NationStates Jolt Archive

Sustainable Agriculture Center
A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.

Category: Environmental
Industry Affected: All Businesses


The United Nations,

-A- Affirming the importance of sustainable agriculture for our societies,

-B- Defining “Sustainable Agriculture” as a global agriculture achieving all of the three following goals:
- Sufficient and healthy food for population’s need
- Environmental stewardship
- Good living conditions and prosperity for farmers and farms,

-C- Convinced that, in order to achieve these ambitious goals, the best of both traditional techniques and new technologies have to be used with a sensible, critical, secure and ethical approach:


-1- ESTABLISH the UNSARC « UN Sustainable Agriculture Resource Center » for the purpose of collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences in member nations, via UNSARC national branches in interested nations and free internet resources and forums;


-2- PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following:

-2.1- Water-saving management systems such as drip irrigation (drop by drop) or surge irrigation (intermittent application of water),

-2.2- Traditional rain-harvesting systems such as reservoirs, tanks, wells or johads (small earthen check dams build across a slope that capture and conserve rainwater), their shading to decrease evaporation and collective projects to build them,

-2.3- Crop rotation practices and polyculture to decrease pests (insects, weeds, pathogens …) and soil depletion,

-2.4- Scientific researches for more-biodegradable and less toxic pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, bactericides …) and ecological biological ones,

-2.5- The sensible use of pesticides for agriculture (as for road maintenance) along with small predators animals in order both to protect crops and avoid soil degradation,

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

-2.7- The suppression of animal carcass in livestock feeding;

-2.8- The mitigation of new cultivated areas gained over forests


-3- CHARGES the UNSARC with studying the safety and effects of artificial hybrid crops (the result of interbreeding between two varieties) and GM crops (Genetically modified crops) and with giving recommendations on this matter following the principles below:

-3.1- The tractability of GM crops and the labelling of genetically modified food,

-3.2- The need of security testing for new hybrid and GM crops; in particular those with an insect resistance trait,

-3.3- The encouragement of scientific researches for new safe hybrid and GM crops with a disease, drought, floods, heat or cold resistance traits or with added vitamin

-3.4- The refusal of sterile GM crops (so called terminator technology) in the wild,

-3.5- The awareness that hybrid and GM crops with an herbicide resistance trait may induce damageable over-use of herbicides,

-3.6- The need for hybrid and GM crops with an insect resistance trait for “refuges” (a 20% belt of non-hybrid or non-GM crops inside any hybrid or GM crop parcel),

-3.7- The even greater importance of crop rotation practices and polyculture whith hybrid and GM crops.

Co-authored by CR Oscilloscopes



Here are some possible FAQ about this proposal:

This proposal violates my nation’s national sovereignty.
No, this proposal mandates nothing and is a “natsov friendly” one.

This topic is no one of the UN business.
It’s up to you. But, as around 40% (in RL) of the world's labourers are employed in agriculture, we think it’s an important topic. And we think also that some little things can be made by the UN to improve their conditions, to respect the environment and to deliver better food to more people.

This proposal does nothing.
We don’t think so, as it promotes many agricultural good practices and regulation, promotes the sharing of experiences between farmers and creates a tool (the « UN Sustainable Agriculture Resource Center ») to spread information and facilitate education and experience sharing.

What are johads?
Johads is a traditional rain harvesting technique, rediscovered several years ago in India. They are usually a cluster of small earthen check dams each build across a slope where there is no river, but where rainwater usually flaws. Threes are often used to decrease evaporation. They are connected to each other in order to create small rivers. This technique can works pretty well in some kind of environment and the water can then be used for agriculture or villages.
An interesting article about this topic:
http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl1817/18170810.htm

Why this proposal is not more severe against pesticides?
Pesticides existence is almost as old as agriculture itself. Its use has many damageable consequences but they are useful to avoid crops to be attacked by diseases and insects or invaded by weeds. So, this proposal tries to promote a balanced usage of pesticides, while encouraging scientific research to find some new ones with lower environmental impacts.

This proposal forces an economic system by promoting land distribution to farmers.
No, nothing is forced. But this proposal favour an economic system related to agriculture.
One of the goals of this proposal is to provide good living conditions to workers, and it seems to us that their living conditions are greater when they own their land. For example, the very thing that started Mikhail Gorbachev's wish to undertake some changes in the former USSR was the absolutely disastrous state of agriculture then, despite its great potential. There were countless errors (over use of pesticides, monoculture or irrigation...) but for sure one of the main problems was that land was not in the hand of peasants and that they were not allowed to sell their products on markets, China experienced the same problems.

GM crops are not natural.
We would like to say that the activity of agriculture itself is not natural. Furthermore, for example, most traditional cultivated wheat species are polyploids or hexaploid (6 sets of chromosomes), which are the result of millennia of hybridization by humans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_wheat

Why does this proposal encourage scientific researches for new safe hybrid and GM crops with a disease, drought, floods, heat or cold resistance traits or with added vitamins?
Our proposal favours the best of both traditional techniques and new technologies and to promote regulations. Yes, as for every challenges and development opportunities, they are some risk with GM crops and it’s why our proposal deals a lot for regulation and precautions. We think that even if banned, nothing will stop the creation of GM crops. And it’s why we really prefer them to be developed in serious and regulated manner with respected scientists than in the shadow.
Furthermore, as the potential dangers coming from GM crops with an insect resistance trait is more important, this proposal propose even more regulation for them and is neutral about them. And our proposal is also neutral about GM crops with an herbicide resistance, as their cultivation tend to increase significantly the quantity of herbicides use.


NB: Drafting forum thread:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499156

Try as we might, we can't come up with any reasons to vote against this proposal. Congratulations, we confidently vote FOR and will encourage our regional delegate to do the same.

Norderia will also be voting for this Resolution. I've got no problem at all in trying to get the most out of what our lovely planet can give without harming it. Since I hold out no hope of the planet's population ever declining, I think measures such as those encouraged here are a good start to keeping up with the demand of a growing global population.

I'm not exactly pleased that GM foods are encouraged, but I think the prompt to study them more closely, and the amount of good this Resolution can do outweighs that concern.


Tommo the Stout
Ambassador

We support this fine resolution!

This proposal balances the need to feed the world's population and the need to preserve the environment nicely, and as a result, it fits in well with our national practice. Altanar will vote for this resolution.

You have the full support of the Queendom.


I need a drink now......

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

It has come to my attention that the United Nations has not failed to pass a resolution in recent history. After reading this resolution, I regret that this problem will continue. You have the nation of Tzorsland's support on this resolution.

(Assuming we can get permission from the Vatican to allow GW wheat for the communion hosts. - Brother Thomas of the Free Land of Frustrated Franciscans)

If you read the whole thing together, you will note that all this does is create a group to study and then harass UN nations to change their means of agriculture. I say "harass," because thats all the group would be able to do. I mean, the "UNSARC" has no authority or ability to do anything but play with test tubes and write menecing letters. All the UNSARC can do is "promote"(to help or encourage to exist or flourish,) and "recommend," (to advise, as an alternative; suggest as appropriate, beneficial, or the like.)

I think "the UNSARC" is a waste of good legislation, and another example of how our time is wasted on trivial resolutions. I say vote against it merely because its useless. But mark my words, it will be passed.

We vote against, because of a basic reason. Some countries have no areas suitable of farming. For example, take a country that has nuclear fallout. Where can they farm? Also, since it mandates nothing, it makes it useless. Nat Sov. is the opposite of the UN me thinks. Thus, we shall not vote for this proposal. We will vote against.

If you read the whole thing together, you will note that all this does is create a group to study and then harass UN nations to change their means of agriculture. I say "harass," because thats all the group would be able to do. I mean, the "UNSARC" has no authority or ability to do anything but play with test tubes and write menecing letters. All the UNSARC can do is "promote"(to help or encourage to exist or flourish,) and "recommend," (to advise, as an alternative; suggest as appropriate, beneficial, or the like.)

I think "the UNSARC" is a waste of good legislation, and another example of how our time is wasted on trivial resolutions. I say vote against it merely because its useless. But mark my words, it will be passed.


DING DING DING wrong.

It's good legislation because it supports good practices, rather than forcing them on nations. This UNSARC won't "harass" UN nations, if you read carefully (which I assume you didn't) you'd notice that the entire point of the UNSARC is "collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences in member nations," not forcing those nations.

I don't know about your nation, but I prefer it when the UN doesn't stick it's fucking nose into my nation's business. We can handle things just fine on our own, and even if this resolution doesn't pass, the Empire will consider implementing it's ideas and suggestions.

DING DING DING wrong.

It's good legislation because it supports good practices, rather than forcing them on nations. This UNSARC won't "harass" UN nations, if you read carefully (which I assume you didn't) you'd notice that the entire point of the UNSARC is "collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences in member nations," not forcing those nations.

I don't know about your nation, but I prefer it when the UN doesn't stick it's fucking nose into my nation's business. We can handle things just fine on our own, and even if this resolution doesn't pass, the Empire will consider implementing it's ideas and suggestions.

First of all, I did read it. Second, if you don't want the UN to stick its nose in your buisness, you shouldn't have joined. Besides, I'm not saying that the UNSARC should force member nations to comply. I'm saying UNSARC shouldn't even exist. "Collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences," is already done by universities around the world. Its not like studying agriculture is anything new. I just think the UN shouldn't bother with it. I maintain that this is a waste of time.

First of all, I did read it. Second, if you don't want the UN to stick its nose in your buisness, you shouldn't have joined. Besides, I'm not saying that the UNSARC should force member nations to comply. I'm saying UNSARC shouldn't even exist. "Collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences," is already done by universities around the world. Its not like studying agriculture is anything new. I maintain that this is a waste of time.

First, the Great Star Empire is a member of the National Sovereignty Organization. National Sovereignty (not getting noses stuck in our business) is completely compatible with UN membership.

I know you aren't advocating forced compliance. It doesn't matter, because the resolution isn't intended to force nations to adopt the ideas presented- merely to have access to them.

Your argument that the dissemination of helpful techniques, information, and knowledge should be left up to individual entities is completely compatible with the existence of the UNSARC, because the entire purpose of the UNSARC is to make that information more widely available. That can't be a bad thing.

Take this example. Scientists working at the Imperial University in Allech-Atreus discover some groundbreaking agricultural technique that would work wonders in Nullarni. Unless folks in Nullarni make a habit of reading the scientific journals of the Agricultural College of Imperial University, you're losing out.

Factor the UNSARC into the mix, and you benefit by having easy access to helpful information. That's the advantage.

We vote against, because of a basic reason. Some countries have no areas suitable of farming. For example, take a country that has nuclear fallout. Where can they farm? Also, since it mandates nothing, it makes it useless. Nat Sov. is the opposite of the UN me thinks. Thus, we shall not vote for this proposal. We will vote against.

That's not basic reason. There are many places that cannot be farmed on in any nation- rocky areas, poor soil, deserts, etc. Deserts can be reclaimed, poor soil can be improved. A UNSARC would help expand agriculture in those areas by providing education and information about desert reclamation and soil gentrification.

Yes, the rhyming was intentional.

Nuclear fallout? Nice strawman. How many nations in the UN have nuclear fallout covering their entire nation and can't farm any of it? That's a stupid example.

I'll say it good and loud: This resolution doesn't have to mandate anything. The strength is in the very establishment of the UNSARC- everything else is just good ideas.

Good gentlemen and women of the United Nations,

The people of Mosiaca would like to express concern for the economic implications that this resolution may have. While we believe that government-funded research is a very noble cause, we also believe that the free market should decide on other particular matters such as living standards and land proportioning. Agriculture is no exception, and government interference will only raise prices, causing an adverse effect in the market. Mosiaca will not be voting for this resolution. Good day.

Yours truly,
Bartholomew Blackhart
UN representative for Mosiaca

First of all, I did read it. Second, if you don't want the UN to stick its nose in your buisness, you shouldn't have joined. Besides, I'm not saying that the UNSARC should force member nations to comply. I'm saying UNSARC shouldn't even exist. "Collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences," is already done by universities around the world. Its not like studying agriculture is anything new. I just think the UN shouldn't bother with it. I maintain that this is a waste of time.

So, helping to further spread knowledge that could keep a sizable portion of the world's population from having to eat dirt and rocks is a waste of time, because someone else is doing it too? How inane.

I also find it amusing that, no matter what the proposal is, someone will argue that it doesn't "mandate" anything. I am willing to bet a stack of solaris that the very same people would argue against any proposal that DOES "mandate" something, declaring it an unwarranted interference in their national affairs.

Lastly, if you think most of the resolutions being forwarded are so trivial, how about trying something radical, like WRITING YOUR OWN (or, perhaps, making suggestions on existing ones that don't amount to "I think this is a waste of time because...I think it is").

I just left the Strangers' Bar, and I already need another drink. *grumble*

Good gentlemen and women of the United Nations,

The people of Mosiaca would like to express concern for the economic implications that this resolution may have. While we believe that government-funded research is a very noble cause, we also believe that the free market should decide on other particular matters such as living standards and land proportioning. Agriculture is no exception, and government interference will only raise prices, causing an adverse effect in the market. Mosiaca will not be voting for this resolution. Good day.

Yours truly,
Bartholomew Blackhart
UN representative for Mosiaca


There are no economic implications for your country. The establishment of the UNSARC won't cost you a thin dime, and since you aren't required to enact any of their suggestions anyway, you don't have to worry about government expenditure.

Your argument that the dissemination of helpful techniques, information, and knowledge should be left up to individual entities is completely compatible with the existence of the UNSARC, because the entire purpose of the UNSARC is to make that information more widely available. That can't be a bad thing.

If the work in the individual universities are being published, those who are studying that field will read it, and implement it. Univeristies generally work together, even across national borders, to come up with research. Besides, privatly funded research organizations almost always produce more results, that are more significant, than strictly government funded organizations. I know that the private organizations do use government grants, but if they don't produce results they all lose their jobs. If government funded organizations don't get results, they probably won't even get noticed, to lose their jobs. Lets be realistic. It happens in health care all the time. Government funding produces stagnation.

If the work in the individual universities are being published, those who are studying that field will read it, and implement it. Univeristies generally work together, even across national borders, to come up with research. Besides, privatly funded research organizations almost always produce more results, that are more significant, than strictly government funded organizations. I know that the private organizations do use government grants, but if they don't produce results they all lose their jobs. If government funded organizations don't get results, they probably won't even get noticed, to lose their jobs. Lets be realistic. It happens in health care all the time. Government funding produces stagnation.

Ridiculous. Up until recently, the Great Star Empire was an isolationist country with no contact to the rest of the universe. Our government has just opened the doors, and we are facing a veritable tsunami of information that we have to sort through. Some nations DO NOT have access to this kind of information, and the only way to get it is through an organization like the UNSARC.

I have no idea what the fuck you're on about with government stagnation and research funding. That's not what this resolution is about- it's about improving the access to important, helpful information. Simple as that.

If you read the whole thing together, you will note that all this does is create a group to study and then harass UN nations to change their means of agriculture. I say "harass," because thats all the group would be able to do. I mean, the "UNSARC" has no authority or ability to do anything but play with test tubes and write menecing letters. All the UNSARC can do is "promote"(to help or encourage to exist or flourish,) and "recommend," (to advise, as an alternative; suggest as appropriate, beneficial, or the like.)

I think "the UNSARC" is a waste of good legislation, and another example of how our time is wasted on trivial resolutions. I say vote against it merely because its useless. But mark my words, it will be passed.


We think that's it's important for the UN to have the possibility to pass both "mild" and "significant" resolutions. We really think that the UN mild clauses and proposals are powerful influences and also I would like to say powerful "advertisements" for those topics. There are many "mild proposals" and countless "mild clauses" in the UN book.

First of all, I did read it. Second, if you don't want the UN to stick its nose in your buisness, you shouldn't have joined. Besides, I'm not saying that the UNSARC should force member nations to comply. I'm saying UNSARC shouldn't even exist. "Collecting, sharing, educating and studying sustainable agriculture techniques and experiences," is already done by universities around the world. Its not like studying agriculture is anything new. I just think the UN shouldn't bother with it. I maintain that this is a waste of time.

This proposal also creates a place for farmers worldwide to share their experiences. Johad is fine example, the fact that the almost monoculture of GM soya resistant to the herbicide Roundup in Argentina had drastically increased the use of this herbicide may be another one.
Another example may be the extensive and water-hungry monoculture of cotton in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan which had lead to the dramatic scenario of the Aral Sea, if "agriculture information" were allowed in this place at this time, maybe this ecological desaster may have been reduced.

It seems to us that "agriculture information" has to be spread, shared and to be accessed easily worldwide. It's what we tried with this proposal. This proposal is not saying that nothing exist on this topic nowadays, but just trying to do more at its level, as obviously many things need to be done on this topic.

Also, since it mandates nothing, it makes it useless. Nat Sov. is the opposite of the UN me thinks.

No, no, no, no, NO, no, no, NO, no.

That is just childish. There is absolutely no reason why mandates must be made by every single Resolution. There's a reason we have different levels of effect. The UN is just here to say "DO THIS, DO THAT!" It serves other purposes, like the furtherment of humanity, and this Resolution does that by encouraging a more stable agricultural practice. It gives access to good information on how to do that.

Furthermore, the National Sovereignty movement is about keeping the UN out of affairs that are strictly local. This is a good idea, and it is perfectly in keeping with the UN.

On a side note, Norderia is a Internationalist, so we've no problem at all wiping our hinds with NatSov ideas when it comes to human rights issues.

There are no economic implications for your country. The establishment of the UNSARC won't cost you a thin dime, and since you aren't required to enact any of their suggestions anyway, you don't have to worry about government expenditure.

OOC: Not in roleplaying terms, anyway, but in the gameplay context any 'Environmental/All' resolution does inflict a 'strong' hit against all member-nations' economies... My UN nation's government will probably support this IC, but I really wish (as I said during the drafting thread) that it had been given a less harmful classification...

Nuclear fallout? Nice strawman. How many nations in the UN have nuclear fallout covering their entire nation and can't farm any of it? That's a stupid example.

While it’s not because of nuclear fallout, the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins, located in the exceptionally frozen Antarctic Oasis has very little land that is not frozen solid. In fact they have no land whatsoever that is not frozen solid for several feet, much to the annoyance of construction crews trying to make foundations. Of course the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins is not a member of the United Nations.

Never the less, even the Tourist Eating Land of Retired Werepenguins has some agriculture, mostly in the form of hot houses and hydroponics systems. (Did I mention that the Antarctic is technically a frozen desert?) Not every nation is completely without agriculture and those that are have vested interests in seeing that their neighbors who have agriculture has the best agriculture so that imports are plenty and reasonable in terms of cost.

