NationStates Jolt Archive

We ask that all troop movements beyond a nation's borders not necessitated by a proven need for self defense or the defense of others be declared a terrorist act, and any nation that does so shall be subject to severe economic and political sanctions.

We ask that all troop movements beyond a nation's borders not necessitated by a proven need for self defense or the defense of others be declared a terrorist act, and any nation that does so shall be subject to severe economic and political sanctions.

Opposed. Nations participate in training routines outside their borders on a regular basis, which has no basis in defence.

Secondly, Terrorism is not the actions of the state, it is the actions of a group, sometimes funded or supported by the state. To use the word terrorism to describe this is wrong and inaccurate.

Thirdly, invasion might be justifable.

Fourthly, your draft has a big hole. I've decided there is a clear need to defend my way of life by invading your nation so this can't pass. ;)

[QUOTE=Hirota]Opposed. Nations participate in training routines outside their borders on a regular basis, which has no basis in defence.

Secondly, Terrorism is not the actions of the state, it is the actions of a group, sometimes funded or supported by the state. To use the word terrorism to describe this is wrong and inaccurate.

Thirdly, invasion might be justifable.

Fourthly, your draft has a big hole. I've decided there is a clear need to defend my way of life by invading your nation so this can't pass. ;)[/QUOTE

Lol
I know about that hole, it's just one of those things that I left in for my own uses, but come to think of it, wouldn't the UN get to decide if an action was justified? :)

We ask that all troop movements beyond a nation's borders not necessitated by a proven need for self defense or the defense of others be declared a terrorist act, and any nation that does so shall be subject to severe economic and political sanctions.

Movements without consent of second nation = invasion, not terrorism. Plenty of resolutions deal with legitimate methods of warfare, and a resolution banning war is utopic and doomed to fail.

Movements with consent of second nation = bilateral issue, aka none of our business.

I find myself in agreement with Hirota and Fonzoland. You do not have my support.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I find myself in agreement with Hirota and Fonzoland. You do not have my support.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World,
Delegate to The Order of The Valiant States

I find myself in agreement with you; I do not have my support, either.
Joe,
Acting Premier,
The People's republic of Navassa

I like you. If you find yourself in The Strangers' Bar have a drink on me.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

I like you. If you find yourself in The Strangers' Bar have a drink on me.

Rose,
Acting Senior UN representative,
The Black New World

Mmm... a nice oatmeal stout sounds great right now.

Welcome to the UN Navassa, I sense much potential with you. You'll do fine here.

We ask that all troop movements beyond a nation's borders not necessitated by a proven need for self defense or the defense of others be declared a terrorist act, and any nation that does so shall be subject to severe economic and political sanctions.

Ridiculous, what about military exercises that involve mutual co-operation and take place in international waters? What about the need for defence that may not be able to be conducted inside a nation's borders.

Additionally, your definition of terrorism is so vague as to lead possibly to any military exercise or activity being sanctioned.

Furthermore, how would sanctions be enforced, given that the U.N. has no army or armed services?

May the blessings of our otters be upon you

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

He already backed down. Isn't it better to leave proposals that have been renounced by their author alone, rather than rubbing their face in it?

Navassa - edit your first post and add the word "Withdrawn" to the start

He already backed down. Isn't it better to leave proposals that have been renounced by their author alone, rather than rubbing their face in it?

I presume this was adressed to me. I'm sorry if I appeared overzealous, but I felt it necessary to point out the sheer ludicrousness of his proposal. I'll try and avoid being so rash in the future.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

I presume this was adressed to me. I'm sorry if I appeared overzealous, but I felt it necessary to point out the sheer ludicrousness of his proposal. I'll try and avoid being so rash in the future.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

It's all good, but what's wrong with being a little ludicrous now and then on a gaming board?

How about a resolution calling for all baby-rapers to have their genitalia forcibly removed, then?:sniper: :rolleyes:

I'd like to apologise to Navassa for the excessively blunt nature of my statement, especially given that the honourable delegate had withdrawn his motion.

May the blessings of our otters be upon you.

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

How about a resolution calling for all baby-rapers to have their genitalia forcibly removed, then?

Myeah, but only with the baby-raper's explicit consent. Otherwise it is a barbaric punishment, therefore illegal.

How about a resolution calling for all baby-rapers to have their genitalia forcibly removed, then?:sniper: :rolleyes:

There's already an 'issue' about castrating sex-offenders...

There's already an 'issue' about castrating sex-offenders...

So I noticed.