determined for nations what undisclosed universal patent/copyright laws (undisclosed in the text of UCPL) would be forced upon all UN nations.

If this were the way resolutions are enacted, then "Ban Chemical Weapons" could very well include personal protection devices, riot gases, etc., as it would be the UN which decided how the resolution would be read.

You and the resolution maker are also making statements that these substances are chemical weapons wtihout having a qualitative statement made. The INTENT of the resolution is to ban those that are weapons of mass harm.
"Intent", I feel, is arbitrary and irrelevant. In laws, if the actual language of the legislation does not explicitly state a certain thing, then it is not considered part of the law.

Read the UN security resolution.
I have, but I'm not sure why you think it makes replacement before repeal legal.

That is rather presumptuous of you, I probably shouldn’t have made such a statement, and I apologize for any injury from it.

3. First RECOGNIZING portion: A chemical weapon is one utilized for military purposes. The mace you find your typical police officer using is actually a crowd control or criminal subduing weapon. Logically, they are not banned. This portion of the repeal attempt is false.
Well, as nice as it is that you don't think these are included in the definition of chemical weapons, I would again note that many are of the opinion that what you think is covered by "chemical weapons" doesn't matter, and that it is UN oversight that decides (in regards to the reading of UCPL I've been referring to). I'd rather not have my citizens personal safety resting in the hands of The Gnomes' interpretation (no offense, Hack), simply because of a horridly unspecific resolution.

And passing further legislation is a nice idea (though a little late in coming...), but I really don't see a different end result between it and the repeal and replace already up for vote. You say "toe-may-toe", I say "toe-maw-toe", in the end it's the same fruit. Why vote Against because I'm going about the same result a different way?

Vohteria votes against the repeal, as there seems to be no concrete plan, or promise to rebuild what the repeal would take away.

Vohteria

Actually there is a very concrete plan for replacement from a very smart player, Ausserland. It's right here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936

I agree with the power hungry chipmunks that this resolution does not make itself clear enough. If the act was repealed it would mean citizens and police could use mace and pepper spray to defend themselves making our countries alot safer. However I think the UN should then pass a resolution banning wartime chemical weapons.

Well, as nice as it is that you don't think these are included in the definition of chemical weapons, I would again note that many are of the opinion that what you think is covered by "chemical weapons" doesn't matter, and that it is UN oversight that decides (in regards to the reading of UCPL I've been referring to). I'd rather not have my citizens personal safety resting in the hands of The Gnomes' interpretation (no offense, Hack), simply because of a horridly unspecific resolution.

I do not see that much of a lack of specification in it as that much of a problem. If you are having issues with definitions, keep in mind you always will. Someone will always find a way to define a word in a way that allows them to get away with doing what they want anyway. You would require an expert legal team and three years of writing to get around this, and the resulting piece of legislation would be too long for submission guidelines.

And passing further legislation is a nice idea (though a little late in coming...), but I really don't see a different end result between it and the repeal and replace already up for vote. You say "toe-may-toe", I say "toe-maw-toe", in the end it's the same fruit. Why vote Against because I'm going about the same result a different way?

Because it's unnecessary legislation. The replacement is only going to have the same problems as this has, as will the replacement for that one. You need more words to work with in a single bill, not to replace ones that are functioning as intended to the degree they can.

Well, it seems we got carried away with our last post (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9579776&postcount=127), and we apologize to anyone offended.

Well, it seems we got carried away with our last post (forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9579776&postcount=127), and we apologize to anyone offended.
It was a good read, though. For your information - and this might interest you given your views on the political skew of the voting thusfar - the Anticapitalist Alliance, unashamedly of the left, is fairly evenly divided on whether or not to support the repeal.

Mathieu Vergniaud
Deputy Speaker to the UN

I believe I've done my job directly refuting you and presenting three or four key reasons to vote against (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9581241&postcount=144) that remain on the table. As those are still there, available for ponderance and refutation, I'm just gonna focus on a few things here that seem particularly obnoxious.

I don't understand what you're saying in this. If you're attacking the fact that I argue for maces and sprays in the repeal text and have largely concentrated on use and possession here, I really don't see your point. All repeals must have a multiplicity of arguments. Otherwise they fail. My experience tells me that only a multiplicity of constituencies produce a majority in the UN. For me that includes those who interpret the resolution to ban maces and riot devices, and those who want to repeal it so it can be replaced with a better, more explanative resolution.

All repeals must have a multiplicity of arguments, otherwise they fail. YOUR repeal has one argument, that it bans domestic units of suppression. You don't present any other arguments within the repeal, and as Listeneisse pointed out you conceal your general purpose from the public unless they have the time to go to the forums and dig it out. I certainly didn't find it until rereading the thread, by the time I joined in you had already switched tactics. So, repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons" < multiple arguments = fail, by your own weird logic.

And then there's the fact that your one argument isn't even true. This has been covered previously in so many different ways that you've minimized your argument from saying that this outright bans mace to hiding behind the mods, who have never, as far as I know, directly defined a word in a resolution. And then, despite the fact that you aren't sure that your one argument is true, you appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) by advocating yourself as crying over rape and violence, which you aren't doing anything to impede or accelerate.

Call me old-fashioned, but when a resolution fails in doing what it is supposed to do, I do not want to reward the author with keeping it on the list. This opinion of your would have been great when this repeal was in discussion. However, now that the repeal is on the floor, I'm not about to let it just fail so because you're second-guessing its need.

When a resolution reaches queue, that doesn't mean that you have to defend it to the death. Most U.N. members are primarily concerned with the resolution at hand, as a result, they may not offer you the flaws until you put it onto the table. Simply because we didn't tell you it was a bad piece of legislation THEN gives you no reason to continue to defend it now.

I have submitted a repeal, this morning, of "Ban Chemical Weapons". I find it flawed in that it doe not exempt peace-time chemical 'weapons' such as tear gas, mace, and smoke ordinance--which chemical 'weapons' are very important to law enforcement and civilian security.

Here's a link to the proposal (on page 8): http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/34863/page=UN_proposal/start=15 (Updated for Wednesday!)

Here is a text of the proposal:

Please approve this repeal, and give our citizens back the right to defend themselves.

Thank your for your time.
I think this is a very nice idea but it unbanning the war-time chemical weapons is a problem, my idea is that we should put up a resolution unbanning peace-time chemical weapons, like mace and tear gas and the like, but leaving war-time chemical weapons banned.
My nation still agrees on this repeal and have voted for it.

All repeals must have a multiplicity of arguments, otherwise they fail. YOUR repeal has one argument
Actually, it has more than one, in the sense that I’m talking about. Yes, the repeal text contains one argument, I believe, but I've been telegramming and discussing with others differing reasons for voting For the repeal, different arguments. That's what I'm talking about. Perhaps it's wiser to ask me about something I say that seems to make no sense, than to act as though I'm just saying "obnoxious" things, as you say. Misunderstanding is the enemy of communication and coexistence, not a catalyst to it.

And then there's the fact that your one argument isn't even true. This has been covered previously in so many different ways that you've minimized your argument from saying that this outright bans mace to hiding behind the mods, who have never, as far as I know, directly defined a word in a resolution.
That there is a possibility that it bans mace, pepper spray, riot ordnance, etc. is enough for me to act. And "hiding behind the mods" is actually a good strategy if you like writing, proposing, and passing legal legislation and as it is the mods who determine what is and isn't legal for proposals. I've merely pointed out how they have interpreted in the past, which makes, I feel, a solid case for the possibility that this would accidentally affect useful chemical devices.