As to questions of cost; this resolution will cost everyone I am afraid. I know it’s not nice to mention such things and I’ll be accused of statwanking as a result, but this resolution is going to hurt all industries in all member UN nations because this is, first and foremost an environmental law that affects all businesses. It is therefore, “A resolution to increase the quality of the world's environment, at the expense of industry.” Industry, specifically the industries of the member UN nations will pay for this!

So if you pass this, your uranium mining industry will suffer! Your pizza delivery industry will suffer! Your wood chipping industry will suffer! Your people may be better fed on the other hand. If that is what you want, then vote YES, if that’s what you definitely don’t want vote NO, and if you don’t care, neither do I.

OOC: And therein lies the fault in the system really. Environmental proposals have but four options for industries to be affected: automobile manufacturing, uranium mining, wood chipping, or all industries. While this probably should be changed, it certainly not the fault in this particular proposal itself.

I'm not exactly pleased that GM foods are encouraged, but I think the prompt to study them more closely, and the amount of good this Resolution can do outweighs that concern.


That is also Ariddia's position. We tentatively support, but will give this matter further thoughts before casting our vote.

Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA,
Back from the Stangers' Bar

OOC: Not in roleplaying terms, anyway, but in the gameplay context any 'Environmental/All' resolution does inflict a 'strong' hit against all member-nations' economies... My UN nation's government will probably support this IC, but I really wish (as I said during the drafting thread) that it had been given a less harmful classification...

I understand your remark, but you will notice that this proposal is mild in its tone, and then i suppose (I can only suppose, nothing more) that the gameplay impact will be similarly "mild".

That said, Love and esterel wiews about NSUN categories is that they are not apropriate to NSUN legislation and we try to fit the best that we can to these categories.
As the Ambassador of Cluichstan said:
Environmental proposals have but four options for industries to be affected: automobile manufacturing, uranium mining, wood chipping, or all industries.

Also from "Rules For UN Proposals [Now Binding]":

Environmental

Of course, this could be abstracted by saying that the government taxes industry more to implement an environmental plan of some kind

We submitted this proposal as an "Environmental/all industries" as we think this sentence was the one the closer to describe our proposal.

I support this legislation because it gives a means for poor farmers to get information about sustainable crops. Universities are expensive warehouses which do not disseminate this kind of information effectively to poor countries or farmers. Academics are in an Ivory Tower and should wake up to how poorly their practices are spread to the less fortunate. Because this is part of an open international organization, it will do a far better job than most universities which are supported by massive government and corporate grants.

:upyours: We will not allow this, and that is final. :gundge: :headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

:upyours: We will not allow this, and that is final. :gundge: :headbang: :sniper: :mp5:

Go away.

I understand your remark, but you will notice that this proposal is mild in its tone, and then i suppose (I can only suppose, nothing more) that the gameplay impact will be similarly "mild".OOC _
Unfortunately, that's not how it works: The gameplay effects are automatically derived from the category and (for this category) whether it affects just a single industry or all of them...

OOC _
Unfortunately, that's not how it works: The gameplay effects are automatically derived from the category and (for this category) whether it affects just a single industry or all of them...

Ok, thanks for the info, so I was wrong on this.
So I understand that gameplay effects are derived only from category and "Industry Affected" or "strengh", do you know the parameters?

So I understand that gameplay effects are derived only from category and "Industry Affected" or "strengh", do you know the parameters?
The description line for each category is all the info you'll get. The rest you can attempt to figure out on your own.

Text plays 0% of a role in actual game effect. It does however determine whether mods will permit it to be voted on, and it sometimes has a significant roleplay effect.

In general the Rowaun Republic thinks that this bill is beneficial to the world community overall. We are particularly excited about the possible effect of encouraging third-world and developing countries to better meet its countries food needs. However, we are concerned about the language used in the proposal. In particular:

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

We feel that this section could lead to the interpretation that the UN would support “land reform” policies like the one instituted Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe for more details). Therefore with the current language the Rowaun Republic cannot, in good conscious, support this UN proposal.

Although we do agree that ownership leads to commitment, we also believe that property rights must be universally enforced. Therefore we are against any language that may erode property rights. With minor changes to section 2.6 the Rowaun Republic would enthusiastically lend its support to this resolution.

Sincerely,

T. P. Rowe
Ambassador to the United Nations
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rowaun Republic
“What is gained if a man rules the world but has no soul”

I have no idea what the fuck you're on about with government stagnation and research funding. That's not what this resolution is about- it's about improving the access to important, helpful information. Simple as that.

Ok. I reread it, and you are right. It says nothing about doing their own research. They will just take others' research and spread it to the masses. So now we are reestablishing the internet.
This also sounds alot like a lobbyist group to me. This will be a group taking others research, going to governments begging them to implement the ideas.
I don't think any of this is neccissary. The best reason for it is that this will help poor third-world farmers. Charity organizations and churches already take care of that. Will a UN organization do a better job? Maybe, but this organization doesn't even touch that. The poor third-world farmer is starving, not because he doesn't know how to farm well, (hell, he does it for a living.) The poor third-world farmer is starving because he doesn't have the money to afford to replant his crops each year and make ends meet. Why does he use irrigation canals to flood irrigate his crops instead of drip irrigation, or surge irrigation? Because it costs less to dig a canal in from the river, and flood his fields once a week than string up miles of drip hoses. Its not because he doesn't know these techniques exist. Its a matter of economics! Even farmers in first-world countries still use flood irrigation. Why? Because it costs less.

Sen. Sulla looks sort of bemused at the current debate, and more shockingly, even appears to be drawing a sober breath(which seems most out of character for the old reprobate). He squares his shoulders, takes a deep breath, and walks over to the Microphone at the podium. All is silent, either with shock, or morbid curiousity over what he is about to say. He looks at his fellow delegates, smiles in a most unpleasent fashion, and says,

"You lucky sods, I wish I could do nothing but listen to me all day. Well I have to admit that I was dreading this debate. I was afraid that it would be as boring as the last few, and by damn, y'all don't disappoint. I wish to say that the Palentine casts its vote against the current proposal. We have nothing in particular against it, just a visceral dislike of the proposal. It has been the policy of the Palentine to vote against enviromental legislation, and we see no reasonto change that policy. however, if the vote gets close, y'all know how to reach me and y'all also know my policyon changing my vote. As it has been said...In God we Trust, all others must pay Cash".

Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Due to the urgings of the great people of Ravacholiser, we have voted against this proposal on a few grounds.

Ravacholiser has banned the use of GM crops, instead relying on our time tested crops that have sustained us through millenium. We would not like to splice salmon DNA with our wheat.

GM crops are hard to control. They cross polinate like any other plant, once they are in the wild, they spread their genes. These genes are often un-natural, and depending on the GM crop, can dramatically change everything.

GM plants often are roundup ready, or have internal, unnatural, pesticides. This kills all insects, not just the ones we are trying to keep off our crops. Then we eat these vegetables, injesting them.

GM crops are the intellectual property of large multinational corporations whose only driving motive is profit, by law. I do not want my people's food source held hostage by some profit-driven corporation. I prefer local, family supported farms where the profits stay local, supporting communities.

The threat of a disease killing off our crops is more of a threat to those who use monoculture and GM crops. Large monolithic fields of the same thing are prone to disaster. Time tested seeds, that were naturally selected for their area are far more resistant, not monolithic, and enough always survive disease.

We must not turn to franken-food as the answer to problems that we have created. We agree with the first half of the bill, but strongly disagree with the GM crop section.
I urge all member nations to vote NO on this bill.
Sincerely
-Jacques Ravachol
Président de la République populaire de Ravacholiser

However, we are concerned about the language used in the proposal. In particular:
-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture.

Don't be concerned with that part of the proposal. The UNSARC can only "Promote" land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture. It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will actually do it.

However, we are concerned about the language used in the proposal. In particular:

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

We feel that this section could lead to the interpretation that the UN would support “land reform” policies like the one instituted Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe for more details).

OOC: but Mugabe didn't redistribute the seized land to (more) farmers, he gave it to politicians & his other cronies...

Don't be concerned with that part of the proposal. The UNSARC can only "Promote" land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture. It is up to each individual nation to decide if they will actually do it.


But it is the appearance that the UN is supporting such a notion is what we are objecting to.

OOC: but Mugabe didn't redistribute the seized land to (more) farmers, he gave it to politicians & his other cronies...

But it is the ambiguity of the language of the proposal that is troublesome to us.

But it is the appearance that the UN is supporting such a notion is what we are objecting to.

Oh, I see. I can agree with that, I guess.

Ravacholiser has banned the use of GM crops, instead relying on our time tested crops that have sustained us through millenium. We would not like to splice salmon DNA with our wheat.

(etc. etc. snip)

With all due respect, I don't think that those of you who are objecting to this proposal due to GM crops quite get it. From my reading, this proposal does not mandate the use of GM crops at all...like any other aspect of the resolution, if you prefer to ignore the suggestions made by the UNSARC, and reject GM crops on your own soil, you can do so.

Furthermore, the proposal "CHARGES the UNSARC with studying the safety and effects of artificial hybrid crops (the result of interbreeding between two varieties) and GM crops (Genetically modified crops)". What better way to begin answering the questions regarding the safety of GM crops than studying them?

Lastly, since this proposal doesn't REQUIRE you to do anything in your own land you don't want to, opposing it makes no sense. If you want to limit the options your own citizens have to feed themselves, that's fine, but it's utterly heartless to deny other countries a means to do so - which is all this proposal is advocating.

What Laborland is alittle disturbed by is all the talk of this resolution as not mandating anything. Well As far as Laborland is concerned this does mandate it because if we didnt implement it ourselves the UNSARC will distribute the information to our population weather we want it out there or not. So in a way we believe that this resolution will uncontrollably mandate the info be spread throughout our country weather we agree with it or not. Laborland will vote against this resolution for 2 reasons UNSARC and the fact that land needs to be distributed to farmers. If the farmers wish to purchuse more land let them but if they cannot afford the land then they have to earn the money to purchuse it. I will not hand out free land to anyone.

The New Cultural Revolution votes in favour of this resolution and assures the assembled delegates that we will not interpret its passage as licence to re-enact the Old Cultural Revolution.

Benedictions,

I am consistently amazed by the utter stupidity and idiocy that I hear in this chamber. Not only are people seemingly failing to read the resolution, they are completely ignoring the facts about it.

1. This does not force your nation to do anything with regards to agricultural practices or land distribution. Not a damn thing, do you understand?

2. The only thing this resolution actually does mandate is the creation of the UNSARC, which will make information more easily accessible to nations. Anyone can contribute information to the UNSARC, think of it as a gigantic forum for agricultural ideas. It can only improve the current system.

3. This does not force your nation to do a damn thing. I know that this was point #1, but it's pretty fucking important and I thought you should all hear it again.

Got it?

The Republic of Sokmet is concerned at the description of the resolution as being "at the expense of industry". Would it be possible to get an explanation as to why this must be at the expense of industry, and in what ways this resolution is at the expense of industry?

OOC: It's a game mechanics thing. Read through the previous few pages of this thread, they explain it better than I could.

The Republic of Sokmet is concerned at the description of the resolution as being "at the expense of industry". Would it be possible to get an explanation as to why this must be at the expense of industry, and in what ways this resolution is at the expense of industry?

Read the rules and pay attention, man. All environmental proposals are "at the expense of industry."

Oh, and welcome to the UN. Here, have a flower.

http://www.eiu.edu/~egarden/images/cchs/113-01726.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Laborland still is not convinced that this UNSARC will not be active and promoting the programs listed in the PROMOTES section under the article in which the UNSARC is introduced and said organization is discribed as PROMOTES these items. Here is the exact reading of this section.

-2- PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following:

-2.1- Water-saving management systems such as drip irrigation (drop by drop) or surge irrigation (intermittent application of water),

-2.2- Traditional rain-harvesting systems such as reservoirs, tanks, wells or johads (small earthen check dams build across a slope that capture and conserve rainwater), their shading to decrease evaporation and collective projects to build them,

-2.3- Crop rotation practices and polyculture to decrease pests (insects, weeds, pathogens …) and soil depletion,

-2.4- Scientific researches for more-biodegradable and less toxic pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, bactericides …) and ecological biological ones,

-2.5- The sensible use of pesticides for agriculture (as for road maintenance) along with small predators animals in order both to protect crops and avoid soil degradation,

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

-2.7- The suppression of animal carcass in livestock feeding;

-2.8- The mitigation of new cultivated areas gained over forests

Read the rules and pay attention, man. All environmental proposals are "at the expense of industry."

Oh, and welcome to the UN. Here, have a flower.

http://www.eiu.edu/~egarden/images/cchs/113-01726.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

If you will excuse my ignorance, these rules are on the NationStates game itself, or posted in the UN Forum?

If you will excuse my ignorance, these rules are on the NationStates game itself, or posted in the UN Forum?

Try reading this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8913218&postcount=2). Really, you should read that whole thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Thank you.

I quote: "Land distribution to farmers"

This is Marxism! Know it, before voting.

I quote: "Land distribution to farmers"

This is Marxism! Know it, before voting.

I -- ......



Holy sh....

Laborland still is not convinced that this UNSARC will not be active and promoting the programs listed in the PROMOTES section under the article in which the UNSARC is introduced and said organization is discribed as PROMOTES these items. Here is the exact reading of this section.

-2- PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following:

-2.1- Water-saving management systems such as drip irrigation (drop by drop) or surge irrigation (intermittent application of water),

-2.2- Traditional rain-harvesting systems such as reservoirs, tanks, wells or johads (small earthen check dams build across a slope that capture and conserve rainwater), their shading to decrease evaporation and collective projects to build them,

-2.3- Crop rotation practices and polyculture to decrease pests (insects, weeds, pathogens …) and soil depletion,

-2.4- Scientific researches for more-biodegradable and less toxic pesticides (insecticides, herbicides, bactericides …) and ecological biological ones,

-2.5- The sensible use of pesticides for agriculture (as for road maintenance) along with small predators animals in order both to protect crops and avoid soil degradation,

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

-2.7- The suppression of animal carcass in livestock feeding;

-2.8- The mitigation of new cultivated areas gained over forests

No one said it's not promoting -- it's not MANDATING. There's a difference between saying, "Hey! This is some good stuff!" and saying "EAT IT OR I'LL CRUSH YOUR SOUL!"

Don't like what it's promoting (for whatever reason [I shudder to think]), then don't do it. Since you have a problem with better farming practices, don't do it yourself. That's not much of a reason to vote against this, though.

I am consistently amazed by the utter stupidity and idiocy that I hear in this chamber. Not only are people seemingly failing to read the resolution, they are completely ignoring the facts about it.

1. This does not force your nation to do anything with regards to agricultural practices or land distribution. Not a damn thing, do you understand?...
...3. This does not force your nation to do a damn thing. I know that this was point #1, but it's pretty fucking important and I thought you should all hear it again.

Got it?

Finally, he says something I agree with! This proposal forces you to do nothing. It says it shares and educates, but it still does nothing. No new techniques, hybrids, or any other inovation will be used because these changes cost money. If the poor farmer can't afford to make marginal changes which will make the scores of enviromentalists happy, this "new" farming information and technology won't mean a damn thing. He doesn't care if his irrigation system is nature friendly, as long as it puts food on his table. If you want expensive changes that won't help the outcome of farmers' crops in any significant way, you have to pay the farmers to do it. Or atleast reimburse the farmers for the cost. And this resolution doesn't do that. Knowledge unapplied is something we all like to call trivia. Why? Because its trivial, (for all you who hate those who define words with the same root, change "trivial" to "pointless", or some other synonym.)

Read the rules and pay attention, man. All environmental proposals are "at the expense of industry."

Oh, and welcome to the UN. Here, have a flower.

Great, someone with a sound mind in defense of industry. Too bad there aren't enough vocal people like you.

This proposal forces you to do nothing. It says it shares and educates, but it still does nothing.

So because it doesn't force anything, it does nothing, regardless of the other two words you highlighted as it doing?

Whoever said I had a sound mind, man? I'm stoned to bejeezus right now.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

So because it doesn't force anything, it does nothing, regardless of the other two words you highlighted as it doing?

Please read the entire post be fore you criticize it. I explained myself further on. If you only read the underlines, you don't get the full meaning, I was just using it to emphasize the point.

Whoever said I had a sound mind, man? I'm stoned to bejeezus right now.

Well, nevermind then.

OOC: Ummm if passed then this will auto-apply to everyone regardless weather it is mandated or not the game doesnt know that it will auto apply it to everyone. So this non-mandated nonsense if it is passed then it will be applied to everyone and will effect your country. They act like issues dont they? So yes if there is something in here that will effect how my country then it is mandated. The UNSARC is the scape goat. Promoting something is just as bad as mandating it do to the fact you look like the bad guy if what is PROMOTED by a community is not what you follow. Sorry but PROMOTING the fact we need to give farmers land is as said above alittle Marxist for my Capitolistic taste. Also I would rather be a Diverse country with many goods instead of gradually being a country that just produces farm goods. sorry I dont believe in the Resolusion but hope you get what you want which the voting looks like you will anyway.

Finally, he says something I agree with! This proposal forces you to do nothing. It says it shares and educates, but it still does nothing.
WRONG.

God, are you so fucking dumb that you missed the part of the resolution that establishes a committee? Or are you so fucking fixated on the the fucking non-binding clauses that you refuse to see any bit of reason?


No new techniques, hybrids, or any other inovation will be used because these changes cost money.
Yes, you are correct. Things cost money. I'm glad that you can reason with the ability of a 6-year-old. Did you miss the part about the decisions being left to your government to make? You don't have to listen to what the UNSARC tells you, their job will be for advice and research.

Or is advice and research a bad idea? From the way you keep yammering on about this proposal, I get the impression that you want it to be difficult to get access to info.

If the poor farmer can't afford to make marginal changes which will make the scores of enviromentalists happy, this "new" farming information and technology won't mean a damn thing.

What the fuck are you talking about? You're not even making fucking sense anymore. This resolution doesn't force farmers into compliance with anything, this resolution isn't even about environmentalism. It's about improving agricultural practices. What farmer wouldn't want increase his crop yield or get easier access to irrigation water?

Maybe you just don't understand what the fuck this proposal does.

He doesn't care if his irrigation system is nature friendly, as long as it puts food on his table.

Do you understand the difference between subsistence farming and commercial farming? The average farmer produces things for sale, not for his own consumption. As it is, a corn farmer isn't going to subsist solely on corn, he grows corn because he is going to sell it. Now, if he can improve the quality and yield of his corn, he's going to do that or go out of business. The UNSARC will assist farmers with advantageous agrivultural practices, because this resolution is ultimately intended to help agriculture

If you want expensive changes that won't help the outcome of farmers' crops in any significant way, you have to pay the farmers to do it.
No, you fucking don't. If there's a good way to decrease labor, seed, irrigation, and related costs, farmers are going to jump on them. What the fuck would be the point of an organization that advocates wasting money and bad agricultural practices?

Or atleast reimburse the farmers for the cost. And this resolution doesn't do that.

Yeah, it doesn't do that because it'd be stupid to do that. Everyone who runs a business takes a risk on developments, because developments and advancements generally equal increased profits and success. Farmers are exactly the same. Our government doesn't reimburse farms for making poor choices; they adapt and improve their methods, or they fail.


Knowledge unapplied is something we all like to call trivia. Why? Because its trivial, (for all you who hate those who define words with the same root, change "trivial" to "pointless", or some other synonym.)

Thank you, Mr. Webster! Now that you've graced us with your definition of the word "trivial," why don't you try and figure out why it doesn't apply to the UNSARC?

Answer? Because trivia is knowledge that has no practical application, like knowing the approximate lengths of every song performed by Nakrat, a popular Allech-Atrean pop singer. Methods to utilize rainwater as an irrigant, or new fertilizer compounds have a practical application, which is why the UNSARC would provide education about it.

Reason, motherfucker, do you understand it?



Great, someone with a sound mind in defense of industry. Too bad there aren't enough vocal people like you.

You have no idea who you're talking to, do you?

You have no idea who you're talking to, do you?

I know I'm talking to this really cool sock puppet.

http://wifinetnews.com/images/200px-Carlb-sockpuppet-01.jpg

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Finally, he says something I agree with! This proposal forces you to do nothing. It says it shares and educates, but it still does nothing.

Ok, I seem to have this sorted out. Some of you object because you think this proposal "mandates" something (which it doesn't). All that I can suggest on that one is for you to try reading it again (and again, and again, until a glimmer of comprehension enters your brain).

The rest of you seem to object, in part, because it DOESN'T mandate anything. Fair enough. If you want someone to always MANDATE something on you, I am sure our lawyers back home can write up documents whereby you immediately cede your sovereignty to Altanar, and we can handle the nasty business of thinking for you. We would, of course, have possession of everything you own. But that's a small price to pay, right?

Seriously, what is the logical grievance with helping people farm better, voluntarily, with no force applied if they don't want the help? I have yet to hear one.

No new techniques, hybrids, or any other inovation will be used because these changes cost money. If the poor farmer can't afford to make marginal changes which will make the scores of enviromentalists happy, this "new" farming information and technology won't mean a damn thing. He doesn't care if his irrigation system is nature friendly, as long as it puts food on his table. If you want expensive changes that won't help the outcome of farmers' crops in any significant way, you have to pay the farmers to do it. Or atleast reimburse the farmers for the cost.

How are things like making earthen dams (johads) or crop rotation and polyculture (i.e. planting a different crop every once in a while instead of the same old thing, thus ruining your soil) so high-tech or expensive?

What the fuck are you talking about? You're not even making fucking sense anymore. This resolution doesn't force farmers into compliance with anything, this resolution isn't even about environmentalism. It's about improving agricultural practices. What farmer wouldn't want increase his crop yield or get easier access to irrigation water?

Actually it is about enviromentalism. The thin says, "- Environmental stewardship" four lines into it. Ass.

Do you understand the difference between subsistence farming and commercial farming? The average farmer produces things for sale, not for his own consumption. As it is, a corn farmer isn't going to subsist solely on corn, he grows corn because he is going to sell it. Now, if he can improve the quality and yield of his corn, he's going to do that or go out of business. The UNSARC will assist farmers with advantageous agrivultural practices, because this resolution is ultimately intended to help agriculture?

You really are an ass. By putting food on his table, I meant "make money". Besides, a good percentage of the worlds population is subsistance farming, which means, "farming that brings little or no profit to the farmer, allowing only for a marginal livelihood." And who says any of this will improve yeilds? Ok maybe thats not fair, it might. But the increased yeilds may not be worth the cost of implementing these changes. Think about it, grade-school economics.

If there's a good way to decrease labor, seed, irrigation, and related costs, farmers are going to jump on them.

If the "good way" to decrease labor, seed, irrigation, and related costs is expensive, the farmers won't be able to implement them anyway? But obviously talking to you is like talking to the wall.

Actually it is about enviromentalism. The thin says, "- Environmental stewardship" four lines into it. Ass.

Environmental stewardship does not imply environmentalism. If this were a truly enviromentalist resolution, wanting us to stop cutting trees and build habitats for fuzzy little animals, we'd be having a different discussion.

Environmental stewardship means finding responsible and effective ways of growing high-quality produce, with minimal harm to the area in which it was grown. Why? Because if you fuck up the soil, you can't grow much anymore. It's counter-intuitive.


You really are an ass. By putting food on his table, I meant "make money".
Then you should have said that.

Besides, a good percentage of the worlds population is subsistance farming, which means, "farming that brings little or no profit to the farmer, allowing only for a marginal livelihood."

Intersting. In the Great Star Empire, only a few planets have sizeable subsistence farming populations, and that's mostly due to tradition, they chose to be that way. I wonder, how did you conclude that most of the farmers in NationStates are subsistence farmers?


And who says any of this will improve yeilds? Ok maybe thats not fair, it might.

You seem to be under the impression that the resolution implements the changes it recommends. It doesn't. The UNSARC will compile adequate research and data on agricultural practices that are proven to succeed and be effective- with the hope that farmers will use them.

But the increased yeilds may not be worth the cost of implementing these changes. Think about it, grade-school economics.

Why would a farmer implement methods that don't work? Just to spend his money? That's stupid. The point is to promote effective, proven methods, not methods that are a waste of money and completely unproven.


If the "good way" to decrease labor, seed, irrigation, and related costs is expensive, the farmers won't be able to implement them anyway? But obviously talking to you is like talking to the wall.

Interesting how you assert that these changes are all expensive, when you have no way to qualify it. By all means, please conujure more false arguments into the discussion!

Do I have to repeat myself? Farmers aren't going to spend money implementing practices that don't work or are expensive. I said this before. The practices put forward are inexpensive, and with the help of the UNSARC, they have the potential to improve farming and agriculture.

How are things like making earthen dams (johads) or crop rotation and polyculture (i.e. planting a different crop every once in a while instead of the same old thing, thus ruining your soil) so high-tech or expensive?

Thats technology already being used. We aren't talking about educating neolithic people in the ways of farming here. We are talking about educating perfessonal farmers, that already use modern, (or near-modern,) farming techniques, in new more expensive techniques. i.e. Flood irrigation costs way less than using a drip system, and yet flood irrigation works just as well if not better.
The reason all of the "old ways" are used, is because they work well but for less cost. (Labor is a cost by the way. If it requires more work, it costs more.) Farmers with limited means look for ways to cut cost, not increase them. Non-enviroment friendly pesticides work better and for less than enviroment friendly one do.

OOC: Ummm if passed then this will auto-apply to everyone regardless weather it is mandated or not the game doesnt know that it will auto apply it to everyone. So this non-mandated nonsense if it is passed then it will be applied to everyone and will effect your country. They act like issues dont they? So yes if there is something in here that will effect how my country then it is mandated. The UNSARC is the scape goat. Promoting something is just as bad as mandating it do to the fact you look like the bad guy if what is PROMOTED by a community is not what you follow. Sorry but PROMOTING the fact we need to give farmers land is as said above alittle Marxist for my Capitolistic taste. Also I would rather be a Diverse country with many goods instead of gradually being a country that just produces farm goods. sorry I dont believe in the Resolusion but hope you get what you want which the voting looks like you will anyway.

I tend to agree with Laborland! This is why Raoaun cannot vote for this proposal!

Thats technology already being used. We aren't talking about educating neolithic people in the ways of farming here. We are talking about educating perfessonal farmers, that already use modern, (or near-modern,) farming techniques, in new more expensive techniques.

No, we aren't, as has been stated before. Crop rotation is not a "new" technique, nor is polyculture. Neither of them is a high-tech or expensive method. And I am still wondering what is new, or expensive, about building earthen dams (i.e. big walls of dirt).

i.e. Flood irrigation costs way less than using a drip system, and yet flood irrigation works just as well if not better.

Perhaps it does, until you use up all the water. Drip irrigation is a way to conserve the resource used, i.e. water. Try using flood irrigation once the well's run dry. Drip irrigation is hardly a new technique either.

The reason all of the "old ways are used, is because they work well but for less cost. (Labor is a cost by the way. If it requires more work, it costs more.) Farmers with limited means look for ways to cut cost, not increase them.

Labor is the one cost I might concede here. Might. But even then, if for a little more labor, the farmers in question could greatly increase their yields, and ensure they'll actually be able to farm their land after 2-3 years have passed, I doubt they'd mind much.

The UNSARC will compile adequate research and data on agricultural practices that are proven to succeed and be effective- with the hope that farmers will use them.
Why would a farmer implement methods that don't work? Just to spend his money? That's stupid. The point is to promote effective, proven methods, not methods that are a waste of money and completely unproven.
Interesting how you assert that these changes are all expensive, when you have no way to qualify it. By all means, please conujure more false arguments into the discussion!

Here is another example of it being more expensive and less effective: Talking about Surge irrigation http://lawr.ucdavis.edu/irrigation/Manuals/93-02.html says, "On the negative side, surge irrigation requires close management. Because it slows the water infiltration rate, surge irrigation can lead to under- irrigation, and if not managed properly can actually increase runoff compared to conventional irrigation methods. It also requires gated pipes and carries with it the need to maintain surge equipment."
I repeat, "Labor is a cost."

Do I have to repeat myself? Farmers aren't going to spend money implementing practices that don't work or are expensive.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

I have no idea what the fuck you're on about with government stagnation and research funding. That's not what this resolution is about- it's about improving the access to important, helpful information. Simple as that.

Break the goverment budget buy a $300 laptop and learn to spell Google. In the meantime why are we YET AGAIN being subject to a forrest of paper and wasted electrons constantly making bills that DONT DO ANYTHING. If i wanted suggestions on how to do things i would mandate a required mother-in-law for all of my citizens. Its about time the UN STOPPED wasting all of our time with non binding suggestions. If the UN wants to run around making suggestions then id recommend being Ann Landers in an advice column and not try to run a system of government. If you have a suggestion for a bill that ACTUALLY REQUIRED SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.ANYTHING. JUST ANYTHING im all ears.And willing to give the issue a fair shake. This is just a big bubble of useless hot air.

Stop telling people how to farm for christsakes. Farming has existed since near the creation of Mankind. We have literally thousands of years worth of farming data and yields. There are entire LIBRARIES dedicated to nothing BUT farming information. Im pretty sure NO-ONE needs yet more useless UN advice. Is the UN that unoccupied that its talking about THIS? Prove to me this is a problem. Give me the names of ANY countries in this game that are blowing away like dust and the only thing that can save them is this critical bill. I dare you.

And SINCE when is the UN of all places the end-all be-all of FARMING? Shouldnt, i dont know, FARMERS write a how to farm book? Maybe we could sell it in the UN gift shop! Sounds like a private sector job to me.

Well im off to write a UN bill mandating elasticity strength in underwear waistbands. <waves>

My new sig and a proposed UN motto: If it aint broke, for the love of God dont fix it.

In general the Rowaun Republic thinks that this bill is beneficial to the world community overall. We are particularly excited about the possible effect of encouraging third-world and developing countries to better meet its countries food needs. However, we are concerned about the language used in the proposal. In particular:

-2.6- Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

We feel that this section could lead to the interpretation that the UN would support “land reform” policies like the one instituted Zimbabwe’s President Mugabe. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_reform_in_Zimbabwe for more details). Therefore with the current language the Rowaun Republic cannot, in good conscious, support this UN proposal.

Although we do agree that ownership leads to commitment, we also believe that property rights must be universally enforced. Therefore we are against any language that may erode property rights. With minor changes to section 2.6 the Rowaun Republic would enthusiastically lend its support to this resolution.

Sincerely,

T. P. Rowe
Ambassador to the United Nations
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rowaun Republic
“What is gained if a man rules the world but has no soul”

First of all, this proposal is winning by like three touchdowns! So those vitriolic partisans who make the US Congress look tame can relax.

Next, regardless of what this bill does or does not do, it still promotes a policy that is bad. Land distribution erodes one of the most basic protections…property rights. If a high school searches your locker for drugs or other paraphernalia somehow this is an invasion of your privacy and yet if you take someone’s land and give it to another, this is somehow right?

As stated earlier, overall this is a great bill, the people of Rowaun objects to putting its name on a proposal that endorses land distribution.

No, we aren't, as has been stated before. Crop rotation is not a "new" technique, nor is polyculture. Neither of them is a high-tech or expensive method. And I am still wondering what is new, or expensive, about building earthen dams (i.e. big walls of dirt).

I am not refering to the tried and true techniques. I am referring
to the newer ideas like: biodegradable and less toxic pesticides, drip irrigation, and others. My arguement is that these are not used because of lack of knowledge, but their high cost and impracticality. If it was cheap and practical everyone would use it wouldn't they?

Perhaps it does, until you use up all the water. Drip irrigation is a way to conserve the resource used, i.e. water. Try using flood irrigation once the well's run dry. Drip irrigation is hardly a new technique either.

Good point. Drip irrigation is relatively new, though. I meant new, as in decades, not months. But no problem.

Break the goverment budget buy a $300 laptop and learn to spell Google. In the meantime why are we YET AGAIN being subject to a forrest of paper and wasted electrons constantly making bills that DONT DO ANYTHING. If i wanted suggestions on how to do things i would mandate a required mother-in-law for all of my citizens. Its about time the UN STOPPED wasting all of our time with non binding suggestions. If the UN wants to run around making suggestions then id recommend being Ann Landers in an advice column and not try to run a system of government. If you have a suggestion for a bill that ACTUALLY REQUIRED SOMEONE TO ACTUALLY DO SOMETHING.ANYTHING. JUST ANYTHING im all ears.And willing to give the issue a fair shake. This is just a big bubble of useless hot air.

Stop telling people how to farm for christsakes. Farming has existed since near the creation of Mankind. Im pretty sure NO-ONE needs yet more useless UN advice. Is the UN that unoccupied that its talking about THIS? Prove to me this is a problem. Give me the names of ANY countries in this game that are blowing away like dust and the only thing that can save them is this critical bill. I dare you.

Finally, backup has arrived!

The rest of you seem to object, in part, because it DOESN'T mandate anything. Fair enough. If you want someone to always MANDATE something on you, I am sure our lawyers back home can write up documents whereby you immediately cede your sovereiActually most of us just want the UN to shut the hell up and leave us alone. If the UN feels it MUST speak out then lets have those rare occasions actually MEAN something and have it actually DO something instead of blowing hot air.

Actually most of us just want the UN to shut the hell up and leave us alone. If the UN feels it MUST speak out then lets have those rare occasions actually MEAN something and have it actually DO something instead of blowing hot air.

But you WILL be left alone. This proposal doesn't require you to do anything. If you want to sit at home in a poorly fed hovel, by all means. No one here will prevent it, even after this proposal passes. And again, whining accomplishes nothing....if you can come up with a decent proposal, have at it. Otherwise, you're the only one blowing hot air.

what are you people thinking by voting for the enviorment and agianst the economy. Money is more important than some stupid trees. :headbang: why dont you people get that being able to buy food might be a little more important than whether or not little mr. squirrely gets his nuts or not. Its a dog eat dog world, survival of the fitess, so if animals arent strong enough to stand up to humans, than we should destroy their enviorment. Who cares about the trees anyway, we get most of our oxygen from the ocean.
:sniper:
thats what i think of enviormentalists

If it's going to do "nothing" as some people say, why not endorse it? There won't be any harm.

Marachia will be endorsing this resolution.

I think the fact that this does not mandate anything is, in fact, a serious problem. With agriculture being a major industry in many states, the lack of enforcement means that many countries will be forced not to take on board the suggestions made in order to stay competitive with those who choose not to. The usefulness of what is an otherwise excellent proposal is severely compromised by this, and I'm left wondering exactly what it was hoped would be gained through this. Surely this proposal is not suggesting that agricultural experts within nations are actually incapable of following new developments and deciding what is most in line with their own, and this proposal's, priorities, if they choose to? And if they choose not to, or their prorities and this proposal's are different, it'll be ignored anyway.

I'm unwilling to vote against this, because I think it is a good thing to have an official position on, and I can see that a small number of countires may have their awareness raised or views swayed or somesuch, but I'm also unwilling to vote for because it seems to largely be a waste of paper, and whatever message it's sending, it'll be sending, to many, an equal message of "Listening to our suggestions isn't economically feasible!"

I think the fact that this does not mandate anything is, in fact, a serious problem. With agriculture being a major industry in many states, the lack of enforcement means that many countries will be forced not to take on board the suggestions made in order to stay competitive with those who choose not to. The usefulness of what is an otherwise excellent proposal is severely compromised by this, and I'm left wondering exactly what it was hoped would be gained through this. Surely this proposal is not suggesting that agricultural experts within nations are actually incapable of following new developments and deciding what is most in line with their own, and this proposal's, priorities, if they choose to? And if they choose not to, or their prorities and this proposal's are different, it'll be ignored anyway.

I'm unwilling to vote against this, because I think it is a good thing to have an official position on, and I can see that a small number of countires may have their awareness raised or views swayed or somesuch, but I'm also unwilling to vote for because it seems to largely be a waste of paper, and whatever message it's sending, it'll be sending, to many, an equal message of "Listening to our suggestions isn't economically feasible!"

I'm personnaly more and more convinced by the fact that one of the most important driver of our societies is FASHION.

Few examples, the Feb 23rd 2006 the newsmagazine "the economist" in an article about fashionable philantropy said:
Among America's super-wealthy, it seems that only Warren Buffett, the world's second-richest man, still dedicates all his energies to making more money rather than giving away some of what he already has
http://www.economist.com/surveys/displaystory.cfm?story_id=5517605

Few months later Warren Buffett donated $37bn to charity.

Another example, the city in which i live decided to give citizen acees to thousand of rented-bikes available in more than 300 places. i really think it's a pretty good idea. And the main reason why the mayor decided to do it was because everyone in the nation I live praised a similar project realized in another major city.

One more example may be the absolutly new "environmental policy" of the city of Beijing. This U-turn policy had historically one main cause: the fact that the Chinese authority feared bad worldwide comments about their cheared 2008 olympic games, related to the annoying high level of pollution in Beijing.

Our point of view is that mild clause in UN resolutions can make some good practices "fashionable". Our aim is that this good practices to be more and more followed, and we really think that this proposal is written in a good manner to achieve these goals.

Also 2 great nations in this game, Hirota and the former Powerhungry Chipmunks convinced to us to try to write mild clauses when possible and convinced us of that stick don't always have more results than promotion.

Actually most of us just want the UN to shut the hell up and leave us alone.