And then, despite the fact that you aren't sure that your one argument is true, you appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) by advocating yourself as crying over rape and violence, which you aren't doing anything to impede or accelerate.
Actually, I'd call it consubstantiation, in the sense of rhetorical criticism, and I'd hadly call it a "logical fallacy" but a tool of communication. Realize, please, that we all have emotional and personal terministic screens which, much as a lens, determines how we see the world. But that my repeal attempt does not fit into your encompassing of the situation is hardly cause for it not to be so congruent in others' cosmic schema.

When a resolution reaches queue, that doesn't mean that you have to defend it to the death. Most U.N. members are primarily concerned with the resolution at hand, as a result, they may not offer you the flaws until you put it onto the table. Simply because we didn't tell you it was a bad piece of legislation THEN gives you no reason to continue to defend it now.
No, I continue to defend it because I do not feel it is a bad piece of legislation. You have not proven to me that a patch-work "use and possession" resolution is better. I see many advantages to repealing the old resolution and replacing it, which I can start to get into if you like.


And passing further legislation is a nice idea (though a little late in coming...), but I really don't see a different end result between it and the repeal and replace already up for vote. You say "toe-may-toe", I say "toe-maw-toe", in the end it's the same fruit. Why vote Against because I'm going about the same result a different way?

Because it's unnecessary legislation. The replacement is only going to have the same problems as this has, as will the replacement for that one. You need more words to work with in a single bill, not to replace ones that are functioning as intended to the degree they can.Having read Ausserland's draft, I think it much, much more adequately covers this issue than the current resolution. And, even if it were impossible to cover thios issue in one resolution, why not repeal this one and replace it with two more? If you want two resolutions to cover an issue, you might as well start writing both of them, because I'm fairly certain this would not pull it's weight in any sort of tag-team legislation.

In other words, I'm of the understanding that there are two major avenues of interpretation: 1.That with a lack of definition, the UN Compliance Ministry decides what are and aren't "chemical weapons", which means that mace and pepper spray could, accidentally and arbitrarily be banned just as much as VX and mustard gas 2.That with a lack of definition, this resolution does nothing since nations can "decide" VX isn't a "chemical weapons", in which case, this resolution is in the way of actual legislation banning the transfer and production of weapons by UN states

In case 1, an extra chemical weapons resolution will not be adequate to stop this one from outlawing good chemical devices (riot and personal protection devices). In case 2, this resolution would affect absolutely nothing and will almost certainly hold back a replacement (or replacements) from stopping transfer and production by virtue of duplication.

In my eyes, either interpretation brings us to the conclusion that the resolution must be repealed. That's why I'm fighting for this repeal.

Having read Ausserland's draft, I think it much, much more adequately covers this issue than the current resolution. And, even if it were impossible to cover thios issue in one resolution, why not repeal this one and replace it with two more? If you want two resolutions to cover an issue, you might as well start writing both of them, because I'm fairly certain this would not pull it's weight in any sort of tag-team legislation.

Actually, you're missing part of my point: We have a resolution in place that does its job adequately with the tools it has. The wording of it, however, allows for the fact we can write another resolution that is more specific to cover the other end. In effect, we can use the second one to cover up problems in the first and expand on them without worrying as much about having to be concise in definitions. We can devote most of that one to definitions that allows us to effectively define what chemical weapons are in a way that makes abuse difficult, while using this one to cover other aspects. We don't link the two, in case one gets repealed.

In other words, I'm of the understanding that there are two major avenues of interpretation: 1.That with a lack of definition, the UN Compliance Ministry decides what are and aren't "chemical weapons", which means that mace and pepper spray could, accidentally and arbitrarily be banned just as much as VX and mustard gas 2.That with a lack of definition, this resolution does nothing since nations can "decide" VX isn't a "chemical weapons", in which case, this resolution is in the way of actual legislation banning the transfer and production of weapons by UN states

Which is where a second, expanded resolution comes into play. Under the replacement draft, all I need to do is define what I consider the weapons to be carefully and I can still use them while being technically in compliance. A longer definition makes this extremely difficult.

In case 1, an extra chemical weapons resolution will not be adequate to stop this one from outlawing good chemical devices (riot and personal protection devices). In case 2, this resolution would affect absolutely nothing and will almost certainly hold back a replacement (or replacements) from stopping transfer and production by virtue of duplication.

Which stops another piece that covers the loopholes in this one in what way?

In my eyes, either interpretation brings us to the conclusion that the resolution must be repealed. That's why I'm fighting for this repeal.

In my eyes, it simply points out the problems inherent with the system. We need a lot of space to properly define something due to some members and simply don't have it. This is a golden opportunity in which half of the job is already done to write a resolution that can use the necessary space.

In case 1, an extra chemical weapons resolution will not be adequate to stop this one from outlawing good chemical devices (riot and personal protection devices). In case 2, this resolution would affect absolutely nothing and will almost certainly hold back a replacement (or replacements) from stopping transfer and production by virtue of duplication.

In my eyes, either interpretation brings us to the conclusion that the resolution must be repealed. That's why I'm fighting for this repeal.

There is a specific reason I started enumerating arguments, in particular because I knew you'd eventually lead the debate around in a circle. Cases 1 and 2 vs.
Argument 1) In the case of a U.N. proposal affecting Nations laws, where a definition is not given or is unclear, Nations have the right to apply their own legal definitions in interpreting the resolution within reasonable limits. This resolution provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.

You mentioned that in the second case - my example - that nations have the ability to define VX Gas as something other than a chemical weapon. To which I simply refer you back to my very first post:

this ones simple - if a resolution doesn't give a specific definition of a word or phrase - such as "chemical weapons" - then the nation though forced to obey under Gnommish influence can still interpret said definition how he or she chooses (within reasonable limits). Therefore, while nations CAN interpret this resolution as banning pepper spray, they don't necessarily have to - here are some definitions as looked up on the uberGoogle.


# Gases and chemicals that are developed for potential use in wartime against enemy troops, populations, or eco-systems.
www.icons.umd.edu/pls/reslib/display_glossary

# any weapon that uses a manufactured chemical. Modern chemical weapons tend to focus on agents with high killing power, meaning it requires small amounts of a chemical agent to kill large numbers of people. The most commonly feared agents include sarin, VX, mustard gas and lewisite. The most efficient way to spread chemical agents is through the air. A bomb or missile explosion, a crop-duster or other aircraft or small bombs or aerosol canisters released in crowded areas can successfully spread an agent.
http://www.sciencecoalition.org/glo...ossary_main.htm


So, while banning chemical weapons always bans the ones that we definitely want out, it's the nations choice to interpret as to whether or not to ban the others. Making all the arguments stated in the repeal null.

Essentially, you say that your two cases make sense because it's both possible and likely that mace be defined as a chemical weapon and that VX gas not be defined as such a weapons. However, it borders on legal absurdity to classify mace as a chemical weapon along with wartime weapons such as VX gas, and is both logical and legal absurdity to classify VX gas as not a chemical weapon - under no circumstances will you find a legal definition that excludes VX gas. Remember "Within reasonable limits?" Interpretation of a definition can only stretch so far. I say that both of your cases and the primary argument of the repeal are stretching the definition too far, and therefore illegal under the resolution banning chemical weapons.

That you have other arguments than those stated in the repeal is true, and I've covered these as well, but what we are voting on and what goes on the books if it passes is a folly of a repeal.