Then leave the UN! Most of us want the UN to speak firmly, carry a big stick and screw our governments in the name of the right thing to do. That's why I'm supporting this resolution despite the fact that it's going to rape all my national industries equally to pay for this "does nothing" resolution.

I have two puppets that are not in the UN. They lead wonderful idyllic lives, and are generally speaking BORING! The Joker must have his Batman and I need my UN, nay I demand it!

I think the fact that this does not mandate anything is, in fact, a serious problem. With agriculture being a major industry in many states, the lack of enforcement means that many countries will be forced not to take on board the suggestions made in order to stay competitive with those who choose not to. The usefulness of what is an otherwise excellent proposal is severely compromised by this, and I'm left wondering exactly what it was hoped would be gained through this. Surely this proposal is not suggesting that agricultural experts within nations are actually incapable of following new developments and deciding what is most in line with their own, and this proposal's, priorities, if they choose to? And if they choose not to, or their prorities and this proposal's are different, it'll be ignored anyway.

I'm unwilling to vote against this, because I think it is a good thing to have an official position on, and I can see that a small number of countires may have their awareness raised or views swayed or somesuch, but I'm also unwilling to vote for because it seems to largely be a waste of paper, and whatever message it's sending, it'll be sending, to many, an equal message of "Listening to our suggestions isn't economically feasible!"


My government will likely be voting in favour pending our complete review of the resolution text. However, before finishing reading the resolution, I feel it important to stress that the Confederated City States of Mikitivity will generally not vote for or against a resolution on the basis of it being a "recommendation".

Why would my government take such a position? Simple, the nature of all UN resolutions is such that they all are recommendations. Governments can choose to comply with resolutions however they may chose. Or in some cases, they may simply leave the UN ... and while there are numerous examples where non-UN members have choosen to adhere to the principals of select UN resolutions, there are likely just as many examples of nations chosing to not adhere to the ideas behind various UN resolutions.

A UN resolution is merely a reflection of international will on a particular subject. The extent that they are legal is always determined by whatever means nations use to implement changes in their own domestic laws. Though we all speak as though UN resolutions become international law, laws still need to be approved and more importantly enforced. Even our UN Secretariat will point out that there are no real direct enforcement mechanisms in this organization.

That said, you'll notice that I said "direct enforcement". There is indirect enforcement of uni-lateral decisions ... and that is via bi-lateral relationships. In the case of a previous resolution that was also labelled as a "useless piece of paper", the Mitigation of Large Reservoirs resolution really only encouraged nations to mitigate for the negative environmental impacts of large reservoirs. That is ultimately a judgement call ...

However, in the case of my government, the nations with which Mikitivity based businesses may interact with is somewhat regulated. A nation that fails to meet international environmental standards is treated as a non-favored nation ... and domestic and international businesses that are not actively involved in improving those nations may find themselves in a similar position.

For example, H.J. Rheiner GmbH is much less likely to be awarded contracts supplying Miervatian schools with pickles if it finds itself purchasing those pickles from nations that aren't in good standing with Miervatian law.

To move this away from agriculture, let's look at an existing UN resolution: Child Labor (Res #14) (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Child_Labor). The resolution is somewhat vague. What is "industrial labor"?

In Mikitivity this includes the actual processing of some types of goods, so if a nation employees children from making shoes, it is up to Mikitivity to prevent the import of those products -or- to find other means to prevent the promotion of child labor.

If your only objection is that this resolution is "mild", there is still a reason for the UN to pass mild resolutions. They enable nations that wish to comply to place indirect pressures on non-compliant nations, and ultimately Spice Melange is often more persuasive than even strongly worded text on paper.

Howie T. Katzman

*Bob picks up a copy of the current resolution up for vote*

"Hmm, let's see... Defining “Sustainable Agriculture” as... ...in order to achieve these ambitious goals... ...ESTABLISH the UNSARC... ...PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following... ...Crop rotation practices and poly..."

*Falls asleep with his head landing on the against voting button*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

First, I'd like to call attention to the fact that Community Property has recently been recognized as being 38th in the South Pacific for having the nicest citizens; it's a distinction we're pleased to have earned.

Next, who are 'Robert Mugabe (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Special:Search?search=Robert+Mugabe&go=Go)' and 'Warren Buffet (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Special:Search?search=Warren+Buffett&go=Go)'? We can't find references to these people in the NationStates Encyclopedia (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Main_Page). And where are 'Zimbabwe (http://www.nationstates.net/Zimbabwe)' and 'China (http://www.nationstates.net/China)'? We tried looking them up in the N.S.U.N. database, but found nothing

Now, on to the issue at hand...

What this legislation does is create an international agency whose purpose is to act as a clearinghouse for information on agriculture and to promote better agricultural practices everywhere. It is not a given that farmers always know everything they need to know about their profession; there are plenty of examples down through history of environmental damage resulting from poor land management, poor farming practices, and excessive reliance on 'traditional' methods of farming where newer and better alternatives are available. We see nothing wrong with facilitating information exchange among the practitioners what is most assuredly the single most important industry there is.

We also fail to understand why some nations object to land reform and attempts to promote the preservation of wilderness areas, especially when there is not a hint of compulsion in the proposed legislation. What is wrong with encouraging the division of land into small holdings, as long as it is voluntary? Some self-consciously capitalist nations seem to want to bend over backwards to prevent anything that might result in reduced income inequality, even if it doesn't run counter to the needs of the free market. Nothing in the legislation says, after all, that distribution must be undertaken through involuntary 'takings' or that such distribution can not involve fair market compensation for any land distributed. Indeed, nothing in the legislation says that such distribution must occur at all; it is merely something that UNSARC must promote, and even then nothing is said about the form in which it must be promoted. UNSARC could satisfy this requirement by urging people to buy homes in the country in order to work the land or sharecrop it to someone else who will.

Likewise, UNSARC's mandate to promote the mitigation of agricultural encroachment into forests could be achieved in any number of ways: by promoting the purchase of wilderness areas by not-for-profit foundations (http://www.nature.org/), by opposing farm subsidies where such subsidies result in excessive deforestation, by encouraging farmers to make better use of land already cleared instead of clearing more, and – as we do in Community Property – by teaching farmers how to cultivate the forest itself in non-destructive fashion (http://www.nofa.org/tnf/sp02/supplement/edible.php), growing foods that can flourish in the forest ecosystem without the need for clearing or making other disruptive changes in its natural ecology. None of this need involve coercion, and none of this need be done in a fashion contrary to the workings of capitalism.

It's almost as though some capitalist nations think that, unless they haven't impoverished 95% of their people and turned their lands into stinking, poisoned, irradiated wastelands that they're not being true to Adam Smith or something. Incredible.

Thank Heaven not all capitalist nations (http://www.nationstates.net/allech-atreus) are like that...

In this particular instance, we join with Community Property in support of something! The development of agriculture is a very important matter, and is completely compatible with most economic systems. The foundation of the state is land, and the people that work the land are the backbone upon which it is built. Their prosperity strengthens the state, and supports the wealth of all.

*cough*

Yep. We aren't going to redistribute land, though. That's just dumb.

The Armed Republic of Weller Centennial stands in Violent opposition to this proposed resolution. Those who farm the few Arable tracts in Weller Centennial invest large sums with private consultants to determine the best method to utilize the land they own. Any presumptive dicta from the NSUN re proper land utilization stands in direct conflict with their rights as the true Owners of the land. Therefore we vote NAY, in support of private property rights, individual human rights, and simply to prevent the unnecessary violence that would be forthcoming from such an idiotic affront to private property rights.

blahblahblah didn't pay attention blahblahlblah

God dammit. Not another one of those...

God dammit. Not another one of those...

Oh my goodness! Why yes, by all means lets further encourage the NSUN to smash the individual and their rights to decide the best use of the property they own. Twit.

The Armed Republic of Weller Centennial stands in Violent opposition...
(emphasis actually not mine)

We've called security. They should be tossing you out on your ass shortly.

While we're waiting, however, I'd like to know whether you misread the resolution, gave up early when the big words made your brain hurt, or actually did understand it and just intended to sound like a first-class ignoramus.

If your private consultants are worth a damn, they'll probably know what's best for your agriculture, correct? If your landowners have half a brain cell, they'll understand that. Your landowners will probably listen to their overpriced consultants rather than recommendations from this UN committee. And that's all they are: recommendations. In all actuality, this resolution probably won't affect your nation at all.

There are then only three reasons you could possibly vote against this:
1) You think your nation's landowners and/or consultants are blundering morons.
2) You despise the agriculturalists of other nations and seek to prevent them from receiving any outside help.
3) You're a dumbass who doesn't actually know what this resolution means.

Please enlighten us as to which option is the correct one. And hurry, security's on the way to handle your violent opposition.

*throws the representative from Weller Centennial out the window*

You may cancel the call to security. I have dealt with the problem.

Zzzzzzzzzz

*mumble* Put my earmuffs on the cookie. *mumble*

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

*throws the representative from Weller Centennial out the window*

You may cancel the call to security. I have dealt with the problem.

Really? Have you engaged in some sort of mindless aggression? If so, perhaps you should offer up your apologies to the innocent party whom you have assaulted, as the representative from Weller Centennial is still here and remains unperturbed, even by those that believe aggression is a valid means of advancing their collectivist nonsense.

Just to let ya all know ive voted for because i think this will enhance the situation of farmers to get there task done, you know to keep us alive.

Yours Truly

The democratic republic of Vlist

St Jello Biafra;11863033'](emphasis actually not mine)

We've called security. They should be tossing you out on your ass shortly.

While we're waiting, however, I'd like to know whether you misread the resolution, gave up early when the big words made your brain hurt, or actually did understand it and just intended to sound like a first-class ignoramus.

If your private consultants are worth a damn, they'll probably know what's best for your agriculture, correct? If your landowners have half a brain cell, they'll understand that. Your landowners will probably listen to their overpriced consultants rather than recommendations from this UN committee. And that's all they are: recommendations. In all actuality, this resolution probably won't affect your nation at all.

There are then only three reasons you could possibly vote against this:
1) You think your nation's landowners and/or consultants are blundering morons.
2) You despise the agriculturalists of other nations and seek to prevent them from receiving any outside help.
3) You're a dumbass who doesn't actually know what this resolution means.

Please enlighten us as to which option is the correct one. And hurry, security's on the way to handle your violent opposition.

Three false alternatives to choose from? Gosh, you're nearly as clever as that bloated former DK. You know, the one who is such a devoted fan of his own BS.

True, this res has a zero effect in our land; but because we respect the individuals in other lands, we shout NAY! With a view to the future (where this res may be referenced as justification for a stronger res), we shout NAY! Because our long experience has taught us that the one constant of scientific study is change, we shout NAY! We stand opposed to the interjection of bureaucratic dogma into the realm of real agricultural science, and we shout NAY!

Three false alternatives to choose from? Gosh, you're nearly as clever as that bloated former DK. You know, the one who is such a devoted fan of his own BS.

True, this res has a zero effect in our land; but because we respect the individuals in other lands, we shout NAY! With a view to the future (where this res may be referenced as justification for a stronger res), we shout NAY! Because our long experience has taught us that the one constant of scientific study is change, we shout NAY! We stand opposed to the interjection of bureaucratic dogma into the realm of real agricultural science, and we shout NAY!

So, wait, what makes you think other nations are incapable of making the same judgement call you made in giving this Resolution a net effect of zero? You said it yourself, it won't do anything to you, but -- you're worried about other lands? Furthermore... Because you don't know about the rules (specifically, House of Cards), you shout nay? And because scientific change is ever-present and thus, should probably need to be constantly disseminated by, I don't know, say, some body of researchers, you shout nay? Show me, where is this bureaucratic dogma? Why is it that there is always some (pardon me for saying so) n00b going on about corrupt, UN bureaucratic machine raping the poor other countries from behind?

In keeping with the cheeseparing policies of my government, which requires constant reassurance that its UN delegation is actually doing something, I rise to comment on this proposal which actually needs no comment at all.

It needs no comment because it is so straightforward, well-argued and just plain obvious. However, I will make a gesture towards debate by quoting a suitably agricultural proverb: Knowledge is like manure: it's no use unless you spread it. If this proposal is approved, knowledge will be spread. That's entirely within the UN's ambit, I think.

On the subject of land ownership, I could point out that the only land you can actually own is the land you're buried in, but I fear this might revive some of the absurdities of the necrophilia debate, so I won't. I could burble on at some length, too, on our status as merely the custodians of the land, not its owners. But that might provoke unseemly enthusiasm from Sheik Larebil, and, as I have no wish to hear any more renditions of ancient folksongs such as The Age of Aquarius, or similar New Age anthems, I won't do that, either.

In fact, I don't really have to say anything about land ownership, because this doesn't do anything about land ownership.

Having said which, and notified you that Ardchoille votes FOR, I believe I have justified my existence as far as the administration is concerned. Thank you and goodnight.
______________________

Dicey Reilly, Co-President of Ardchoille

However, if the vote gets close, y'all know how to reach me and y'all also know my policy on changing my vote.Hey Horatio... I find that I've got an extra five cases of Wild Turkey in my office. You know anybody who might be willing to help me clear up some space?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

No. Excruciatia is black, not green :D

Zzzzzzzzzz

*mumble* Put my earmuffs on the cookie. *mumble*

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Sheik Larebil bin Cluich sets a large cookie on Bob Flibble's desk, then fumbles around in his robes, finally producing a pair of earmuffs (hey, it gets cold in Antarctic Oasis!). He carefully places the earmuffs on the cookie and runs off snickering.

"Man, that dude's gonna be trippin' when he wakes up!"

Actually most of us just want the UN to shut the hell up and leave us alone. If the UN feels it MUST speak out then lets have those rare occasions actually MEAN something and have it actually DO something instead of blowing hot air.


http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

Really? Have you engaged in some sort of mindless aggression? If so, perhaps you should offer up your apologies to the innocent party whom you have assaulted, as the representative from Weller Centennial is still here and remains unperturbed, even by those that believe aggression is a valid means of advancing their collectivist nonsense.Speaking of ideologically motivated nonsense...The Armed Republic of Weller Centennial stands in Violent opposition to this proposed resolution. Those who farm the few Arable tracts in Weller Centennial invest large sums with private consultants to determine the best method to utilize the land they own. Any presumptive dicta from the NSUN re proper land utilization stands in direct conflict with their rights as the true Owners of the land. Therefore we vote NAY, in support of private property rights, individual human rights, and simply to prevent the unnecessary violence that would be forthcoming from such an idiotic affront to private property rights. ... Could you please explain precisely why creating an international agency to disseminate information about agricultural techniques is a violation of anybody's property rights? It certainly doesn't violate the rights of landowners in your country - because they are free to ignore whatever information UNSARC may disseminate.True, this res has a zero effect in our land; but because we respect the individuals in other lands, we shout NAY!How can you speak with authority about the situation in other lands? Do you even know what that situation is?

There are (as of this moment) 29,391 nations in the NSUN; we guarantee that nobody knows everything there is to know about even a miniscule fraction of those 29,391 nations. Why don't you leave those other 29,390 nations to manage themselves?With a view to the future (where this res may be referenced as justification for a stronger res), we shout NAY!Ah, the “slippery slope” argument. Since breathing may lead to lung cancer, could you maybe be more specific in describing precisely how this initiative might lead to the kind of unwarranted intrusion into property rights you abhor?Because our long experience has taught us that the one constant of scientific study is change, we shout NAY!We're not quite sure where you're going with this, but you seem to be thinking that UNSARC will make decisions about what to disseminate based on ideology and not best practices. Would you care to justify those fears? We stand opposed to the interjection of bureaucratic dogma into the realm of real agricultural science, and we shout NAY!Again, where is the dogma you deplore? We don't see it; what we see is an agency whose mandate is to distribute information about best practices in farming, especially with regards to natural resource conservation and long-term ecological sustainability. And given that there is such a shortage of such resources and practices in your country...Those who farm the few¹ Arable tracts in Weller Centennial invest large sums with private consultants to determine the best method to utilize the land they own.

¹Emphasis ours - CP.... This seems like advice you could use.

Some of this bill's biggest advocates are laissez-faire fans and ardent devotees of capitalism; why do you see in this some kind of great collectivist plot?

And as for shouting, could you keep it down a bit? Some of the delegates here are trying to sleep.

Dude...why are you still talking to that guy? Felix already chucked him out the window.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Armed Republic of Weller Centennial stands in Violent opposition to this proposed resolution. Those who farm the few Arable tracts in Weller Centennial invest large sums with private consultants to determine the best method to utilize the land they own. Any presumptive dicta from the NSUN re proper land utilization stands in direct conflict with their rights as the true Owners of the land. Therefore we vote NAY, in support of private property rights, individual human rights, and simply to prevent the unnecessary violence that would be forthcoming from such an idiotic affront to private property rights.

Well said!

Dude...why are you still talking to that guy? Felix already chucked him out the window.You don't get to be 38th in the South Pacific for “Nicest People” by ignoring folks plummeting to the ground outside the foyer...

Speaking of which...

<The Ambassador digs in her handbag, pulls out a baggie full of a distinctive dried leafy susbstance>

This is for the Sheik, with all our best.¹

¹Community Property, residing on the equator, committed to organic farming, and being full of old-style hippies, grows some of the best leaf in the world. No pesticides or harmful additives, and crossbred for a gentle, mellow, but lasting zone.<Of Weller Centenial's diatribe>

Well said!<Confiscates Rowaun's stash and paraphenalia>

You've had waaaaaay too much.

Well said!

OOC: Already covered this.

Dude...why are you still talking to that guy? Felix already chucked him out the window.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You don't get to be 38th in the South Pacific for “Nicest People” by ignoring folks plummeting to the ground outside the foyer...

Speaking of which...

<The Ambassador digs in her handbag, pulls out a baggie full of a distinctive dried leafy susbstance>

This is for the Sheik, with all our best.

OOOOOH!!! Thank you!

The sixth junior administrative assistant of the office of the UN delegation has prepared the following press release for general consumption, with the approval of the UN delegate for Guangdongstan, on the advice of the Fifteenth sub-committee of the biodiversity council in the Department of Rural Development, subordinated to the Ruling Council of Guangdongstan.

----

In consideration of the wording of this resolution, given the variety of concerns that have been voiced by various members of the NSUN assembly, considering the issues of sustainable agriculture, the ambit of the resolution and the recommendations contained within, the overall effects of such a resolution in terms of its non-interventionist yet positive stance on productivity and sustainability, and the overall potential benefits for the Incorporated States of Guangdongstan, we have instructed the UN delegate, subsequent to the ratification and acceptance by the sub-committee of the biodiversity council of the Department of Rural Development, and with decree issued by the Ruling Council of Guangdongstan, we give our assent in support of the resolution.

She Te Wea Tha
Junior Administrative Assistant
UN Delegate to Guangdongstan

Twit.

You can always tell a newbie.
But you can't tell him/her much.

Remember you only get one chance to make a first impression.
You just blew it.
Big time.
Forever.
Have a nice day.

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/wtf7an.jpg

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia's purpose in the UN is simple. To totally crush it, then the disease known as "democracy", and people.

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2406/exvsnsunxm0.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exvsnsunxm0.jpg)


OOC: Ol BPL-DRE got drafted in to UN by regional events. May as well have some fun with it while here :) The "airy-fairy lovey-dovey Give Peace A Chance ohhhh sooooo serious nations" play the game their way, Excruciatia and others have FUN! :D Come on, yer telling me yers have NEVER used invincible and all guns cheats in a shoot-em-up game? :D

*Bob jumps up, climbs on top of his desk and begins singing*
"I'm not wearing underwear today,
No I'm not wearing underwear today
Not that you probably care
Much about my underwear
Still none the less I gotta say
That I'm not wearing underwear today"
*falls off desk and lands in his chair still asleep*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

My first post here, but any such resolution is in restriction of private and individual rights at the whim of the "collective". The Rogue Nation of Camper Velorium will not tolerate such an infringement on our national or individual sovereignty.

Well. I'm in a great mood right now, so I won't be as much of an ass as usual. Here's the deal. I don't see this as addressing a problem of sufficient size or effect to warrant UN legislation on it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

My first post here, but any such resolution is in restriction of private and individual rights at the whim of the "collective". The Rogue Nation of Camper Velorium will not tolerate such an infringement on our national or individual sovereignty.

OOC: I hafta say, not a bad first post.

The doors to the chamber swing open and a cocky "Latino" "gentleman" in baggy jeans and a Los Angeles Lakers jersey strides down the center aisle, an uptight-looking Muslim diplomat in tow. The former climbs the steps to the dais, and pushes whoever it was speaking before him out of the way.

"Alright, listen up, fuckers. I am Manuelo Fernanda, the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico, and I'm here to raise some hell and kick some snooty UN ass while my ambassador is away doing regional stuff.

"And since I'm a Respected World Leader who is here for the first time in awhile, I guess I need to tell you idiots exactly what I think of you and your organization:

"You guys suck! You're the most worthless group of rules-lawyering pencilnecks and gnomish saboteurs the world has ever seen! With all the pointless fucking bullshit you guys do, your meaningless finger-wagging and wasteful regulatory commissions, all of you frankly would be better off staying in your offices jerking it to old episodes of 'Amigos.'

"Now, on to new business: I'm all for repealing whatever it is you guys want to repeal today."

"Actually, Mr. President, we're discussing Sustainable Agriculture Center," Sec. Tehrani whispers from a chair behind the podium.

"Great! Let's repeal it!"

More grumbling from behind the podium.

"What's that, Alex?"

"Oh, nothing, sir. I was just trying to think of someone I could blame this fiasco on," Tehrani replies.

"You gonna fire his stupid ass?"

"Most definitely, Mr. President."

"Good. Then at least we accomplished something today. Now let's go kick it in the Strangers' Bar!"

"Erm, you won't find the Thessadorian Ambassador there, sir. Thessadoria has ceased to exist."

"Aw, fuck. Then let's just draw on that Flib guy's face with magic marker!"

I'm all down with billboarding Bob Flibble.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You can always tell a newbie.
But you can't tell him/her much.
Hey, when you guys are done pulling those poles from the asses of newbies, would you mind stacking them by the loading dock downstairs? We're building a fence for the doggie park ... (and they don't mind the smell).

On the Floor of the General Assembly

Ambassador Charity Starshine Shanti Freedom Peace-Love Haight-Ashbury Prairie Flower McGee pulled off her headphones, ran her fingers through her long blond hair, considered putting those same headphones back on again, decided against it for the sake of her diminishing sanity, and then absented herself by spending the next ten minutes untangling the cord, something the Gnomes apparently lacked either the desire or skill to do. After that, she drew out a couple of sheets of hemp parchment, sharpened her pen, uncorked her inkwell, and began to draw up a guest list for the office-warming party the Community Property delegation was planning on throwing to celebrate having been assigned their new office on the 27th Floor (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11743162&postcount=119). Of course Sheik Larebil bin Cluich would be invited, as would Bob Flibble (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Bob_Flibble) – one of McGee's younger aides had expressed interest in finding out why a certain pars of the Ambassador's body was on the World Heritage List (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/World_Heritage_List). She was unsure about whether Sammy Faisano (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Sammy_Faisano) would be invited - the man had an incredible ability to get himself in trouble – but she also wasn't sure that it wouldn't be just as bad – or worse - to invite Jessie McArthur (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Jessie_McArthur), all things considered. Couldn't I just not invite the Kennyites at all? she wondered. No, Ambassador McGee admitted to herself, that kind of diplomatic faux pas wouldn't be a good idea, especially if Community Property wanted to climb higher in the “Nicest People” ratings.

Around her, the debate continued. The usual obscenities and threats of invasion were mingled with ignorance, a dogged refusal to read the legislation at hand - or worse still, to read it with comprehension – and a rehash of the same discredited arguments by people who hadn't bothered listening to the debate, all served up for an assembly that was in equal parts asleep, intoxicated, or bored beyond the point of decency – and that was with considerable overlap among the three categories. She'd been tempted to hold up a sign with a “10” on it when Bob Flibble had performed his Vaudeville number, but someone had lost the delegation's magic marker. And besides, the Bulgarian judge would have probably only given it a “7” anyway.

“Is it time to hit the Stranger's Bar yet?” McGee asked one of her aides.

“You don't drink,” the aide replied.

“Oh, that's right,” the Ambassador said, much chagrined. Then, unable to think of any more names to add to the list for now, she sprinkled sand over the ink, shook the paper, and filed it away.

What a shame, she thought.

Woken by President Fernanda's sudden irruption onto the scene of the debate, Ambassador Zyryanov (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Christelle_Zyryanov) sighed, then got to her feet and dutifully began to boo.

At least it's entertainment, she thought. And a bit of exercise.

Hey, that was an idea. Perhaps she could jog round the inside of the General Assembly Hall. It would take time, keep her busy, keep her fit, and she wouldn't miss anything interesting that might be said.

I also need to warn Min (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Kim_Min-Sun) that Fernanda's in the building. After all she had heard about the Destructor from Del Fuego, the poor girl was terrified she might bump into him one day. Of course, Sheik Nadnerb's behaviour (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11734419&postcount=46) hadn't helped matters either. I wonder what exactly happened to him after they took him away...

Perhaps it was best not to know.

Well said!

You can't even pronounce your own country's name!
Raoaun cannot vote for this proposal!

------------------

"For all the (mindless) capitalistic posturing many delegates are doing, one might think there was a binding socialistic clause in this Resolution. If it pleases, mayhap the Ambassadors would mind reading the Resolution and pointing it out to me. I have the sneaking suspicion that my reading comprehension skills have not fled me, but do prove me wrong if they have. At most, I'll shake my finger at the author whenever a reduction in socialist policy is suggested in a piece of legislation, but if there's no mandate against it, I'm not going to get all huffy. Grow up, the lot of you."


Tommo the Stout laughs heartily when the Kennyite finishes his speech, which contained more invective against the UN than matter. "The man is a figurehead! It's almost cute, watching him act in an official capacity." He turns and speaks conspiritorially to his delegation, and whomever finds themselves in close earshot. "I think I'll have to buy him a drink* in the bar." He laughs again.


*A colorful, plastic umbrella, fruity frilly girl drink

Jiffjeff rapped on Rono Pyandran's door. McXiminez was slumped over his desk, weeping inconsolably; Pyandran was gingerly patting him on the back.

"Yeah?"

"Her High Holiness has left again - some new regional reception, I think. The Sub-Vizier too...is he alright?"

"He just found out the Thessadorian Ambassador's left town, for good."

"Ah." Jiffjeff wondered when her author's jokes had begun to get so forced, obvious and hence stale - maybe they always had been? They just seemed worse than usual at the moment. "Well, so has Mr. Faisano, which means President Fernanda's roaming the building." She sighed. "Anyway, I'll see you at the party."

"Huh? What party?"

Jiffjeff pursed her lips. "The stupid hippy chick, you know?"

Pyandran's eyes lit up. "No?"

"They just got their office sorted out by UNBM, so they're holding a party to celebrate. I don't think it'll be my scene, but I thought I'd drop by for an hour or so, see if I could pick up anything useful."

"Humph. So you, Miss Minister of Sandy Vaginas, are getting more invites than me? What's up with that? Who is this girl?"

"Community Property, I think?"

Pyandran sagged. "Oh. That's why."

"Someone you got shirty with in debate, no doubt?"

"Something like that, yeah. Tw_ts."

"Oh, them. I see. Well...all I know is they're into hemp in a big way. Hemp paper, hemp sandals, hemp bags - the works. Maybe there's an in there." She shrugged, and paced off to her quarters to see if she could catch the highlights from today's executions before bed.

Then leave the UN! Most of us want the UN to speak firmly, carry a big stick and screw our governments in the name of the right thing to do. That's why I'm supporting this resolution despite the fact that it's going to rape all my national industries equally to pay for this "does nothing" resolution.

I have two puppets that are not in the UN. They lead wonderful idyllic lives, and are generally speaking BORING! The Joker must have his Batman and I need my UN, nay I demand it!

Unfortunatly i need to remain in the UN as to be able to help defend my beloved region of Texas from ravaging marauders. Hence, sadly i leave my country open and vulnerable to the insane ravings and judgements of childkings.(ooc: plus i dont like puppets i like playing one country, it makes the victories and defeats somehow seem more real)

I suggest if the UN feels the need to issue "suggestions" that they simply need to learn the Dewey Decimal System, cite the appropriate experts and shelves of literature and invest in a couple orange highlighter magic markers. Bills are no place for suggestions no matter how worthy or important. Bills are for DOING things. If you aint doing then stop cluttering my desk with his nonsence. Its worse then telemarketers! If you need to learn something for christsakes the LAST PLACE you look for accurate information is from a international governmental agency. Ive yet to find such an agency that is able to agree on the color of shit. Thier function is mere busywork for beaurocrats that need to justify thier existence by writing useless blather and cluttering my desk with it.

"Alright, listen up, fuckers. I am Manuelo Fernanda, the Destructor from Del Fuego, Mexico, and I'm here to raise some hell and kick some snooty UN ass while my ambassador is away doing regional stuff."

The Meddling Monk rises from his seat. "Strange," he commented to his Franciscan friend seated next to him, "he seemed to look taller on TV."

"Mr. Fernanda, it's a pleasure to see you at the United Nations! Perhaps I can buy you a drink at the bar? I hear the representative from Karmicaria is currently having a drink there as well. Not exactly Thessadorian, but she's the next best thing short of a pair of werepenguins."

"Mr. Monk," the Franciscan friend interrupted. "Aren't you already in the Stranger's bar?"

"Do you think I'm dumb enough to cause a temporal paradox? I just left, er five seconds from now. Carry on in the chamber while I'm away."

Unfortunatly i need to remain in the UN as to be able to help defend my beloved region of Texas from ravaging marauders.

Of all the excuses you could use, "protecting Texas" has to be one of the lamest. The extremely active Founder is also the Delegate, and that region has never been in danger of being invaded. Try again.

Of all the excuses you could use, "protecting Texas" has to be one of the lamest. The extremely active Founder is also the Delegate, and that region has never been in danger of being invaded. Try again.


Bah, The country of Intestinal Fluids has made a formal pledge to defend Texas with whatever resources are required of me. As i take my pledges quite seriously, i cant think of how "protecting Texas" can be anything but an honerable and proud endeavor. Lame? Excuse? Hardly.

Contrary to your suggestion,I dont think i shall try again, as i feel my first try was more than sufficient.

Of all the excuses you could use, "protecting Texas" has to be one of the lamest. The extremely active Founder is also the Delegate, and that region has never been in danger of being invaded. Try again.


OOC: Actually, prior to NewTexas being given Founder status by the Mods (way back when), Texas was actually at risk for invasion. So never may be a bit strong.

Nonethless, Texas is very well-protected at the moment with an active and very effective Founder. I certainly don't see the region being in any real present or future danger of invasion unless Big Tex quits.

However, being an active participant in the region's defense force is certainly a good reason to retain UN membership, from my perspective. It's a fun part of the game, and folks are reluctant to give that up.

what H.R. said :D

<The honorable Jennifer Stanton, UN liaison for the Incorporated States of Seranleyi Inc, takes the floor>

Ladies, gentlemen.

At the United Nations, we are bound together in certain pursuits. Peace. Prosperity. The pursuit of human liberty and freedom. As a representative of Seranleyi Inc, and as a human being, I believe that this last pursuit, of a hunger for freedom in all matters, trumps all. Given freedom, people will find wealth. Given wealth, among all men, war becomes a meaningless concept, and peace will reign.

Therefore, no-where moreso than in the economic realm must freedom reign.

This resolution would force governments to impose upon their farmers, the backbone of any economy, and force upon them a way to run their farms and indeed, their lives. Far from improving the lives of humanity, this proposal will diminish them. It will force more costly measures to farm, force farmers to raise prices, and thus eventually strangle the market.

While this resolution seeks to protect the environment and limit our consumption, one must never forget that the flipside of consumption is productivity. Given a free market and space in which to develop them, farmers and researchers continue to find better ways to deliver more crops with less land, to improve yield under worse conditions. Placing limits upon these not only has no meaningful effect over time, but is destructive to our ability to survive in crisis.

Therefore, Seranleyi Inc cannot support this resolution, and we cast our vote against.

Ambassador Zyryanov bangs her teacup on the table.

Given freedom, people will find wealth. Given wealth, among all men, war becomes a meaningless concept, and peace will reign.

Therefore, no-where moreso than in the economic realm must freedom reign.


The capitalist agenda which equates selfishness with freedom, encourages greed and egoism, places the right to profit above the right to life and decent living conditions, and seeks to destroy human relations which are the essence of society, is totally beside the point in this discussion!


This resolution would force governments to impose upon their farmers,

Would the honourable representative please go back and actually read the text of the proposal?

Despicable as capitalism may be, this is not an anti-capitalist proposal, by any stretch of the imagination!


Christelle Zyryanov,
Ambassador to the United Nations,
PDSRA

This resolution would force governments to impose upon their farmers, the backbone of any economy, and force upon them a way to run their farms and indeed, their lives. Far from improving the lives of humanity, this proposal will diminish them. It will force more costly measures to farm, force farmers to raise prices, and thus eventually strangle the market.

The ambassador from Altanar gets a look of pain on his face, sighs, and says (loudly) to his assistant, sitting next to him, "Yet another one who didn't bother to read the proposal before commenting on it. I've had enough...I need a drink. Again. Hold down the fort for me, Jinella." As he walks away, the assistant blurts out, "But I just got here..."

Well. I'm in a great mood right now, so I won't be as much of an ass as usual. Here's the deal. I don't see this as addressing a problem of sufficient size or effect to warrant UN legislation on it.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

Well for once we agree with HotRodia to stop the inflation on non-enforcing resolutions. Therefore we will oppose. Cutting trees to print resolutions that do nothing is actually hurting our environnement more than UNSARC could improve it.

Regards from Sinless Singleness delegate.

At the Data Core

This resolution would force governments to impose upon their farmers, the backbone of any economy, and force upon them a way to run their farms and indeed, their lives. Far from improving the lives of humanity, this proposal will diminish them. It will force more costly measures to farm, force farmers to raise prices, and thus eventually strangle the market.Ambassador McGee set down her pen, her face darkening visibly. This really was too much...

Rising, she turned to face, in turn, the various delegations whose rhetoric had most clearly demonstrated that they hadn't really read the proposal, or – failing that – had faltered on all the words with three or more syllables.

“Listen up, you miserable mo-” she began. Then closing her eyes, counting to three, and engaging in some very quick creative visualization, she began again.

“With a few notable exceptions,” she began, looking at the largely empty Kennyite section, where Jessie McArthur was flirting shamelessly with some new hunk, “There seems to be a direct correlation between the number of previous speeches a delegation has made and the degree of forethought involved in its statements. This strongly suggests to us that some of you would be better off observing the debate and learning the rules around here for a few weeks before snapping off a quick opinion that merely serves to make us think that perhaps you should consider tightening the laws in your country against consanguinity¹. As the old proverb says, 'Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool, than to speak and prove it.'

“Which brings us to the matter at hand: are so many of you really unable to tell the difference between suggestion and compulsion? I find it incredible that nation after nation – most of whom are laissez-faire regimes, by the way, a fact that doesn't speak well for the proposition that nations are better off without public schools – should rise and issue statements that utterly fail to appreciate that this legislation forces nothing on anyone - no, not one godda-” <pause> “Er, one little thing.” Ambassador McGee shifted uneasily and took another deep breath before continuing.

“If a farmer – large or small – doesn't think that UNSARC is worth a ra-, er, worth a da-, er, worth ... anything at all, then that farmer is free to ignore its suggestions and do as he, she, or it pleases. All that UNSARC will be issuing is information: you make take it or leave it, as you please.While this resolution seeks to protect the environment and limit our consumption, one must never forget that the flipside of consumption is productivity. Given a free market and space in which to develop them, farmers and researchers continue to find better ways to deliver more crops with less land, to improve yield under worse conditions. Placing limits upon these not only has no meaningful effect over time, but is destructive to our ability to survive in crisis.“Where on Earth do you come away from this with the notion that this resolution limits consumption?!? Are all you people our there smoking cra-, er, listening to the same talk radio show, where the same half-a-, er, like, er, unbelievably stu-, er...” Here McGee stopped, struggled to regain her composure before continuing: “Is there some kind of problem with the translation in this building? Not one word of this resolution speaks of limiting consumption. What makes you think that's a part of this bill?!?

“Indeed, it is productivity in the truest sense of the word that UNSARC seeks to promote. Productivity as in 'getting more from less'. Getting more food from the same acreage; getting more food from the same amount of water; getting more food without the need to clear more land, spray more herbicides or pesticides – which aren't free, by the way – getting more food by working better with Nature as opposed to fu-, er, rolling right over her.”

“Now, maybe your farmers already know everything there is to know about their craft; if that's the case, this resolution can't hurt you, because you can just keep scre-, er, keep doing the same things you're doing right now. And then again, maybe they're not, in which case they might actually learn something from UNSARC – likely, because, judging from their representatives to this august body, they're obviously not learning much of anything from any other source – and improve their productive process – which means improving productivity.

“Knowledge is a resource, and one for which incremental increases in its application can not produce a reduction in output; you can never be so good at what you do that it hurts you. Under classical economic theory, an increase in any resource employed in the creation of wealth can only increase a society's wealth – it can never diminish it. If you provide your people with more knowledge, it can only better your society.