Actually, you're missing part of my point: We have a resolution in place that does its job adequately with the tools it has. The wording of it, however, allows for the fact we can write another resolution that is more specific to cover the other end. In effect, we can use the second one to cover up problems in the first and expand on them without worrying as much about having to be concise in definitions. We can devote most of that one to definitions that allows us to effectively define what chemical weapons are in a way that makes abuse difficult, while using this one to cover other aspects. We don't link the two, in case one gets repealed.That's my contention, that the current legislation isn't doing anything, or it could inadvertently be hurting riot ordnance and pepper sprays.

-> If the wording of the resolution is interpretted by individual nations, then all I have to do is define the chemcial weapons there as sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid, and my nation can still produce and traffick VX and other real chemcial weapons. In this case the resolution is getting in the way of real legislation which might realistically stop production and trafficking of chemical weapons.

-> If the compliance ministry control what is defined by "chemical weapon" then it could full well be that peaceful, useful devices as described in my repeal text, are being banned just as much as war time nerve agents. If this is the case, I feel this resolution must be repealed, so that it is clear that the UN idd not vote to ban mace and tear gas.

Either way, I feel the resolution needs to be repealed, as either way I feel the job is beyond just adding a second chemical weapons resolution.

That's my contention, that the current legislation isn't doing anything, or it could inadvertently be hurting riot ordnance and pepper sprays.

-> If the wording of the resolution is interpretted by individual nations, then all I have to do is define the chemcial weapons there as sulfuric acid and hydrochloric acid, and my nation can still produce and traffick VX and other real chemcial weapons. In this case the resolution is getting in the way of real legislation which might realistically stop production and trafficking of chemical weapons.

-> If the compliance ministry control what is defined by "chemical weapon" then it could full well be that peaceful, useful devices as described in my repeal text, are being banned just as much as war time nerve agents. If this is the case, I feel this resolution must be repealed, so that it is clear that the UN idd not vote to ban mace and tear gas.

Either way, I feel the resolution needs to be repealed, as either way I feel the job is beyond just adding a second chemical weapons resolution.

And you are wrong.

By adding exact definitions in a second resolution, it doesn't matter who is checking the weapons. They have to check them against the exact definitions and, if the weapons are covered by that, classify them as chemical weapons. In order to do exact definitions, we need space. Well, what does this resolution provide by doing part of the job? Space. So, why not utilize it? To not utilized the opportunity is a waste.

Oh, the vote totals:

Votes For: 3,834

Votes Against: 4,342

Essentially, you say that your two cases make sense because it's both possible and likely that mace be defined as a chemical weapon and that VX gas not be defined as such a weapons. However, it borders on legal absurdity to classify mace as a chemical weapon along with wartime weapons such as VX gas, and is both logical and legal absurdity to classify VX gas as not a chemical weapon - under no circumstances will you find a legal definition that excludes VX gas. Remember "Within reasonable limits?" Interpretation of a definition can only stretch so far. I say that both of your cases and the primary argument of the repeal are stretching the definition too far, and therefore illegal under the resolution banning chemical weapons.
I'm not sure where you get the "within reasonable limits" phrase, except from your very own first post. If I'm remembering those that advocate for nations to define their own ambiguous definitions, they hardly had what I would consider "reasonable" definitions. I'm unconvinced (as of yet) that this is based in actual interpretation of resolutions.

Anyway, I'm tired of, as you say, going around in circles with this. I think the resolution is poor and possibly harmful. And thus I feel it needs repeal and replacement.

And you are wrong.I read this as "And[, in my opinion,] you are wrong." ;)
By adding exact definitions in a second resolution, it doesn't matter who is checking the weapons. They have to check them against the exact definitions and, if the weapons are covered by that, classify them as chemical weapons. In order to do exact definitions, we need space. Well, what does this resolution provide by doing part of the job? Space. So, why not utilize it? To not utilized the opportunity is a waste.
I'm pretty sure that adding exact definitions to another resolution cannot change the interpretation of this resolution. I'm pretty sure that would be an amendment.


Oh, the vote totals:
Hm...I'm trying to decide whether this is you attempting (unsuccessfully I might add) an adolescent dig at me, you trying to invade a thread I've authored with potential spam, or you tipping your hand as to your identity...

I'm still deciding.

I read this as "And[, in my opinion,] you are wrong." ;)

You read it right. ;)

I'm pretty sure that adding exact definitions to another resolution cannot change the interpretation of this resolution. I'm pretty sure that would be an amendment.

A definition of a chemical weapon and a ban on them? I think it's not. In any case, there are always going to be those who find a way around. At least we can make it harder for them.

Hm...I'm trying to decide whether this is you attempting (unsuccessfully I might add) an adolescent dig at me, you trying to invade a thread I've authored with potential spam, or you tipping your hand as to your identity...

I'm still deciding.

Sword down. I'm pointing out how close it is. This will be a tightly-fought issue. And, whether you win or lose, I get my definition, so either way I'm covered. All I'm trying to do is prevent what I see as an unnecessary legislative action.

I have voted against banning chemical weapons because police need to use tear gas to break up crowds or riots. Also, women need to use pepper spray to ward of her attackers. If we ban chemical weapons tear gas and pepper spray would be outlawed. Police would then have to use force to get through crowds or riots, which can result in people say that the police brutalized them. Also, women would then get raped or molested or abused since they will not have anything to use to ward of their attackers. Hitting the attackers with their purse or umbrella will just make the attacker more angry. One can use martial arts, but not every women knows how to do it. Plus sometimes the attacker might be very strong or the attacker might also know martial arts,which would be futile for the women.

By the way, PHC, to put aside arguments and negative rhetoric, simply taking the main point of your proposal at face value, and you have been 'fighting the good fight' for a true clarification on whether non-lethal, non-persistent chemical agents -- pepper spray and tear gas -- are allowable to UN member nations.

Ideologically, we are allied. We too wish these be formally interpreted as lawful means of self-defense, law enforcement and riot surpression.

It is simply the path we have chosen to arrive at that same conclusion which differs.

We believed the definition of a chemical weapon and chemical weapon agent was rather patently obvious, therefore, heretofore did not need clarification.

The interesting thing we debate now is what specifically the Compliance Ministry might have collected.

Did they simply ensure no further production of the 'well-known' substances? (mustard gas, VX, phosgene, sarin, etc...)?

Or did they stop 'too little' (chemicals under development and test in secret, unconventional weapons, hidden stockpiles from duplicitous nations)?

Or did they stop 'too much' (pepper spray, tear gas, white phosphorus smoke rounds, battery acid, all sulphur-based compounds, etc...)?

Our belief is they did their usual reasonable job, 'just about perfect' on the first point, but likely did not know to check unconventional weapons or weapons purposefully kept from their knowledge on the second point.

The the third we see as a moot point, in both the ancient and modern meanings of the term.

If we need the specifics to be clarified, definitions are on their way in other draft resolutions.

Why can't nations arm themselves as they see fit?

I approve the repeal, but I believe that another bill proposing the banning of chemical weapons will be submitted in a reasonable time. However, it will do no good to submit a new proposal quickly if issues such as non-lethal chemical weapons are not brought into scope and context.

I think Liliths Vengeance and Powerhungry Chipmunks need their own thread. ;)
Keep at it!

This is Powerhungry Chipmunks' thread. We have tangled long enough, and I think we've come to a standstill. I can't convince him and he can't convince me. There's nowhere to go at this point.