“Of course, this is vintage Adam Smith, and as we are learning, the one group around here who know absolutely nothing about Adam Smith are the mothe-, er, stupi-, er, misguided hard-core devotees of laissez-faire, those assho-, er, never mind.Therefore, Seranleyi Inc cannot support this resolution, and we cast our vote against.“Apparently Seranleyi Inc wouldn't recognize its best interests if the latter bit it on the a-, er, rear end. Just as well.

“It's your funeral, and we'll be waiting patiently to be your pallbearers.” McGee finished.

“And now,” she grumbled, thinking the mike was off when it wasn't, “I think I need another Arrogant Bastard Ale. I wonder if Neville does carry-out?”

Cutting trees to print resolutions that do nothing is actually hurting our environnement more than UNSARC could improve it.

Congratulations on one of the most creative rebuttals I've heard in quite some time.

Well for once we agree with HotRodia to stop the inflation on non-enforcing resolutions. Therefore we will oppose. Cutting trees to print resolutions that do nothing is actually hurting our environnement more than UNSARC could improve it.Charity McGee paused before gathering up her things and heading for the Stranger's Bar. Turning her mike back on (it had never really been off), she said: “Part of the reason we have so many non-enforcing resolutions is simply because we have such political diversity among the Members. Getting a proposal that actually mandates anything through this body and then defending it against appeal is a job beyond the capacity of almost anyone.

“There is, of course, more to it than that,” she continued. “It is out of respect for those differences that we don't mandate things that are likely to force a government into action that it find unpalatable. We don't want to mandate organic farming and land reform, so we let people with a visceral objection to these things – namely, those same ignor-, er, misguided radical right-wing regimes who think that if they're not ra-, er, engaged in the wanton destruction of everything not man-made, then they're not being true to their fu-, er fouled-up notion of what 'capitalism' means – continue to pillage their few remaining natural treasures in the name of profit. Maybe we should force them to act sensibly, but we're not willing to do that, so...” she let the sentence trail off before steeling herself to continue.

“If the delegation from Sinless Singleness would like to see more mandates, we could oblige them. But we would prefer SS and other countries like it to simply be honest and tell us that they wish the U.N. would sit on its hands and never do anything at all.”

“I thank the delegates for their indulgence,” McGee said, “And so now, if you excuse me, I believe I have a table waiting...”

In all honesty, I think the most resistance to this (save for the yammerings from the peanut gallery) is, sadly, the category. Ignoring the meta-game is a noble calling, but at times the price is simply too high. 'Environmental: All' carries a hefty price. If only it didn't, then this thing would probably receive far fewer objections. On the other hand...

Votes For: 4,748
Votes Against: 1,993

...it seems that perhaps the metagame is less of a concern these days.

Ah well. No skin off our metallic noses. The Robotic Musicians are not in the UN, we are able to protect our home with divine powers provided by the Cult of the Founder.

At least this debate isn't as stupid as the last one.


- Coco the Electronic Monkey Wizard
Speaker for the Robotic Musicians of Man or Astroman

It would create more jobs , boost the economy and income

for other things like The Education, Health,Welfare, etc...

Why not?!?! We just got to have half and half , a balance of what
resources to use and what not to use from the enviroment OK!!!!

Thank you to the ones that support this topic.

UNmembers and Delegates

Thank you for the attention given.

WD
Monarch of Oderfliw

*Bob picks up a copy of the current resolution up for vote*

"Hmm, let's see... Defining “Sustainable Agriculture” as... ...in order to achieve these ambitious goals... ...ESTABLISH the UNSARC... ...PROMOTES by its UNSARC agency the following... ...Crop rotation practices and poly..."

*Falls asleep with his head landing on the against voting button*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Inside the UN building was taking place a strange black market of various objects traded by Ambassadors. Those objects have been discovered several decades ago by some Ambassadors exploring the foundation of the UN building and were magical tools of many sorts with the particularity to work only inside the UN building. There was even a rumour, impossible to verify, that some new stunning objects were still to be discovered.

Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero, the UN Ambassador of LAE, bought from another Ambassador a Holoatwakup. A Hoatwakup was allowing its holder to send a 3D and audio holographic message to another Ambassador in the UN building, 5 seconds after this Ambassador wake up from his/her sleep. It was a popular tool, as with all of these boring debate inside this Hall and all those legislative night session and commissions, many ambassadors were falling asleep, and it was considered not so polite for an Ambassador to wake up one of his/her fellow.

Then Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero send a Holoatwakup message to Bob Flibble, the esteemed UN Ambassador of Flibbleites, using its new Holoatwakup. The Holoatwakup message had an audio part along with an in-the-air-floating-web-browser with the following page opened:
“Dear Bob, I hope you had a good sleep and wanted to say that I’m sorry to have brought to the UN floor a so boring topic, dealing with an economic activity where only 40% of world labourers are employed in”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn10293

More crops for Africa as trees reclaim the desert

For once there is some good news from Africa. Farmers are reclaiming the desert, turning the barren wastelands of the Sahel region on the Sahara's southern edge into green, productive farmland.
Satellite images taken this year and 20 years ago show that the desert is in retreat thanks to a resurgence of trees. They are mainly ana trees (Faidherbia albida), a type of acacia. Wherever the trees grow, farming can resume.
Tree planting has led to the re-greening of as much as 3 million hectares of land in Niger, enabling some 250,000 hectares to be farmed again. The land became barren in the 1970s and early 1980s through poor management and felling of trees for firewood, but since the mid-1980s farmers in parts of Niger have been protecting them instead of chopping them down.
The results have been staggering, says Chris Reij of the Free University Amsterdam in the Netherlands, who presented the results at the From Desert to Oasis symposium in Niamey, Niger, last month. In areas where 20 years ago there was barely a tree, there are now between 50 and 100 per hectare. The change is particularly striking in the previously barren Zinder region to the south.
“Where 20 years ago there was barely a tree, there are now 50 to 100 per hectare. Production of cereals has soared”
Trees create a virtuous circle of benefits. Leaves and fruits provide food, fodder and organic matter to fortify the soil. More livestock means more manure, which further enriches the soil enabling crops to be grown, and spreads tree seeds so new trees grow. The trees also provide shelter for crops and help prevent soil erosion. In times of drought, firewood can be sold and food purchased to tide families over.
Coupled with simple measures such as ditches and holes to catch scarce rainwater and save it for irrigation, the programmes are helping communities in Niger re-establish control over their fate, simultaneously halting the march of the desert and helping to prevent famines like the one that hit Niger in July 2005.
"The spiral of degradation has been reversed," says Reij. "Since the middle of the 1980s, at least 250,000 hectares of strongly degraded land have been rehabilitated." Production of cereals such as millet and sorghum have soared by between 20 and 85 per cent since 1984 as a result, Reij says, and vegetable production has quadrupled.
Vegetation also creates climatic feedback loops which increase the amount of rainfall. Analysis of satellite images and rainfall in the Sahel between 1982 and 1999 show that 10 to 20 per cent more rain falls when land is green (Geophysical Research Letters, DOI: 10.1029/2006GL027065).
Given the benefits of encouraging tree growth, Reij and his colleagues hope to spread the practice to neighbouring countries, including Mali, Senegal and Burkina Faso. The programme will form part of the "Oasis" initiative to reclaim deserts, which was launched at the symposium by 11 African countries, with support from international research and government agencies.
Lauren Gelfand, an Oxfam spokeswoman based in Dakar, Senegal, welcomed the developments but cautioned that the recovery is fragile and can only be sustained through international aid and investment in transport infrastructure and education.
"The situation in Niger is much better than it was last year, but there are still pockets of insecurity," she says.

Charity McGee paused before gathering up her things and heading for the Stranger's Bar. Turning her mike back on (it had never really been off), she said: “Part of the reason we have so many non-enforcing resolutions is simply because we have such political diversity among the Members. Getting a proposal that actually mandates anything through this body and then defending it against appeal is a job beyond the capacity of almost anyone.

AHH NOW you are starting to get it. The REAL reason noone passes bills that actually do something is that its HARD to come up with a good recommendation and implement it. Hot air, suggestions and bullshit are easy and hence that is all we seem to get. So do you suggest more concentration on the former or more capitulation to the latter.

As an emissary of the Empire of Logical Wits, I can ensure that our beloved Emperor was very happy when I read this resolution. On the contrary of preceeding ones, which were unfortunately adopted.

This is totally in line with our Logical view of UN, as one of our contributions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11850500&postcount=112) to this venerable assembly emphasised.

AHH NOW you are starting to get it. The REAL reason noone passes bills that actually do something is that its HARD to come up with a good recommendation and implement it. Hot air, suggestions and bullshit are easy and hence that is all we seem to get. So do you suggest more concentration on the former or more capitulation to the latter.

If you really want to see proposals with more substance get to vote, then go ahead and write them. No-one will stop you, in fact I'd welcome seeing what you, or anyone else for that matter can come up with, and no, I'm not being snide or sarcastic.

The majority of UN resolutions passed do mandate action. A look through the list will show that. It is just luck of the draw that the last couple of months have been mostly mild stuff, including my last two efforts. The one before that certainly did mandate action from nations, and lots of it.

My nation is abstaining on this resolution. Not because we don't like it or disagree with it, but because we find it hard to understand and on a quick skim through, full of very stiff formal language that had us reaching for the panadol. No offense to the author(s), but we do prefer if UN resolutions, while maintaining a formal structure, are easy to read and follow.

My nation is abstaining on this resolution. Not because we don't like it or disagree with it, but because we find it hard to understand and on a quick skim through, full of very stiff formal language that had us reaching for the panadol. No offense to the author(s), but we do prefer if UN resolutions, while maintaining a formal structure, are easy to read and follow.

Thanks for your comment, I would like to apologize, as it seems that several others nations feel this proposal too much technical and not written in an easy to understand language.
We posted the draft on this same forum for some time before submitting it, with several definitions (Sustainable Agriculture, drip irrigation, surge irrigation, johads, pests, pesticides, hybrid crops, refuge), and then submitting it 3 times (12 days) without campaigning, before to resubmit it and campaign and as we didn't get any similar feedback during those periods we didn't take time to write it more easier, sorry.

This resolution is bad, bad, bad! The point of the UN is to meddle in affairs that need meddling with for the good of mankind. It should be at a country's own will what it does with its environment. Speaking from the point of view of an environmentally stunning nation, I understand that some tiny Eastern European republics need their heavy, polluting industries and agricultural set-ups to keep their economy up and to keep them from being annexed!
I believe by passing resolutions such as this, many nations could be disenfranchised from the UN. We certainly do not want that.

I understand that some tiny Eastern European republics need their heavy, polluting industries and agricultural set-ups to keep their economy up and to keep them from being annexed!
I believe by passing resolutions such as this, many nations could be disenfranchised from the UN. We certainly do not want that.

On the contrary, let polluting nations be annexed by gentle agricultural ones! It seems logical to our Empire.

The Empire Emissary

On the contrary, let polluting nations be annexed by gentle agricultural ones! It seems logical to our Empire.

The Empire Emissary

Its logical to the Borg too ;)

If you really want to see proposals with more substance get to vote, then go ahead and write them. No-one will stop you, in fact I'd welcome seeing what you, or anyone else for that matter can come up with, and no, I'm not being snide or sarcastic.

Oh lord no! I feel the least capable and least effective group anywhere ever of all time is an international group of anything trying to do anything. Why would i wish to add to the mess by making more bills? My job is to vote away the bills that do the most damage and tolerate the rest. My position on suggestion bills is more of a secretarial request as i cant stand my Bills folder being polluted with spam.

This resolution is bad, bad, bad! The point of the UN is to meddle in affairs that need meddling with for the good of mankind. It should be at a country's own will what it does with its environment.

With this bill in place, it will still be entirely within the member nations rights to do as they please with their environment. It is directed at assisting those nations that are interested in improving their agricultural techniques. Not interested? This won't affect you.

Speaking from the point of view of an environmentally stunning nation,

Irrelevant.

I understand that some tiny Eastern European republics need their heavy, polluting industries and agricultural set-ups to keep their economy up and to keep them from being annexed!

OOC: RL=/=NS. Keep the RL references out of the debate, please.

I believe by passing resolutions such as this, many nations could be disenfranchised from the UN. We certainly do not want that.

Any nation that becomes disenfranchised with the UN because the UN creates an international foundation to help improve the food supply and environment of nations who wish to do so probably won't be missed when they leave.

By the way, and just in case - Dibs on Bagsying that office.

On the contrary, let polluting nations be annexed by gentle agricultural ones! It seems logical to our Empire.
The Empire Emissary

Its logical to the Borg too ;)

As wonderfully off-topic as these are, they do certainly demonstrate the complete lack of comprehension that some of the representatives have of this bill. Nobody gets to annex anybody, and the Borg are even more irrelevant than the Nat/Sov arguments against this.

I like the bill. It has our support.

Oscar Feldstein
UN Ambassador for Kivisto
Filing The Master's Underwear

Oh lord no! I feel the least capable and least effective group anywhere ever of all time is an international group of anything trying to do anything. Why would i wish to add to the mess by making more bills? My job is to vote away the bills that do the most damage and tolerate the rest. My position on suggestion bills is more of a secretarial request as i cant stand my Bills folder being polluted with spam.

So your job, in your mind, is to whine and moan about the situation, without actually doing anything to improve it? I guess you're doing a good job, then.:headbang:

So your job, in your mind, is to whine and moan about the situation, without actually doing anything to improve it? I guess you're doing a good job, then.:headbang:

Huh? i explained quite clearly how to improve it. By voting No on the most offensive of them. A UN that doesnt pass a single bill is a happy bunch of soverign leaders in my humble opinion.

If you wanted to get into real depth on how to improve the UN, the first step is you would have to remove the majority of childkings that are members. That is the reason why we have elections, because not just anyone should be the ruler of a country. Since this removal of childkings is impractical and near impossible, the next best way to help the UN is by neutralizing the childkings powers so they can affect my country in the least way possible. Thus whining and moaning and getting bills turned down is indeed and in fact the optimum strategy to neutralize a failed institution.

If you wanted to get into real depth on how to improve the UN, the first step is you would have to remove the majority of childkings that are members. That is the reason why we have elections, because not just anyone should be the ruler of a country. Since this removal of childkings is impractical and near impossible, the next best way to help the UN is by neutralizing the childkings powers so they can affect my country in the least way possible. Thus whining and moaning and getting bills turned down is indeed and in fact the optimum strategy to neutralize a failed institution.

My views is that the legislative part of the NSUN constitution, if i could say it as such, is pretty interesting as it's a unique semi-direct system.

Semi-direct, because both members votes (similar to citizens in a RL nation) and delegates weighted votes (similar to members of parlement) are take into consieration.

The vagatorpost.lae provided several times stats which showed 2 things
-a resolution can be defeated even if more members (and/or more delegates and/or more members+delegetas) votes FOR;
-the total votes of members is interestingly lower than the total votes of delegates (on this matter it's important to realize that's it's could be otherwise and nothing is fixed)

Of course, the fact that everyone can vote has its side effects, but this is more than half balanced by the delegates votes, and also this is FUN.

Worldwide Media Act
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9793241&postcount=255
Members votes- 6047 - 42%
Delegate Votes - 8239 - 58%

Anti-Terrorism Act
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10391146&postcount=588
Members votes- 6565 - 43%
Delegate Votes - 8745 - 57%

Clothing Supply Pact
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11681036&postcount=176
Members votes- 6147 - 43%
Delegate Votes - 8253 - 57%

AHH NOW you are starting to get it. The REAL reason noone passes bills that actually do something is that its HARD to come up with a good recommendation and implement it. Hot air, suggestions and bullshit are easy and hence that is all we seem to get. So do you suggest more concentration on the former or more capitulation to the latter.

Yup. That's what she said. :rolleyes:

While at principal this proposal is a good one it is too restricting in its "guidelines". A revised edition with more freedom for the country it would cover (all UN states) would certainly get my vote. However at the moment I am unconvinced.

While at principal this proposal is a good one it is too restricting in its "guidelines". A revised edition with more freedom for the country it would cover (all UN states) would certainly get my vote. However at the moment I am unconvinced.

More freedom? It doesn't say you have to do anything! How much more freedom do you want?

This organisation is in charge of argriculture in the UN I would prefer to make my own decisions even if affected by other laws.

This organisation is in charge of argriculture in the UN I would prefer to make my own decisions even if affected by other laws.

And, you will still be able to make your own decisions even if this bill passes. It's your choice. Isn't having the right to choose a nice thing?

I'm very glad that I'm in a good mood today. Whoda thunk that being tied up in my office would keep me that way.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

On the contrary, let polluting nations be annexed by gentle agricultural ones! It seems logical to our Empire.

The Empire Emissary

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia thanks Logical Wits for the warning, and immediately orders his army to invade every surrounding gentle agricultural nation, and nuclear strikes on others.

BPL - DRE



*Not long later*

hmmm...they weren't as much of a challenge as they were made out to be. Oh well, more land for Excruciatia and some target practice for the army.

What is the point of a proposal which forces you to do nothing. It's a waste of time.

What is the point of a proposal which forces you to do nothing. It's a waste of time.

That's the whole thing. It doesn't 'force' you to do anything. Freedom of choice. It doesn't even force you to do 'nothing'. What a wonderful thing. Sure, proposals like this may be a waste of our time. They may not be.

Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Zzzzzzzzzz

Who painted the kitten?

Zzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

That would be me.

http://www.calendars.com/images/031/3193/200600010895_fc.jpg

That would be me.

http://www.calendars.com/images/031/3193/200600010895_fc.jpg

That's beautiful! :D

What is the point of a proposal which forces you to do nothing. It's a waste of time.

Our nation, for one, doesn't have to be forced to act in its own best interest. If the NSUN provides a service, we will evaluate it carefully and make use of it if we decide it's worthwhile. We believe most of our colleagues have enough sense to do that, as well.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Tommo the Stout enters the GA with what appears to be some kind of electronic divining rod, connected to a set of large headphones. He steps a few feet into the GA, and stops, turning about, aiming the device around the room. He then steps out into the hall and points it at the doorman. The Stout then returns to the GA and repeats his motions. Once again, turning outside, toward the doorman, he vocalizes the sounds coming from his headphones. "Beep beep beep beep beep beep" and into the GA "....." And to the doorman "Beep beep beep beep beep beep" and back into the GA. ".......... beep ......."

He stands at the door, astonished for a few moments. He points it at a few individuals in particular. The representatives from LAE, Ariddia, even sleepy Bob Flibble. "Beep beep beep beep."

"Hmm." He picks up his cell phone, pushes two buttons, and holds it to his ear. Then, in a moment of clarity and frustration, he moves his headphones and then places the phone at his ear. "Neville! The ACME remote EKG works fine..... No, I used a control. Some of the representatives, and the doorman too..... No problem." He hangs up, and walks out of the GA, satisfied.

While the Republic of Steenhuffel is broadly in favour of the aims of this proposal, we have real difficulty with clause 2.6: Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

The distribution of national resources is a matter for individual nations and not something on which the UN should have a view, much less promoting a specific (and, in our opinion, dangerously vaguely worded) approach. For this reason, we shall be voting against the resolution.

Steenhuffel;11869368']While the Republic of Steenhuffel is broadly in favour of the aims of this proposal, we have real difficulty with clause 2.6: Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labour intensive agriculture

The distribution of national resources is a matter for individual nations and not something on which the UN should have a view, much less promoting a specific (and, in our opinion, dangerously vaguely worded) approach. For this reason, we shall be voting against the resolution.

Is that EVER a horrid reason to vote against something that you are broadly in favor of. If you don't want to redistribute the land, then DON'T DO IT but if you're going to oppose for that sole reason, then don't even bother commenting here. Because until there's an end to those Resolutions that seek more and more reductions in tariffs for your precious free trade, there won't be an end to even weaker, SUGGESTIONS of socialistic ideas.

Because until there's an end to those Resolutions that seek more and more reductions in tariffs for your precious free trade, there won't be an end to even weaker, SUGGESTIONS of socialistic ideas.

Do try to respond to what I said and not what you wish I'd said.

Is that EVER a horrid reason to vote against something that you are broadly in favor of. If you don't want to redistribute the land, then DON'T DO IT.

Steenhuffel;11869449']Do try to respond to what I said and not what you wish I'd said.

There.

Is that EVER a horrid reason to vote against something that you are broadly in favor of. If you don't want to redistribute the land, then DON'T DO IT.

The problem is that although we wouldn't do it, many would. And, like it or not, there are corrupt regimes out there that would redistribute land to benefit themselves regardless of the harm it would cause to the farmers who were previously there.

Because this clause is so vaguely worded, it allows regimes such as these to claim UN approval (and, therefore, avoid UN sanctions) when the ruling classes take control of farmland and hand it to their cronies.

This is a very dangerous clause and so dangerous that we feel obliged to vote against the proposal because of it.

Steenhuffel;11869535']The problem is that although we wouldn't do it, many would. And, like it or not, there are corrupt regimes out there that would redistribute land to benefit themselves regardless of the harm it would cause to the farmers who were previously there.

Because this clause is so vaguely worded, it allows regimes such as these to claim UN approval (and, therefore, avoid UN sanctions) when the ruling classes take control of farmland and hand it to their cronies.

This is a very dangerous clause and so dangerous that we feel obliged to vote against the proposal because of it.

Right, because the UN not saying anything about it is preventing them from doing anything.

I understand your concern, but I'm going to have to inform you that the NSUN doesn't operate the same way as the RLUN. No sanctions anyway. Furthermore, I don't think the UN has any Resolutions banning the government doing as you fear.

Really, it's just a case of boys will be boys. There's nothing we can do about it at this point. If you want to put an end to it though, feel free to write a proposal. So long as you say land distribution CANNOT happen, but rather that it cannot happen in a way that you detest, it won't contradict this Resolution.

I would like to call on the people of the World to join together in passing this bill so that one day we can all live in a more stable living enviorment. This bill is a first of its kind to focus on food and giving way to one day feeding everyone in the world. Join my my brothers and pass this bill a glorious future depends on it.
Let it also be heard that anyone who oppeses this bill oppeses The Peoples Republic of North Western States of America and will be delt with accordingly.
OMNI DEM EQU!!!

UN Representitve for North Western States:
L.V. Tosevek

Nations can redistribute land NOW whether you like it or not. This resolution doesn't change that one way or the other. Voting against it won't change that either. Therefore, land redistribution seems like a nonsensical reason to vote against it.

--
Jinella Agaranth
Deputy Ambassador, Kingdom of Altanar
(wondering how long the Ambassador plans to be gone)

The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia thanks Logical Wits for the warning, and immediately orders his army to invade every surrounding gentle agricultural nation, and nuclear strikes on others.

Our Emperor wish to know what is the distance between "REAL PAIN" and the bodycoded islands, to have the adequate reaction:
1. if we are too close, immediately grant research programs to find a better way to avoid invasion
2. if the menace is nuke, to immediately grant a "star wars" research project, dedicated to nuke missile interception

The Logical Emissary to UN

That's the whole thing. It doesn't 'force' you to do anything. Freedom of choice. It doesn't even force you to do 'nothing'. What a wonderful thing. Sure, proposals like this may be a waste of our time. They may not be.

We are deeply interested in such a logical reasoning. Could your wonderfull nation accept to welcon a Logical Studying (LoSt) team? I'm sure that we will acquire a lot of knowledge from your reasonning skills.

For more informations about LoSt units, please read:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11848932&postcount=7

Ladies and Gentlemen of the UN:

While Djamel praises and agrees with the sharing of knowledge, be it agriculture or otherwise, it is our opinion that there must be a balance of technology and nature, as the pursuit of either extreme will lead to an unfavorable end.

Although we acknowledge that "Genetic Modification" has existed for many millenia, we feel as though there is a technical difference between this tecnique of crop perfection and laboratory-based genetic modification. Our country will always be for the pursuit of knowledge, but not if the knowledge could potentially harm the environment or our citizens. That is, we support it in a safe and isolated laboratory situation, but we are afraid of the repercussions of releasing technology that is still in a relatively experimental state out into the open air.

Since Djamel supports organic farming in it's country, we have no choice but to vote against this resolution. Thank you.

Miguel Onarajeb
President of the Commonwealth of Djamel

It seems there is a lot of debate here on the current resolution. As a lonely emissary from Sinless Singleness far away from home here in the UN, before trying to find, well, some short-time company, we need to make a choice and vote.

Pros: seems a lovely proposition.
Cons: Won't do much.

So as usual in our country when no clear solution is found, we throw a coin and choose to accept its omen.

(bling-bling, roll roll roll roooooooll......).

We have to oppose this terrible proposition. No way our country will vote for a pure wishful do-what-you-want proposal that will prevent any more forceful proposal on the subject.

Now what was the phone number of this lovely creature I saw at the bar......

While the Democratic Republic of Cowhide is broadly in favor of the aims of this proposal, we take exception with two articles.

The first, Article 2.6: Land distribution to farmers, in particular in areas with labor intensive agriculture. It is our contention that endorsement of the reallocation of private property to farm workers would put undo pressure on individual nations to take such action. We believe distribution of national resources is a matter for individual nations.

Second, we cannot with, a clear conscious support any of Articles 3.1 through 3.7. As Jacques Ravachol, Président de la République populaire de Ravacholiser so eloquently and thoughtfully stated, and I quote:

“GM crops are hard to control. They cross-pollinate like any other plant, once they are in the wild, they spread their genes. These genes are often un-natural, and depending on the GM crop, can dramatically change everything.

GM plants often are roundup ready, or have internal, unnatural, pesticides. This kills all insects, not just the ones we are trying to keep off our crops. Then we eat these vegetables, injecting them.

GM crops are the intellectual property of large multinational corporations whose only driving motive is profit, by law. I do not want my people's food source held hostage by some profit-driven corporation. I prefer local, family supported farms where the profits stay local, supporting communities.

The threat of a disease killing off our crops is more of a threat to those who use monoculture and GM crops. Large monolithic fields of the same thing are prone to disaster. Time tested seeds, that were naturally selected for their area are far more resistant, not monolithic, and enough always survive disease.

We must not turn to franken-food as the answer to problems that we have created. We agree with the first half of the bill, but strongly disagree with the GM crop section.
I urge all member nations to vote NO on this bill.”

For this reason, we shall be voting against the resolution.

Regretfully,

Fanny Bergenstrom
UN Ambassador, The Democratic Republic of Cowhide

The Community of Jeffersonian Democrats shall cast its vote in favor of this resolution, in keeping with the vote of the glorious region of Hethrum's delegate. I must point out to my fellow members and delegates that the UNSARC is simply to be a research group, and that the recommendations of this body are not binding.

A database of the UNSARC studies and findings will be beneficial for all, allowing all to learn from both its advances and its mistakes. I urge my fellow UN members to approve this resolution.

Thomas Franklin
Community of Jeffersonian Democrats

I personally find this morally wrong. It should be up to the farmers to decide what to do and how to do it not the un. So i vote NO! :headbang:

I personally find this morally wrong. It should be up to the farmers to decide what to do and how to do it not the un. So i vote NO! :headbang:

What? You find helping other nations morally wrong? Right then, moving on.


Dahlia Black
UN Representative
Queendom of Karmicaria

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How would you like it if Hitler killed you?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

29 Oct, 2006, Capitol City, Ramsiristan


This week ramsiristanis were blessed by a rare appearance. The Holy Emperor stood at the Blessed and Entirely Resplendant Podium, flanked by his chosen advisors, and addressed the small, growing nation. A crowd of more than 100,000 onlookers swooned with delight as he raised his hand in acknowledgment of their thunderous applause.

" Dear citizens,
Many of you have expressed doubt and apprehension at the Holy Empire's recent decision to send a delegation to the distant and enigmatic U.N. My trusted advisors, schooled and experienced in a variety of distant lands, chosen from among the brightest of yourselves, have given me cause to dismiss this doubt. They have said, and I have agreed, that the Holy Empire of Ramsiristan could not afford in the present or in the future, to ignore such a lofty gathering of the dreaded and troublesome outsiders. We will learn about them, we will massage their over-inflated egos, and we will someday conquer them, as we are destined to.
This regular gathering of outsiders is certainly a raucous and dreadful event, and I have apologised to the delegation I sent. Their language can be, at times, shocking and abhorrent, as well their methods of "debate" can be irritating. Still, it seems that soon the outsiders' agricultural procedures and technologies will be available, translated, and explained to us. It seems our traditional methods of rainwater collection were not widely known, and they left areas with irregular or little rainfall to dry to dust when a simply shaped hole with enough shade would have saved thousands from famine. As I've said before, outsiders are a strange and nonsensical bunch.
They've crafted a "resolution" which seems to resolve nothing, but in the interest of our new outward-looking attitude, I've instructed the delgation to express the Holy Empire's approval. Our reservations are centered around the lack of binding legislation of any kind, and particularly centered around the lack of binding legislation around GM crops. If a neighbor were to begin growing crops like this, there are no real answers for what could happen. Cross-pollination, for one thing, could result in corruption of our national crops. Imagine a ramsiristan without the tradition flavor of ramsiristani wheat bread! Or even a world without the economic opportunities of ramsiristani rice exports, or the much-coveted ramsiristani date? The outsiders' organization has indicated it would like to further study these GM crops, and we can only express our hope that this study will happen far from the boundaries of the Holy Empire. They can give no assurances that said crops would not decimate the delicate ramsiristani bee population, or that it would not cause other unforseen ecological disasters.
I understand, and I remember well my grandfather's words, when the Holy Empire was not much more than a Sacred Farm. He used to say "Do not trust the outsiders because they will steal your sandwich if you sit next to them." This has guided me and instructed me as I've led the Empire to the current era of cultural ascendancy, and it will continue to guide me as I attempt to understand and deal with these crude and inarticulate outsiders. And rest assured, dear citizens, as any threat to our Imperial crops is a threat to the Empire, we will stamp out and eradicate any enterprising neigbor who tries to grow GM crops on any border within 100 Imperial miles of any Imperial farm. Perhaps the outsiders will "resolve" to study their GM crops without decimating any indiginous populations of vital insects or culturally important varieties of crops, but as long as they don't do it here, we'll have to watch closely thru the soon-to-be-formed UNSARC so as to know how much of a threat this decidedly unholy sort of tinkering with nature actually might be."

The crowd at the Stadium of the Blessed and Entirely Resplendant Podium cheered their leader as he left them, and his advisors took some questions from the crowd. Several of the people interviewed at the Stadium seemed truly perplexed that the Holy Emperor would have brought their country into such an organization, but virtually every farmer our interviewers spoke to was very excited at the prospect of new and better technologies, better yields, and shorter working hours. When asked about the problems involved with any such new technolgies, one of the farmers shrugged. "The Holy Ministry of Agriculture will find out which practices are safe and which are not. When they do, we will use the ones that are safe, where they are applicable. That is how we do things. That is how we've always done things. Maybe the outsiders can help His Holiness the Minister, and maybe His Holiness can help the outsiders. We will see."

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

How would you like it if Hitler killed you?

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative
You read Dilbert and then dream about it?

You read Dilbert and then dream about it?
OOC: No, I read Dilbert and thought it would be funny to have Bob say that.

I cannot believe some of the braindead utterings I'm hearing.

"We don't like GM crops! We're voting against! Knowledge is dangerous!"

...... I...

I quit. I need to save my nerves for the next debate...

OOC: No, I read Dilbert and thought it would be funny to have Bob say that.
OOC: Yes, it was.

I cannot believe some of the braindead utterings I'm hearing.
"We don't like GM crops! We're voting against! Knowledge is dangerous!"


Well even if that is not the reason we voted against, it is quite clear that for some nations, knowledge is dangerous. For instance, we can try a resolution promoting research on stem cells, but it is not clear if it will pass. Knowledge is seen by many rulers as dangerous, and you always need to remember democracy is not the government style of all our members.

I tend to find that diplomacy itself tend to be rarer and rarer among the delegates here. I wonder if a resolution on politeness could be enforcing...

Well even if that is not the reason we voted against, it is quite clear that for some nations, knowledge is dangerous. For instance, we can try a resolution promoting research on stem cells, but it is not clear if it will pass. Knowledge is seen by many rulers as dangerous, and you always need to remember democracy is not the government style of all our members.

I tend to find that diplomacy itself tend to be rarer and rarer among the delegates here. I wonder if a resolution on politeness could be enforcing...

Allow me to amend the statement. "KNOWLEDGE OF HORTICULTURE IS DANGEROUS!"

I'm sorry, but the idea that UNSARC can do anything that would lead to the collapse of society and the ruin of governments is patently absurd.

it is quite clear that for some nations, knowledge is dangerous. [...] Knowledge is seen by many rulers as dangerous.

We in the Empire totally agree with your point, may be some nations could promote a resolution about promoting the developement of Knowledge.

It would create a "Knowledge Development Agency" which will take actions to ensure that all UN nations could conduct research by all means.

Does a more experimented UN member knows if we have such resolutions? something about promoting research?

We in the Empire totally agree with your point, may be some nations could promote a resolution about promoting the developement of Knowledge.

It would create a "Knowledge Development Agency" which will take actions to ensure that all UN nations could conduct research by all means.

Does a more experimented UN member knows if we have such resolutions? something about promoting research?

Ugh. Mostly piles of crap like Hydrogen Powered Vehicles.

We would like to post in this thread our answer given to a comment raised in a NS regional forum about the very negative effects of patented GM crops:

In NSUN nobody can patent GM crops:
#156UN Patent Law
QUOTE
5. STIPULATES that patents may not pertain to:
c. biological organisms;

#156UN Patent Law
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index....tions/start=155

and I would like to say that Love and esterel had, at an earlier time, before this patent proposal was voted, lobbyed in the UN forum in order that genome cannot be patented.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10...79&postcount=68
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=10299809&postcount=4

In NSUN nobody can patent GM crops:

And I don't see how you can practically enforce such a patent in the first place. Let's take werepenguins. Those little buggers keep making more werepenguins on their own, and does the creator get any royalties? Not a dime - believe me - I've asked her.

Our Emperor wish to know what is the distance between "REAL PAIN" and the bodycoded islands, to have the adequate reaction:
1. if we are too close, immediately grant research programs to find a better way to avoid invasion
2. if the menace is nuke, to immediately grant a "star wars" research project, dedicated to nuke missile interception

The Logical Emissary to UN


The Beloved President for Life of The Democratic Republic of Excruciatia thanks The Logical Emissary to UN for the question...(It almost seems like a dare ;))

The Intelligence Division of Policarmy suggests the combined population of the nations of Bodycoded islands is around 109 million.

Excruciatia's population alone is 1.699 billion. Then it can call on reserves from Dystopiacia (1.227 billion), Malignantia (301 million), and Excruci-rUiNation (79 million)...The Excruciatian Policarmy can also very quickly gain control from the biker gangs running Apeathetica (1.201 billion).

While an army drawn from a possible 4.5 billion people vs 0.1 would result in just the sort of annihilation that BPL loves, island hopping isn't his thing. He'ld really prefer to just stick with WMDing continents ;)

The Excruciatian Battle Groups will be sure to wave on way past the islands ;)

And I don't see how you can practically enforce such a patent in the first place. Let's take werepenguins. Those little buggers keep making more werepenguins on their own... You've hit the nail on the beak, good sir. If genetically designed crops aren't sterile (many are), it is a matter of making it illegal to save seed from one year to the next. If Old McDonald buys GM corn seed one year, and doesn't the next, the producer of the GM seed pays him a visit just to see what he's growing this year. Not being able to patent such in the first place 'tis a good thing.

Thanks for your comment, I would like to apologize, as it seems that several others nations feel this proposal too much technical and not written in an easy to understand language.
We posted the draft on this same forum for some time before submitting it, with several definitions (Sustainable Agriculture, drip irrigation, surge irrigation, johads, pests, pesticides, hybrid crops, refuge), and then submitting it 3 times (12 days) without campaigning, before to resubmit it and campaign and as we didn't get any similar feedback during those periods we didn't take time to write it more easier, sorry.

Though it is late in the debate, my government has now had time to fully review this resolution and would like to announce that Mikitivity has voted in favour. While it is true that this resolution is technical, the very nature of the subjects of agriculture and water supply are technical topics. However, many nations should have the means to cross-reference and research one page resolutions before casting their votes, and I would not worry about compliants of length. As we all know that the pattern is that if you write something too brief, nations complain just as loudly.

As a nation with a vested interest in regional management of atmospheric and water resources, we particularly found the subclause on the development of water resources well written. In fact, there was some original concern that the clause might be in conflict with the Mitigation of Large Reservoirs resolution, but Sustainable Agriculture Center does not talk about the size or means of design for the reservoirs it promotes. Furthermore both resolutions call upon nations to participate in regional scale sustainable water resources management and planning, thus I'd like to suggest that in fact, these two resolutions are in fact stronger together ... one invests its time on setting some defintions for safe and healthy ways to mitigate the negative impacts of water projects and the other reiterates this by encouraging safe and healthy applications of water projects.

Job well done!

-Howie T. Katzman

The Republic of Choccakeland vote against this proposal for three main reasons.

1 - We feel industry is important and whilst we recognise the need for environmental issues this should not be done entirely at the expense of industry.
2 - We would not promote the use of pesticides on all member nations.
3 - We remain sceptical of Genetically Modified foods because of the unknown irreversible adverse effects this may have on the environment.