I'm not sure where you get the "within reasonable limits" phrase, except from your very own first post. If I'm remembering those that advocate for nations to define their own ambiguous definitions, they hardly had what I would consider "reasonable" definitions. I'm unconvinced (as of yet) that this is based in actual interpretation of resolutions.

When a resolution doesn't define a specific word, that doesn't mean that it possibly bans all sorts of random iterations of the same word. It simply means that there's a little more flexibility in how the law can be used. Under no circumstances will you find a credible definition of chemical weapons that does not ban VX gas. Under many circumstances you will find a definition that does not ban mace and tear gas. Simply because something has a chemical in it used to deter or disperse doesn't make it a chemical weapon. I don't know how much clearer I can make this without shouting it very slowly in your ear. Do you really think that someone who said that they didn't obey the Protection of Dolphins act because they defined dolphins as "Chinese White Dolphins" would get away with it? This isn't a difficult argument to wrap your head around, it's called common sense. When a definition is lacking on a resolution, common sense is used to fill in the blanks.

Your repeal argument, that mace must always be considered a chemical weapon, is decidedly lacking in common sense. It's more pseudo-logic, designed to attack the resolution in a sneaky, underhanded way to achieve your other goals which you did not put in the repeal. Do you see these posters above me, the ones who drop in their responses without checking out the rest of the thread? They're paying attention to the fallacial argument you placed in the repeal, not the arguments that you claim are so much more important. And as time has gone on even you have admitted that that argument is not directly true, that it is only a possibility. Your repeal stands on no ground but the bad logic that you placed within its text. On that ground, it falls. That's Argument 1. That's just one of the three reasons you vote against. I recede 2 completely, as it relies on you being right about mace being banned, which isn't true and doesn't follow any sort of common sense.

Anyway, I'm tired of, as you say, going around in circles with this. I think the resolution is poor and possibly harmful. And thus I feel it needs repeal and replacement.
I'm about done with what you think and feel - what you can prove is more important here. And you can't prove the basic argument of your repeal, on any basis that counts.

So, where are we at here? I'll bring these back around once again, just in case I'm getting a little too convoluted for all of you.

1) In the case of a U.N. proposal affecting Nations laws, where a definition is not given or is unclear, Nations have the right to apply their own legal definitions in interpreting the resolution within reasonable limits (I.E. to use common sense). This resolution provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.

2) The repeal of a Chemical Weapons ban
a) creates a window of opportunity for massive sales and hasty, even unsafe production of chemical weapons, in addition to
b) creating the chance that a replacement resolution will fail, have a loophole accidentally put in place, or be too narrow to properly protect.

3) Anything the previous resolution missed in banning can be outlawed through other means, via a parallel resolution (not an amendment). Said resolution is a safer method of testing whether or not nations will vote on a resolution banning the use of chemical weapons in addition to the production and sale of said weapons. A draft of said resolution has already been proposed and drawn out (Thank you Listeneisse)

Anything I missed?

Bravo!

To be clear, the CWCC, if you read carefully, does not itself impose bans on production or purchase of CW. While it further encourages the destruction of stockpiles, it does not mandate it.g) work with all member nations and any willing non-UN nations to develop programs and schedules for the safe destruction and decomissioning of CW.It simply sets up a commission for the monitoring and oversite of any or all UN resolutions related to CW, and would provide clarity and avenues of common research for those who needed to educate themselves more on the topic.

I was going to rate it as 'mild' because it was not a hard abolition.

I think our armed forces are required to have chemichal weapons because weapons of so called "mass" discruction can stop terrorist and hundreds of other attacks that are worse than just one.

this is an outrage that we ar not aloud to use this kind of force to stop anything from armies tpo robbers. Our police should definitely have tear gas and other chemichal arms for stopping riots and other crimes.

IF USE TAKE AWAY CHEMICAL WARFARE FOR THESE NATIONS, YOU TAKE AWAY FREEDOM AND JUSTICE AND YOU SUPPORT CRIME AND ANARCHY!! :mp5: :gundge: :sniper:

WE MUST GIVE OUR TROOPS, OUR PROTECTION AND DEFENSE, OUR ARMED FORCES THE WEAPONS AND FORCE THAT THEY NEED TO STOP TERRORISM IN THE WORLD AT LARGE!

STOP :( :mp5:

:eek: :sniper:

Them --> :mad: :gundge: <-- us. this is good. this is the way we can stop attacks on our great nations!
Czech Slovakia

So, where are we at here? I'll bring these back around once again, just in case I'm getting a little too convoluted for all of you.

1) In the case of a U.N. proposal affecting Nations laws, where a definition is not given or is unclear, Nations have the right to apply their own legal definitions in interpreting the resolution within reasonable limits (I.E. to use common sense). This resolution provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.


With all due respect to the opinion stated by the ambassador from Pojonia, my government can foresee enough interest from the current draft of a replacement resolution, that the "window of opportunity" for UN members to mass produce chemical weapons is small. Given that non-UN members already have the means to produce these weapons, it could be argued that they will be able to flood the market before UN members could retool. Surely if a future resolution seeks the downscaling of the possession of such weapons, anything purchased during a short transition period will also be destroyed or eliminated.

On the subject of the current resolution being deliberately vague and workable, my government voted in favour of the original resolution and would tend to agree. But given that the Powerhungry Chipmunks have managed to point out that smaller scale personal use chemical weapons are considered outlawed by the original resolution (which my government assumed was limited to weapons of mass destruction), the Confederated City States of Mikitivity is still inclined to vote for the repeal in the hopes that another resolution may reach the floor and limit the production and use of weapons of mass destruction, by making language to clearly indicate that mace and pepper spray and spells like "Longbottom's Fart Cloud" are not being regulated.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: Normally I don't like repeals, but given that A. is interested in writing a new resolution, I seriously leaning towards giving him (?) a chance to bring a resolution to the floor, even if it repeats one we adopted a few months ago. :)

Totally approve

My country agrees that chemical WMDs should be banned, but not civilian, and police defensive measures of protection, such as tear gas, pepper spray...

should both sides be unable to either make an exception/compromise to ALSO ban civilian/police defense chemical measures, I would whole-heartedly agree to the repeal.

So, where are we at here? I'll bring these back around once again, just in case I'm getting a little too convoluted for all of you.

1) In the case of a U.N. proposal affecting Nations laws, where a definition is not given or is unclear, Nations have the right to apply their own legal definitions in interpreting the resolution within reasonable limits (I.E. to use common sense). This resolution provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.

Our government has stated our position on this approach to legislating before, but we feel it bears repeating.

You cannot legislate on matters such as this by passing vague sweeping statements of policy and then trusting in "common sense" to ensure that when the law is put into practical effect everyone will just know what you intended the spirit of the law to be... because sense isn't common.

If it was there would be no need for the legislation currently the subject of this repeal in the first place. I very much doubt that those wishing to ban chemical weaponry are doing it to keep it out of the hands of people who they are under the impression have the same "common sense" views of those weapons as they do. People attempting to ban this type of weaponry have a tendency to be motivated to try to keep it from being employed by what they view as the somewhat more dangerous, even psychotic international element.

What reasoning then leads to the assumption that that element will approach vague, generalized statements of principle in the same sensible manner the proponents of the legislation would, if it isn't actually spelled out as a requirement that such a thing be done in the legislation itself?

The same applies to any contingent that is even more militantly opposed to weaponry than the author of the legislation. If the proposal allows them the leeway to interpret that it bans all kinds of weapons that they would love to see banned but which the proposal writer never intended to ban, do you really think an appeal to the clearly non-existent commonality of sensibility on the issue is going to resolve the conflict between these different viewpoints and the interpretations of the legislation which they spawn?

Essentially, because a nation that doesn't apply common sense to a legal issue - I.E. tries to distort the definition beyond rational boundaries - is breaking the law. What I'm trying to say to you here is that that taking a word and redefining it to suit your own needs simply isn't possible under gnommish rule. Common sense isn't required of the nations, its simply required in discerning whether or not a nation isn't using it. So if I tell you something along the lines of "I don't pay attention to this human rights proposal protecting all persons equally because I believe the definition of 'person' is 'heterosexual white male'", the U.N. calls me on it. And hopefully puts me in a padded room. What we don't do is repeal the human rights resolution, subject groups that were previously enjoying our protection to at least another weak of torment, and then hope that a new resolution with a proper definition of "person" be passed. Common sense is all too common. And if you aren't using it the Gnomes will kick in your head.

A lack of a definition isn't a fatal flaw unless the word being used can truly be extended to a variety of different meanings, including those that exclude the original intent of the resolution. By any real definition, "Ban Chemical Weapons" simply can't exclude VX Gas, but by the intent it was written and the common sense definitions of chemical weapons I can see it excluding mace.

By the way, PHC, to put aside arguments and negative rhetoric, simply taking the main point of your proposal at face value, and you have been 'fighting the good fight' for a true clarification on whether non-lethal, non-persistent chemical agents -- pepper spray and tear gas -- are allowable to UN member nations.

Ideologically, we are allied. We too wish these be formally interpreted as lawful means of self-defense, law enforcement and riot suppression.

It is simply the path we have chosen to arrive at that same conclusion which differs.I'm very grateful for this, and I wholeheartedly about our ideological allied-ness agree. Similar to what Ausserland has said, if this repeal fails I'm willing to support your proposed resolution just as much as I would the proposed replacement to this repeal.


A definition of a chemical weapon and a ban on them? I think it's not. In any case, there are always going to be those who find a way around. At least we can make it harder for them.
Well, what I mean is that I'm pretty sure a future definition can't change the current interpretation of "Ban Chemical Weapons". Can it? I just keep feeling that that is amending "Ban Chemical Weapons" when I think of it.

I'm certain a future resolution with a much more expansive definition could most definitely be enforced upon usage and possession. I'm just unsure it would make "Ban Chemical Weapons" apply to more than it already does.
[quote=Listeneisse]Sword down. I'm pointing out how close it is. This will be a tightly-fought issue. And, whether you win or lose, I get my definition, so either way I'm covered. All I'm trying to do is prevent what I see as an unnecessary legislative action.
The main reason this perked my interest is that it corresponded to a bygone poster, who, in my opinion, harassed me once with vote totals. There was a particularly close vote on my NSoT resolution (which I have since repealed and intend to soon replace), and poster seemed intent on pointing that out, not as a tool to show how much disagreement there was, but to spite me. At least that was my take on it. Sorry if I sounded standoffish.

Essentially, because a nation that doesn't apply common sense to a legal issue -

As I just finished pointing out, this "common sense" you refer to in this regard is a figment of your imagination.

I.E. tries to distort the definition beyond rational boundaries - is breaking the law.

There is no legal definition that requires distortion here. The ban neglected to establish one.

What I'm trying to say to you here is that that taking a word and redefining it to suit your own needs simply isn't possible under gnommish rule. Common sense isn't required of the nations, its simply required in discerning whether or not a nation isn't using it.

And you, of course, would be the one doing the discerning utilizing your perception of what constitutes a "common sense" interpretation of the spirit of the law when the letter of the law was insufficient to spell that out I suppose?

And "Chemical Weapon = Chemical substances designed to be employed as a weapon" is hardly the stretch of rationality that your "heterosexual white male" example represents.

My take? There's no need for Chipmunks, Pojonians, Avengers and Reformers to bicker. You all seem to have common goals but differing perceptions on the appropriate means to achieve these goals. Ultimately, none of you should be overly alarmed, regardless of the outcome of this repeal.

Varia Yefremova
Speaker to the UN

As I just finished pointing out, this "common sense" you refer to in this regard is a figment of your imagination.
I've outlined the way it works a little better than your immediate response



There is no legal definition that requires distortion here. The ban neglected to establish one.
I never said there was one. I simply said that you can't make up your own by an irrational stretch of complete figmentation.



And you, of course, would be the one doing the discerning utilizing your perception of what constitutes a "common sense" interpretation of the spirit of the law when the letter of the law was insufficient to spell that out I suppose?

And "Chemical Weapon = Chemical substances designed to be employed as a weapon" is hardly the stretch of rationality that your "heterosexual white male" example represents.
I never said it was. My point was that nations can't extend a definition beyond common sense boundaries - regardless of whether or not common sense is figmentational. I was referring primarily to the fact that a nation, under no circumstances, can fail to ban VX gas under whatever definition they supply - that's the logical leap, not the mace thing.

But what I say about the mace argument, and have said about the mace argument quite consistently, is that by no means are nations required to define chemical weapons in that way - definitions of chemical weapons are far too often more concise than that. I gave you specific examples of logical, legal definitions that don't include mace. Simply because your logical but not necessarily legal definition of "Chemical Weapons" is to tie the definition of "chemical" and "weapon" together doesn't mean that I have to abide by said definition. I never have.

So, to summarize:

A) Nations don't have to define "chemical weapons" in a manner that forces them to ban Mace.
B) Nations DO have to define "chemical weapons" in a manner that forces them to ban weapons that always fall under these categories, such as VX Gas. Failing to do so would be such a gross violation of common sense that the Gnomes would do nasty things to them. (Actually, the Gnomes simply make it so they can't, automatically, but I prefer to say it this way for humorous effect)

And lets add C) repealing a resolution based on a definitional argument alone leads to the precedent that a resolution can and should be repealed on that nonissue. We could repeal "Protection of Dolphins" for not defining dolphins, "Right to learn about Evolution" for not defining evolution, "Computer Crimes Act" for not defining computers.

Vagueness is a protection against a resolution becoming obsolete in addition to special circumstances that may come forth. If you specifically define "Chemical Weapons" as "VX Gas, NeuroToxins, Etc" and someone develops a new chemical weapon, you can't amend the procedure or add to the list. This resolution, as I originally stated, provides the best protection by being deliberately vague.

You may have to forgive me for not quite understanding who is arguing for what, but I believe the points raise here point towards a rejection of the repeal resolution on the grounds that the current resolution, while not ideal, allows scope for nations to apply “common sense” as defined by the UN (or some such) in framing their legislation.

If nations wish to see a much clearer definition of Chemical Weapons in a UN wide ban, then such a resolution should at least be put forward alongside the Repeal Resolution.

The lack of any such proposal leads me to believe that the repeal resolution’s aim is not to allow standard self-defence weapons but rather to allow the more militaristic chemical weapons whose primary objective is to kill civilians.

We are AGAINST the proposal to repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"

You may have to forgive me for not quite understanding who is arguing for what, but I believe the points raise here point towards a rejection of the repeal resolution on the grounds that the current resolution, while not ideal, allows scope for nations to apply “common sense” as defined by the UN (or some such) in framing their legislation.