Im sick and tired of all these socialist resolutions coming out of the UN.Why do we need to vote for this?I didnt bother to read this one fully,I admit it,but enough to get the basic idea-more central regualtions of the member countries economies.I voted against the last one,mandating more chemical standards,becuase,quite simply,I think we are taking the authority of the organization to far.Were does the authority of the UN hit a limit?When NationStates was created,the original idea was for the UN to be a sort of mediating establishment amongst players-it managing disputes was its primary reason for being.Now we see many of our people abusing it as something to force laws on countries-this isnt right.The UN is becoming way to large-every law that passes establishes more commisions,commitees,regulations.And every nation that joined the UN is affected by these laws-and they all have a built in negative effect on your economies.This occurs even if you voted against it.Thousands vote against every UN resolution but it still passes.Then it effects the country anyway,in what I view as a unfair violation of its sovereignity.Dont you think that is a viliolation of the right of players ro manage their own countries?I just ask that people who propose these resolutions be more careful about what is written,because the UN resolutions have a lot of effect on the countries tht are members.A lot of countries who want to create capitalist-libertarian societies,and econimic freedom is damaged in thier nationstates because of the resolutions.It isnt really this resolution in particular that I am annoyed with-just all of the resolutions that want to make the UN bigger,bigger,bigger, I am opposed to.
I am trying to organize resistance to UN resolutions,and if you agree with me,help me by voting against it.The Anti-Un movement needs your support.You can also help by telling fellow members of your region to do the same.I just want to preserve freedom in the NationStates world,to make this game better for everyone by letting them make their own decisions about how to run thier countries.

This is Utaho,representing the Capitalist Wing,thank you for reading.Remember-vote no.

If that is how you feel quit the UN.

Im sick and tired of all these socialist resolutions coming out of the UN.Why do we need to vote for this?I didnt bother to read this one fully,I admit it,but enough to get the basic idea-more central regualtions of the member countries economies.I voted against the last one,mandating more chemical standards,becuase,quite simply,I think we are taking the authority of the organization to far.Were does the authority of the UN hit a limit?When NationStates was created,the original idea was for the UN to be a sort of mediating establishment amongst players-it managing disputes was its primary reason for being.Now we see many of our people abusing it as something to force laws on countries-this isnt right.The UN is becoming way to large-every law that passes establishes more commisions,commitees,regulations.And every nation that joined the UN is affected by these laws-and they all have a built in negative effect on your economies.This occurs even if you voted against it.Thousands vote against every UN resolution but it still passes.Then it effects the country anyway,in what I view as a unfair violation of its sovereignity.Dont you think that is a viliolation of the right of players ro manage their own countries?I just ask that people who propose these resolutions be more careful about what is written,because the UN resolutions have a lot of effect on the countries tht are members.A lot of countries who want to create capitalist-libertarian societies,and econimic freedom is damaged in thier nationstates because of the resolutions.It isnt really this resolution in particular that I am annoyed with-just all of the resolutions that want to make the UN bigger,bigger,bigger, I am opposed to.
I am trying to organize resistance to UN resolutions,and if you agree with me,help me by voting against it.The Anti-Un movement needs your support.You can also help by telling fellow members of your region to do the same.I just want to preserve freedom in the NationStates world,to make this game better for everyone by letting them make their own decisions about how to run thier countries.

This is Utaho,representing the Capitalist Wing,thank you for reading.Remember-vote no.

We're never sure whether to be amused or disgusted when a brand new member, representing an almost brand-new nation, waltzes into this Assembly and proceeds to lecture the membership on what the NSUN is and what its purpose is.

Just where did the representative come up with the notion that "When NationStates was created,the original idea was for the UN to be a sort of mediating establishment amongst players-it managing disputes was its primary reason for being". Have you read the FAQ? Have you read any of the stickied material in this forum? Just where do you find any support for this statement? You state this as fact. Provide the evidence.

The NSUN has no power to influence the internal affairs of any nation unless that nation specifically grants it that power by applying for membership. On your nation's United Nations page is a nice little button labeled "RESIGN". Based on your comments here, we'd suggest you use it.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

And every nation that joined the UN is affected by these laws-and they all have a built in negative effect on your economies.This occurs even if you voted against it.Thousands vote against every UN resolution but it still passes.Then it effects the country anyway,in what I view as a unfair violation of its sovereignity.Dont you think that is a viliolation of the right of players ro manage their own countries?......The Anti-Un movement needs your support.You can also help by telling fellow members of your region to do the same.I just want to preserve freedom in the NationStates world,to make this game better for everyone by letting them make their own decisions about how to run thier countries.


OOC: UN problems are easy fixed Utaho. Just set up a puppet to deal with the UN garbage, then you can vote for or against or whatever suits you on the resolutions without your main nation being affected by UN junk. To really have some fun with it, role-play some heavy duty disobedience to their resolutions.

Eg, my nation Excruciatia is a Psycho Dictatorship that makes Stalin look like Kermit. Rather than have it "ruined" by UN I set up Excruci-rUiNation as a UN puppet. I said in an early post that it used to be a small neighbouring nation of Excruciatia until Excruciatia marched in and killed everyone. Excruciatia also keeps a couple of Army Groups on the border ready to go in at any time and counter-act the effects of UN Resolutions.

Sure it doesn't help against effects in the puppet because the game changes things around UN resolutions, but the ohhhhh soooo serious UN nations who seem to think this is real life and they really are saving the world or something like that absolutely HATE IT :D

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2406/exvsnsunxm0.th.jpg (http://img143.imageshack.us/my.php?image=exvsnsunxm0.jpg)

http://test256.free.fr/UN%20Cards/crad8hi.png

This is Utaho,representing the Capitalist Wing,thank you for reading.Remember-vote no.

Oh bugger off with your "Capitalists get no play in the UN" BS.

*Bob jumps to his feet and points his finger at a ramdom delegate across the room*
I TOLD YOU I WANTED SUNSCREEN NOT SUNBLOCK!

*Flops back into hs chair, still asleep*

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

My problem with this resolution, is that while the sharing of conventional wisdom with the addition of resource management is good, there is no need for genetically modified crops outside of cross polination. though it will never be admitted to, there is evidence that alergies to things such as latex and peanuts is linked to the inaculation (vaxinations) of persons at birth or at other times. Natural resistance is the best, and while crops modified have better resistance to certain things, they may in the long run prove to be more harm than good, consider do we really need to be eating extra chemicals that are embedded in GM foods??? Should we on the other hand consider more natural ways of increasing yeilds not only by protection against pestilents, but also in the field of fertilizers, being a farmer myself, nothing beets real fertilizer that comes from animals. Secondly, the UN does not need to advise on how people should farm, conventional or not, they merely should place data for regional farming boards who will then suggest how farmers should plant the next year.

*Dahlia stands, picks up a brown paper bag and walks over to the Flibbleite representative. She removes a towel from the bag and carefully tucks it under his face. She then turns to the GA*

Sorry, he was drooling.

*and resumes her seat*

the country of the Lord of Hosts prides itself on its technological research in agriculture, which it trades with its neighbors for other things. We don't want the UN to compete with us. We therefore oppose this proposal.

When NationStates was created,the original idea was for the UN to be a sort of mediating establishment amongst players-it managing disputes was its primary reason for being.Factually wrong.

the country of the Lord of Hosts prides itself on its technological research in agriculture, which it trades with its neighbors for other things. We don't want the UN to compete with us. We therefore oppose this proposal.

Finally, a coherent opposal to this resolution that makes sense! Now that I think about it, why doesn't the Great Star Empire have this attitude?

Hmm... I'm going to put in a call... *zwip, thump*

(sound of body sliding to the floor)

*urgh*

(Sounds of mumbling, struggling)

Pay no attention to the unconcious man on the floor. All is well, all is well. ALL IS WELL.

While an army drawn from a possible 4.5 billion people vs 0.1 would result in just the sort of annihilation that BPL loves, island hopping isn't his thing. He'ld really prefer to just stick with WMDing continents ;)


Our beloved Emperor toally agree about the numeral superiority of your people on Us. But He thinks that it should be understood as an unique opportunity to exchange. On our side, we could bring you our outstanding perception of Logic, and on your side, your could explain your sharp understanding of diplomacy and military affairs. This exchange could take place inside our Logical Studies (LoSt) program:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503938

our outstanding perception of Logic

*snort*

Ahem. Sorry. The Allied States of St Jello Biafra respectfully request that Logical Twits and Excrementia yield the floor to those speakers interested in discussing the resolution up for vote.

Thank you.

Does a more experimented UN member knows if we have such resolutions? something about promoting research?

Dude, I've been experimenting for years.

Love, luck and lollipops,
Sheik Larebil bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hey Horatio... I find that I've got an extra five cases of Wild Turkey in my office. You know anybody who might be willing to help me clear up some space?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/doctor.jpg
Doctor Denis Leary
Ambassador to the UN
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Sure, anything is better than this debate. Might as well do something constructive and hobnail my liver.
Excelsior,
Sen Horatio Sulla

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You can't put your finger there. OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Put your finger there!

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Ok to all those that say that this resolution will not mandate anything can you all garantee that if this resolution is passed that my country a proud member of this UN will not have any forced changes on the country screen? If this is true then thats good but if there will be economic changes or social changes or any changes to my country then I think we all are right in saying it mandates laws on soverign nations. Look forward to your response.

We would like to congratulate The Most Serene Republic of Love and esterel and The Obsessive Economic Kingdom of CR Oscilloscopes on the imminent passage of this worthy resolution. We wish the UN Sustainable Agriculture Resource Center success in all of it's future endeavors and look forward to working with it in advancing the cause of sustainable agriculture.

Ok to all those that say that this resolution will not mandate anything can you all garantee that if this resolution is passed that my country a proud member of this UN will not have any forced changes on the country screen? If this is true then thats good but if there will be economic changes or social changes or any changes to my country then I think we all are right in saying it mandates laws on soverign nations. Look forward to your response.

IC: Country screen? What the hell is he talking about? Anyone?

OOC: You're confusing game mechanics with roleplay. Any UN resolution will affect your nation's profile in some way, but the beauty of this game is that you don't have to pay attention to that profile if you don't want to. The UN is about roleplay, not game mechanics; if you're interested in THINKING about what resolutions will do to your nation, you're welcome to stick around. However, if you'd rather sit there and stare at your "country screen" without taking the game beyond those few pages, I recommend keeping away from the forums.

St Jello Biafra;11877603']IC: Country screen? What the hell is he talking about? Anyone?
Not a clue. Maybe it has something to do with that sunscreen that Flibble was mumbling about.

OOC: Ok then how do you translate a game machanic into a RolePlay equivalent. Well in my opinion if it affects my country profile then it is not correct to state that it will not mandate anything. Because it does mandate it by affecting my country profile. Hence this is considered Mandation since that is the only way to discribe what it will do to my country in the game.

It passed. Yippie-ki-yay.

Next!

We would like to thanks every nation who voted and debated nicely this proposal and give a special thanks to the nations who helped us in the drafting phase, those who supported it and our Co-author CR Oscilloscopes.



Last week I received a pretty interesting telegram from The Holy Empire of The Shaimung Dynasty, the delegate of Zamothra about vertical farming, a concept I had never heard about before. I invited him/her to post on this forum, but as he/she didn't do it, i would like to post about it.

http://www.verticalfarm.com/

Shortly, vertical farming is many stories indoor farming. I think it has to be considered as one of a possible future direction for agriculture, but of course, we cannot know.
Its disadvantage is for sure its investment cost, but it may have many advantages
-no need for pesticides
-no water wasted
-no damage by insects, disease, weeds, heat, cold, floods, drought
and may also avoid forest decrease.

OOC: Ok then how do you translate a game machanic into a RolePlay equivalent. Well in my opinion if it affects my country profile then it is not correct to state that it will not mandate anything. Because it does mandate it by affecting my country profile. Hence this is considered Mandation since that is the only way to discribe what it will do to my country in the game.

OOC: Roleplaying can be very rewarding, but the UN forum is really for talking about international related issues. What you might wish to do is have your "ambassador" make a statement in this thread tomorrow talking about some major change with an agribusiness in your company. Perhaps their stock prices shot up or down as a result of the perception that ag business is going to change in your country.

That said, generally people move on to the next topic quickly here. Regional forums or national newspapers are other ways to deal with RPed events that follow the conclusion of a UN resolution vote. If you want to do something more involved, this might not be the best / most appropriate forum to do that.



On another note, I have a modest NSWiki stub created for this resolution already. I'll need to work on the proposal and UN debate sections.

-M

*as the gavel bangs signifing the end of voting Bob wakes up*

Boy, that was a nice nap. So, what did I miss?

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Abso-facking-lutely nothing, Bob. Except I hope you'll join me in congratulating the proposal author on a job well done.

St Jello Biafra;11880466']Abso-facking-lutely nothing, Bob. Except I hope you'll join me in congratulating the proposal author on a job well done.

I'll definatly congratulate them on creating the best damn insomnia cure I've ever encountered.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Our beloved Emperor toally agree about the numeral superiority of your people on Us. But He thinks that it should be understood as an unique opportunity to exchange. On our side, we could bring you our outstanding perception of Logic, and on your side, your could explain your sharp understanding of diplomacy and military affairs. This exchange could take place inside our Logical Studies (LoSt) program:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=503938

OOC: heh, not much to learn ;) To borrow from Orwell... IC: "If you want a picture of Excruciatia, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--for ever."



St Jello Biafra;11876869']*snort*

Ahem. Sorry. The Allied States of St Jello Biafra respectfully request that Logical Twits and Excrementia yield the floor to those speakers interested in discussing the resolution up for vote.

Thank you.

*cough* *burp* *yawn*

BPL-DRE considers Jelly Beans St's respectful request, and replies with a filibuster directed at the Jelly Beans St capital...oops...typo...filibuster = bunker buster... :p :D

*cough* *burp* *yawn*

BPL-DRE considers Jelly Beans St's respectful request, and replies with a filibuster directed at the Jelly Beans St capital...oops...typo...filibuster = bunker buster... :p :D

You don't really want to go that route -- not with our Death Star in geosynchronous orbit over your nation...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

You don't really want to go that route -- not with our Death Star in geosynchronous orbit over your nation...

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN


IC: BPL-DRE fires another bunker buster at the capital of Cluichstan.


OOC: Sorry 'bout that :p :D But a Psychotic Dictator doesn't really want to go what route? :D

BPL isn't really going to sit on his hands with lines like "Excrementia" from JB or your John Wayneish "You don't really want to go that route" is he? Anyway, a blast from a Death Star would save BPL a lot of work having to wipe out his population the old fashioned way (nuke, bio, chem, etc).

Then again BPL has just put Excruciatian scientists to work on a project he calls the "Norderian Noodle" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11878319#post11878319) and would love to see it work before Excruciatia is wiped out ;)

So...

IC: BPL watches a screen showing the progress of the bunker busters as they cross the ocean in general direction of their respective targets...then he remembers his Norderian Noodle project. He thinks to himself "Why just take out a capital. Get the NN working and could take out the whole side of the planet..."

He pushes a button on his desk and both bunker busters explode over the ocean. The next day the Excruciatian national TV station reports a successful test of BBs.


OOC: There yer go :) But don't set BPL off too much, those things aren't cheap, only so many times he can launch one and call it a test ;)

IC: BPL-DRE fires another bunker buster at the capital of Cluichstan...



OOC: Yeah, this isn't International Incidents, so don't pretend it is.

IC:

Pendankr laughs heartily.

"What a fine show, good sir! I daresay that you have several hours left to live while the Death Star targets your nation with it's burning laser of death! I can't say you won't be missed."

OOC: Yeah, this isn't International Incidents, so don't pretend it is.

IC:

Pendankr laughs heartily.

"What a fine show, good sir! I daresay that you have several hours left to live while the Death Star targets your nation with it's burning laser of death! I can't say you won't be missed."


OOC: Not my fault, BPL shot his last chauffeur and it was too far to walk to II ;)

BPL quickly hires John McClane (http://www.grudge-match.com/History/mcclane-deathstar.shtml) :p :D

Mr. Kennededski quickly placed a call back home to the capital of SJB.

"Get me the Supreme Trustee. Now. It's Stewart, and I said GET ME THE FUCKING S.T.! CHRIST!"

After hearing a quick and worried explanation of the imminent attacks from the Most Smelly Nation of Excrementia, the President calmly walked over to his desk, sat down, and smiled.

I've always wanted to use this, he thought, as he pressed the big red button marked "I.G.N.O.R.E."

Then again BPL has just put Excruciatian scientists to work on a project he calls the "Norderian Noodle" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11878319#post11878319) and would love to see it work before Excruciatia is wiped out ;)

OOC: Let's leave Norderia's noodle out of this. *shudder*

OOC: Let's leave Norderia's noodle out of this. *shudder*Is that anything like a "genetic jackhammer"? Perhaps it should be on the WHL.

Is that anything like a "genetic jackhammer"? Perhaps it should be on the WHL.
It is on there, now.

IC (Random Person): Some random person breaks into the UN general floor. He is being chased by the UN Guard (for protecting inside the building) with a taser, gun, and spade. He goes up to Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich. He asks, in an odd out-of-break like voice, "Where are the UN Resolutions at?" Then, a guard catches up to him, and tasers him. He gets up, and tasers the guard back. Than he just runs around waiting for an answer."

IC (Jerry Trimley - UN Ambassador): *Sighs in a relaxed voice* That was a good relaxation. How'd that guy get in here? Oh well. let's repeal the Sexual Freedoms resolution! It's badly worded. I'll be back officially tomorrow, so those who vote against will not affect us. Guard, get that guy out of here.

Wrong thread, genius.

The nation of Ardchoille (represented in the NS UN by a witch, a giant cat and an over-packaged witchette) is absolutely shocked by the exorbitant amount of ROLEPLAYING that is occurring in said august body, and would go and complain about it somewhere if the delegation's leader were not too busy at the moment romancing a human-sized invisible rabbit.

The nation of Ardchoille (represented in the NS UN by a witch, a giant cat and an over-packaged witchette) is absolutely shocked by the exorbitant amount of ROLEPLAYING that is occurring in said august body, and would go and complain about it somewhere if the delegation's leader were not too busy at the moment romancing a human-sized invisible rabbit.

Damn, well, I'll be! Harvey's back around the UN? I haven't been out drinking with him in ages!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Damn, well, I'll be! Harvey's back around the UN? I haven't been out drinking with him in ages!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Yeah, I'm back, on account of the Doctor went back on his word about taking me along in the TARDIS for a while, but it's actually my brother Harry that's just got lucky with the Ardchoillean ambassador...

Regretfully,
Harvey McWabbit,
Invisible Wabbits' chief observer at the UN.

Alright, lock this thread already.