If nations wish to see a much clearer definition of Chemical Weapons in a UN wide ban, then such a resolution should at least be put forward alongside the Repeal Resolution.

The lack of any such proposal leads me to believe that the repeal resolution’s aim is not to allow standard self-defence weapons but rather to allow the more militaristic chemical weapons whose primary objective is to kill civilians.

We are AGAINST the proposal to repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"
A replacement is under discussion in this forum.

What I'm trying to say to you here is that that taking a word and redefining it to suit your own needs simply isn't possible under gnommish rule.

And if you aren't using it the Gnomes will kick in your head.


While based on the opinion of the ambassador from Pojonia, it appears that their legislature directly implements UN resolutions, perhaps taking into consideration deliberations in the official UN debates, the Council of Mayors has always considered it the obligation of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity to make a sincere attempt to implement the intent of UN resolutions, but as per our laws, each canton on Mikitivity ultimately has to create its own laws as they can best be implemented for the people of that canton. That is traditionally the way most confederacies operate.

*At this point, Ambassador Katzman pulls out a hideously detailed "Government of Mikitivity" poster board, that looks like it has more interchanges than a Southern Californian Freeway system.*

What you call the UN Gnomes, my government calls the UN Secretariat. They do a fine job administering the day-to-day operations of this assembly, and their UN Compliance Ministry does a fantastic job in informing my office when a UN resolution has been adopted. But the process doesn't stop there. My office (Office of International Affairs) then must transmit a detailed summary of the other international positions to the Council of Mayors along with a recommendation if we feel this is an international resolution or a domestic resolution. If this is international policy, then the Council of Mayors legislates as needed to adopt the international law. If it is a domestic policy, then the Council of Mayors will make a recommendation and proposed set of guidelines to pass to the Mayor of each canton. Some of those cantons actually then go about drafting their own language and holding a canton-wide election.

*Katzman then stares at the flow-chart / poster.*

Hmmm ... oh, ignore this Office of Ill Repute arrow pointing back at the Council of Mayors. *blushing* That was just a joke that some junior level former member of my staff included on the schematic. While such an office exists, per the Sex Industry Workers Act, it does not influence the Council of Mayors. *Katzman then frowns as if to ponder if that is true or not.*

You may have to forgive me for not quite understanding who is arguing for what, but I believe the points raise here point towards a rejection of the repeal resolution on the grounds that the current resolution, while not ideal, allows scope for nations to apply “common sense” as defined by the UN (or some such) in framing their legislation.

If nations wish to see a much clearer definition of Chemical Weapons in a UN wide ban, then such a resolution should at least be put forward alongside the Repeal Resolution.

The lack of any such proposal leads me to believe that the repeal resolution’s aim is not to allow standard self-defence weapons but rather to allow the more militaristic chemical weapons whose primary objective is to kill civilians.

We are AGAINST the proposal to repeal "Ban Chemical Weapons"

We would like to point out to the representative of Barnabas Butterbur that a draft replacement proposal has been posted for comment for several days (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=441936) and its posting was announced in this thread at message #47.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador-at-Large

[FONT=Book Antiqua][COLOR=Magenta]
I approve the repeal because the citizens should be able to protect themselves such as the nations if they were under attack!!!

When Chemical weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have chemical weapons...count me in...I don't wanna be an outlaw, but I do wanna gas people legally :)

Chemical weapons are a means to an end. It is necessary for our nations to have the capability to to use these types of force in maintaining order and ultimately peace in our region. I vote the Repeal of this resolution and encourage those UN members who value their nations right to protect it's citizens and maintain national order to do the same.

The Prime Minister of Razatavia

Ross "the Rooster" Silotto

While based on the opinion of the ambassador from Pojonia, it appears that their legislature directly implements UN resolutions, perhaps taking into consideration deliberations in the official UN debates, the Council of Mayors has always considered it the obligation of the Confederated City States of Mikitivity to make a sincere attempt to implement the intent of UN resolutions, but as per our laws, each canton on Mikitivity ultimately has to create its own laws as they can best be implemented for the people of that canton. That is traditionally the way most confederacies operate.

*At this point, Ambassador Katzman pulls out a hideously detailed "Government of Mikitivity" poster board, that looks like it has more interchanges than a Southern Californian Freeway system.*

What you call the UN Gnomes, my government calls the UN Secretariat. They do a fine job administering the day-to-day operations of this assembly, and their UN Compliance Ministry does a fantastic job in informing my office when a UN resolution has been adopted. But the process doesn't stop there. My office (Office of International Affairs) then must transmit a detailed summary of the other international positions to the Council of Mayors along with a recommendation if we feel this is an international resolution or a domestic resolution. If this is international policy, then the Council of Mayors legislates as needed to adopt the international law. If it is a domestic policy, then the Council of Mayors will make a recommendation and proposed set of guidelines to pass to the Mayor of each canton. Some of those cantons actually then go about drafting their own language and holding a canton-wide election.

*Katzman then stares at the flow-chart / poster.*

Hmmm ... oh, ignore this Office of Ill Repute arrow pointing back at the Council of Mayors. *blushing* That was just a joke that some junior level former member of my staff included on the schematic. While such an office exists, per the Sex Industry Workers Act, it does not influence the Council of Mayors. *Katzman then frowns as if to ponder if that is true or not.*

Erm. Yeah, that works too. Excuse me while my head implodes.

If I want to melt off someones skin I wll. Mind yur business.

Erm. Yeah, that works too. Excuse me while my head implodes.

OOC:
If it sounds unlikely, I suggest you read a few books on Swiss politics (which I've used as a real-life model for Mikitivity). Nothing I've said really is at all unrealistic. :)

OOC:
If it sounds unlikely, I suggest you read a few books on Swiss politics (which I've used as a real-life model for Mikitivity). Nothing I've said really is at all unrealistic. :)

Incidentally, do your postal vans also have the William Tell overture as their horn-tune? :)

Leonard Otterby
Ambassador for the Republic of Compadria to the U.N.

Come now, chemical weapons are a perfectly viable means of defending ones country against all sorts of dissidents. Suppose some sort of rebellion sprung up and the soldiers couldnt suppress it using brute force,and you dont feel like unleashing biological or nuclear weapons onto an unsuspecting populous?Well by jove lads, the only real option IS chemical weapons.Quick smart dear boys, lets have that vile ban on chemical weapons repealed then shall we?

Incidentally, do your postal vans also have the William Tell overture as their horn-tune? :)


Sadly no. ;)

Though Mikitivity Bahn does have a double ended arrow symbol:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mikitivity_Bahn

Sadly no. ;)

Though Mikitivity Bahn does have a double ended arrow symbol:
http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Mikitivity_Bahn

:cool:

"We, the self-managed auto-organized communes that conform Bakunin Galaxy, do express our opinion about this matter, by the tongue of Citizen Albious Hawthorne, elected as representative and vocal for UN matters by a 2/3 majority in the National Assembly three days ago.

The matter discussed here is utterly crucial for the future of humankind, as is any UN resolution about Massive Destruction Weapons. Too many times innocent people have suffered horrible mutilations and tortures on the use of Chemical Weapons by rogue countries and brutal dictatorships, all around the world. We, libertarian peoples of Bakunin Galaxy, state our resolution to never use or fabricate these awful pain-makers, eliminating in this way all the unnecessary suffering these weapons may cause, and implore all civilizated UN Nations to forbid any use, fabrication or commerce with these arms, and to destroy them if they are being stored in any silo, armory or lab in the territory of these countries.

Therefore, We, the self-managed auto-organized communes that conform Bakunin Galaxy, vote AGAINST "Repeal Ban Chemical Weapons" proposal."

I think the bill doesn't go far enough to ban chemical weapons against nature like DDT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Dominion of Carnasials is alarmed and disheartened by the groundless panic the term "Chemical Weapons" evokes. Merely evoking that label brings to make everyone visualize nerve agents, mustard gas, and agent orange. It is agreed by almost all that these chemical agents are brutal and do not discriminate between soldier and civilian. The people of Carnasials can understand the desire to regulate the useage of such weapons.

However, reading the text of the resolution, it does NOT allow any distinction between phosgene gas and pepper spray. As the resolution stands, our police agencies are handicapped greatly. The use of pepper spray or CS gas have often been effective in saving lives and keeping order with the least amount of force or damage.
There will always be those who will misuse chemical agents. No resolution is going to be perfect. There will always be a loop-hole somewhere. But banning all chemical agents across the board puts lives in danger. Rubber bullets, truncheons, bean-bag rounds, and water cannons can all do permanent damage. Tazers are unsuitable outside of a one-on-one scenario.

Banning all chemical agents regardless of scope or purpose is reactionary. Do not force police agencies to resort to the use of deadly force because you have tied their hands.

The Dominion of Carnasials strongly urges the UN to repeal this resolution so we may draft a better, more informed resolution.

Honestly if you don't vote to repeal you could open the door for all kinds of foolish liberal minded proposals!

Whats next? Banning hair spray? Why ban hairspray? Well you can make a flamethrower out of it of course!

You can make napalm out of gasoline and styrofoam, gonna ban Gasoline and Styrafoam next?

Get rid of instruments in school, after all you can whack someone over the head with a guitar, trombone or trumpet.

This is absolutely a foolish to even consider not passing issue!

Sadams gasattack against civil people in Halabja 1988 do you want dis horrible genocide happend a agian?

I dont want it and i dont want weapon ho purpose genocide!

Oh by all means I don't mean for such chemical weapons as that to be created, I just mean to repeal this so that it can be rightly changed to make it more specific and to not restrict the worlds police forces.

Repeal this one and rewrite it so that it bans chemical weapons specifically designed for exterminating human beings.

Wow. A 600-vote separation, with Gatesville, the East Pacific and the Rejected Realms having cast their votes in favor; the North Pacific, Canada and Europe voting against. With maybe 15 hours left to vote, this is turning out to be a real nailbiter.

The cabinate for internal regulation has advised me, and I find myself voting to remove this porly worded and ill thought through resolution.

I hope however that a replacment will be put in place as soon as this one has been taken down.

Wow. A 600-vote separation, with Gatesville, the East Pacific and the Rejected Realms having cast their votes in favor; the North Pacific, Canada and Europe voting against. With maybe 15 hours left to vote, this is turning out to be a real nailbiter.

you right, it's even closer now : 71-vote separation...it's hot
with the vote of the south pacific

-the west pacific (Minineenee: 586 endorsment)
-the pacific (Mammothistan 265)
have not yet voted

you right, it's even closer now : 71-vote separation...it's hot
with the vote of the south pacific

-the west pacific (Minineenee: 586 endorsment)
-the pacific (Mammothistan 265)
have not yet voted
Interestingly, if what I "found out" a few days ago is right, I doubt Mammothistan will vote. The Pacific government is seeing a bit more inactivity as of late than ever before.

Minineenee? His or her last activity was 21 hours ago, which (according to the "Daily Update Theorem" I use when planning telegram campaigns) should indicate that the delegate will vote within the next 3 hours. I believe the vote doesn't end until a little later than that. At least I hope it doesn't.


Anyway, this just further supports my thesis that repeal votes, unless freakishly well supported, always hinge upon the votes of the pacific regions. I first noticed this in the repeal of "Legalize Prostitution", but have seen it in just about every repeal since. If the majority of the pacific regions vote For, the repeal typically passes. If the majority vote Against, it typically fails.

If my reconnassaince is accurate, Minineenee should vote "for". That is, if Minineenee votes...

*crosses fingers*

Greetings,

The Premier of Sarnatha has asked me to convey her reluctant support of this repeal. It ought to be noted that science has given us many non-lethal weapons useful for crowd control and self-defense purposes. Putting before the UN a motion that seems predominantly concerned with the protection of pepper spray, without simultaneously launching debate on a replacement ban on chemical weapons, feels irresponsible to my government.

However, the Premier concedes the logic of this proposition, and has instructed me to vote in support. We deliver our Region's votes, as well.

Miles May
Ambassador to the United Nations
Republic of Sarnatha

Interestingly, if what I "found out" a few days ago is right, I doubt Mammothistan will vote. The Pacific government is seeing a bit more inactivity as of late than ever before.

Minineenee? His or her last activity was 21 hours ago, which (according to the "Daily Update Theorem" I use when planning telegram campaigns) should indicate that the delegate will vote within the next 3 hours. I believe the vote doesn't end until a little later than that. At least I hope it doesn't.


Anyway, this just further supports my thesis that repeal votes, unless freakishly well supported, always hinge upon the votes of the pacific regions. I first noticed this in the repeal of "Legalize Prostitution", but have seen it in just about every repeal since. If the majority of the pacific regions vote For, the repeal typically passes. If the majority vote Against, it typically fails.

If my reconnassaince is accurate, Minineenee should vote "for". That is, if Minineenee votes...

*crosses fingers*

it seems, one more time, the result of the vote is in Minineenee hand, as it was for the trangender act. his vote represent around 4% of the total

good luck for your repeal



what is "Daily Update Theorem"?

Whilst I can agree that the original resolution is poorly written the arguments used to repeal it are misleading and if the intention were to replace the resolution with one that aimed at reducing chemical weapons, there would be another proposal in the pipeline. There is no such proposal, only a draft. To consider repealing the existing resolution in anticipation of a better replacement, I would only be convinced if the two proposals were at least presented together for endorsement.

It is my view that Chemical Weapons, unlike conventional weapons or even nuclear weapons, will be used almost exclusively for killing civilians in any conflict. Those involved in fighting will usually find themselves adequately protected against these forms of attack while the civilian population will not have the same level of protection. Chemical weapons therefore constitute a weapon of terror and it is desirable that we should seek to limit their manufacture and use.

Some have argued that these weapons are a necessary means of defence. However, I see no evidence to support these claims.

I urge you to vote against this resolution.

Barnabas Butterbur
Delegate of MiddleEarth

what is "Daily Update Theorem"?
It's a theory I developed about hte time I began writing repeals. It came bout when I recognized that the "delegate votes" page is not just a list of delegates' votes, but a chronological list of delegate votes.

The theory (the gist of it anyway): Players have a tendency to have access to computers and the internet at regular intervals, given the typically regular cycle of a day Players thus have a tendency to update their nationstates account at similar time(s) every day.
I've used the theorem in telegram campaigning to get an early jump on approval: I search for section of the "delegate votes" list from this time yesterday (in which delegates have last updated "21 hours ago" to "1 day ago") and begin telegramming there. That way, in a few hours, up to forty or fifty delegates have seen my telegram and can have the opportunity to approve the proposal. That way, I can have more immediate results, get a jump on reaching quorum and be able to plan the remainder of the campaign more effectively.

There are some players who are weekend players, too. These players will defy the "daily" norm by only logging on every weekend. That's why I don't like telegramming on mondays: You don't know the weekend players from the daily players, they've all just updated "1 day ago" (whereas in a Tuesday telegram campaign you can tell the weekend players because they haven't updated in "2 days"). There are also those players that update more than daily. This, of course, is of little consequence as my telegram campaign is trying to get early results, so these players just help it along.

The "Daily Update Theorem" is just my little attempt to get an edge in telegram campaigns.

To consider repealing the existing resolution in anticipation of a better replacement, I would only be convinced if the two proposals were at least presented together for endorsement.
*grumbles and groans the usual song and dance*

It is my view that Chemical Weapons, unlike conventional weapons or even nuclear weapons, will be used almost exclusively for killing civilians in any conflict. Those involved in fighting will usually find themselves adequately protected against these forms of attack while the civilian population will not have the same level of protection. Chemical weapons therefore constitute a weapon of terror and it is desirable that we should seek to limit their manufacture and use.
Yet you don't mind them being usable by UN nation? Because, by leaving this resolution in place, that's exactly what you're doing, in my opinion.

Remember, Powerhungry Chipmunks (as well as many other nations) have used chemical weapons in warfare after the Ban has been passed. Many United Nations have huge stockpiles of chemical weapons, and are fully, legally allowed to use them: under the current resolution.

Do you really feel safe from these devices with this resolution as your protection?

It's a theory I developed about hte time I began writing repeals. It came bout when I recognized that the "delegate votes" page is not just a list of delegates' votes, but a chronological list of delegate votes.

The theory (the gist of it anyway): Players have a tendency to have access to computers and the internet at regular intervals, given the typically regular cycle of a day Players thus have a tendency to update their nationstates account at similar time(s) every day.
I've used the theorem in telegram campaigning to get an early jump on approval: I search for section of the "delegate votes" list from this time yesterday (in which delegates have last updated "21 hours ago" to "1 day ago") and begin telegramming there. That way, in a few hours, up to forty or fifty delegates have seen my telegram and can have the opportunity to approve the proposal. That way, I can have more immediate results, get a jump on reaching quorum and be able to plan the remainder of the campaign more effectively.

There are some players who are weekend players, too. These players will defy the "daily" norm by only logging on every weekend. That's why I don't like telegramming on mondays: You don't know the weekend players from the daily players, they've all just updated "1 day ago" (whereas in a Tuesday telegram campaign you can tell the weekend players because they haven't updated in "2 days"). There are also those players that update more than daily. This, of course, is of little consequence as my telegram campaign is trying to get early results, so these players just help it along.

The "Daily Update Theorem" is just my little attempt to get an edge in telegram campaigns.

thanks, very interesting, in my few campaigns, i didnt use this information but it seems indeed very useful.

i'm fully agree with you about "early results", this is essential for a campaign, it's why in my 2 proposal campaign i sent most than 60% of the TG in the 1st 24hours.

i think that "early results", is the best garanty for many of the delagates who watch quickly all the pages of proposals and don't read 100% of the texts (i'm not proud of it, but i must admit i do it sometimes)

Oh no! someone stop the madness. Vote AGAINST this facism!!!!

Fascism?! I balk at the mere suggestion. Repealing this ban is the only thing that cant truly help smaller nations in this world from being overrun by the superpowers of the day. We cannot allow these weapons to continue being banned when the dangers of not having them are so many. At this point, the only option one would have when facing an enemy who employs overwhelming force is that of the nuclear option. I for one do not wish to have my lands desecrated by the long term effects of radiation when I can deal much easier with the comparably minor effects, in the long term, of chemical weapons. We seek only to keep enemies from entering our sovereign lands not punish our civilians for their transgressions. Dictators have much better ways of keeping their people in line than using chemical weapons on their own lands. Trust me ;)

Bring back the Gas! Return power to those who are willing to use it! It will be a great day for the Sultanate when we can release our weapons from their earthen tombs scattered across our fair land in carefully concealed, undisclosed locations.

For great justice.

Tadiiqu bin al-Ardu,
Sultan Al-Salaam

As long as you don't have Chemical weapons, nor does your enemy. Same thing with Nuclear weapons which should be banned as much as Chemical and Biological weapons.


If you would bring Chemical weapons back you give more oppurtunities for suffering and hate, more dangers and fear. It will give terrorists another option of terrorism, give power hungry men more potential for world domination and it will give Dictators more chance for supressing his people. Its facism and i won't stand for it.

Bah.

As long as you don't have Chemical weapons, nor does your enemy. Same thing with Nuclear weapons which should be banned as much as Chemical and Biological weapons.

If you would bring Chemical weapons back you give more oppurtunities for suffering and hate, more dangers and fear. It will give terrorists another option of terrorism, give power hungry men more potential for world domination and it will give Dictators more chance for supressing his people. Its facism and i won't stand for it.You seem to be laboring under the delusion that this chemical-weapons ban somehow impedes the progress of terrorist organizations in acquiring said weapons. Terrorists do not abide by UN mandates; nor, might I add, do rogue states, who supply the terrorists; nor the three quarters of NS nations who do not belong to the UN and are under no obligation to abide by its dictates.

Moreover, the ban -- which until a few minutes ago was still in effect -- only requires member states to "take steps toward the ultimate decommissioning of all chemical weapons currently in existence" -- which means that one or two chemical munitions may still be lying about in the nations affected by this ban, and in the case of those states whose arsenals are not well-secured or whose military commanders are corrupt and prone to seeking profits "on the side," chemical arms could still find their way onto the international black market.

In short, Resolution #107 did nothing to improve world security; it only disarmed UN members, contributed to global instability and bound the hands of law enforcement -- hitting especially close to home in our own Federal Republic, which fell into anarchic disrepair for a few days, and was even classified as an "Anarchy" by the UN, thanks in part to the UN's unwitting de facto ban on tear gas and other "riot-control" substances used by police.

Finally, there is something to be said about the intolerance of dubbing policies with which you personally disagree as "fascism."

We warmly congratulate Powerhungry Chipmunks for this repeal's success, and praise the delegate from the West Pacific, whose nearly 600 votes have twice reunited the UN with its sanity in the last month: first in defeating the Transgender Equality resolution, then in saving this one.

John Riley
UN Ambassador

IT passed!!!!!!!

OMFG i'm so happy. it was such a close vote

Flanagania is saddened by the UN vote and is seriously considering its membership. :( :mad:

I must congratulate Powerhungry Chipmunks for the victory. It was hard fought and well earned.

Jildaran would like to express it's extreme happiness that the poorly thought out and overly restrictive Ban on Chemical Weapons has been repealed. As well as our general dislike of certain nations attempting to force their deeply flawed beliefs on us, the resolution had major problems, including effectively stopping research into contagious diseases.

The result of this Repeal has greatly reaffirmed our faith in the United Nations.

Klashonite is happy with the passing of the resolution when it was thought it would fail by a narrow margin, after a hard-fought battle as Liliths Vengeance said. Nations should have their right to choose what chemical weapons they require w/o any UN interruption. Also, we can never enforce every single country from not having these weapons.

Approved

Well, we now have at the very least three weeks before a new ban is or isn't put into place. Has the new resolution been thrown to the proposals list yet?

Congrats PC on a job done just under the wire. Wow that was a close vote.

A close battle but common sense has won through. Cuation appluads Powerhungry Chipmunks for the hard work and those who supported getting the repeal through.