NationStates Jolt Archive

slash military spending. i do not agree wid.
military spending shud be kept at waheba amount a nation decides.
the resolution shud ask,
= to change the way of spending our military dollars.
= why slash the money, when we can just adjust where we invest the money. n yes invest it into research to improve weapons from harming INNOCENT civilians.

Northasia is behind this proposal 110%. And for those who do not understand why it is in arms control, I can see why it would be. As I interpret this proposal, it is for abolishing weapons of mass destruction. I.E Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox. I may be wrong, but I would like evidence as to why I am if anyone believes such.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Civilian casualties are a great fact of War. If they get in the way, shoot them down. However, not during a time of war, if the mass killing of another Nation's civilians allows you to gain control of land and resources, take the oppourtunity. To prevent Nations and punish Nations that kill civilians is intolerent in and of itself. All people in my Nation are of my military. I don't have a single civilian. You are a soldier the moment you can hold a bio-neugenic weapon. Maybe all other Nations should follow suit. Then civilian causalties won't be an issue when I come knocking at your door. Basically I greatly oppose this accord.

The Great Warmancer General
:mp5: Keelluur von Termeenatuur:mp5:

Civilian casualties are a great fact of War. If they get in the way, shoot them down. However, not during a time of war, if the mass killing of another Nation's civilians allows you to gain control of land and resources, take the oppourtunity. To prevent Nations and punish Nations that kill civilians is intolerent in and of itself. All people in my Nation are of my military. I don't have a single civilian. You are a soldier the moment you can hold a bio-neugenic weapon. Maybe all other Nations should follow suit. Then civilian causalties won't be an issue when I come knocking at your door. Basically I greatly oppose this accord.

The Great Warmancer General
:mp5: Keelluur von Termeenatuur:mp5:

Comrade Termeenatuur, Does that not violate this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52) UN resolution?

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Northasia is behind this proposal 110%. And for those who do not understand why it is in arms control, I can see why it would be. As I interpret this proposal, it is for abolishing weapons of mass destruction. I.E Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox. I may be wrong, but I would like evidence as to why I am if anyone believes such.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Unfortunately, the representative from Northasia is mistaken. We'd ask him to read clause 7 of the resolution carefully. It's what's called a blocker. What it does is prevent the NSUN from passing any meaningful new arms control legislation unless this resolution was repealed first.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Unfortunately, the representative from Northasia is mistaken. We'd ask him to read clause 7 of the resolution carefully. It's what's called a blocker. What it does is prevent the NSUN from passing any meaningful new arms control legislation unless this resolution was repealed first.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

Thank you for clarifying that, Comrade Ahlmann. I misunderstood that clause as stating that all measures up to WMDs were allowed under this resolution. I appreciate the correction.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Last UN Decision

The resolution Unconventional Arms Accord was defeated 8,798 votes to 4,536.We would like to thank all those who defended this proposal, as well as those kind enough to offer relevant points of opposition against it, including Ausserland, Artichoke-ville, and Yelda. We apologize that we lacked the requisite energy to give you the response you deserved.

To our mind this is the first so-called "blocker" proposal to be defeated by the General Assembly. All you Imperial Federalissimo guys must be proud. There will be time for gloating later, but now, we dance! ~Sec. Tehrani.

[Jessie appears at the entrance to the chamber in a sparkly cherry-red dress and a Carmen Miranda hat.]

WHOOOO!!!! Conga!!!

[She starts to dance down the aisle, making obligatory rude faces at the camera. Tehrani grabs her waist and follows.]

He got blocker fever!
She got blocker fever!
They got blocker fever!
We all got blocker fever!--

WHOO!!! Com'on everybody!

[OOC @friendly mod-type persons: Please lock this thread.]

To our mind this is the first so-called "blocker" proposal to be defeated by the General Assembly.

My records indicate that this is the first blocker resolution to fail. And that is a rather important point, as it suggests that UN members are actually reading and voting upon the text of the resolutions. Of course it is possible that some no votes came from nations that might appreciate a total ban on future UN global disarmament proposals and these nations may have voted against the blocker simply based on their knee jerk reaction ... but I'd suggest that there were probably just as many nations whom voted yes without reading. In the end sum of things, given the small number of nations participating in the UN floor debates, I think nations really are reading the resolutions and basing their decisions on the text of the resolutions.

All that said, I'd like to encourage the sponsoring nation, Omigodtheykilledkenny, to creating a new ad hoc group to consider resubmitting the resolution in a new proposal sans clauses 6 and 7. I also believe some valid points were made concerning the assumption made by clause 3 suggesting that only "unnecessary" losses of civilian life were to be avoided. As was pointed out by another ambassador, this might imply that there is such a thing as a necessary loss of civilian life. I think that particular issue might be addressed by talking the UN Secretariat into allowing a preambulatory reference to the Civilian Rights Post War to reinforce the idea that measures should be taken to protect civilians and non-combatants.

On that last note, Mikitivity would welcome a future UN resolution granting non-combatant status to captured and seriously injured combatants.

-Cassandra Thonberger

OOC: I'm very close to finishing our NSWiki article summarizing your resolution ... I have to say that the first part of the debate was actually *very* interesting reading, though as others pointed out, I too didn't care for the pot shots we all started taking at one another towards the end. There certainly are *no* hard feelings on my part, nor will Thonberger or Katzman mind ... but I think that many of us regulars forget that we are rolemodels to newbies and really set the tone for this forum (a tone that usually I find very open to opposing points of view). :)

-Michael

There will never be time for gloating. Gloating is a pastime for the small-minded. We're only sorry that circumstances prevented our honorable colleague from Omigodtheykilledkenny from engaging more in the sort of spirited and skilled debate of which we know he is very capable. We had looked forward to locking horns with him.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

Anselm G. Blorck
Major General, Army of Ausserland
Deputy Minister (National Security Affairs)

OOC: I'm very close to finishing our NSWiki article summarizing your resolution ... Ah, thanks for getting started on that. I'll have to put my own touch on it later.

[EDIT: You even made entries for "enjoining" and "Kenny Poll"! Ha!]

Ah, thanks for getting started on that. I'll have to put my own touch on it later.

[EDIT: You even made entries for "enjoining" and "Kenny Poll"! Ha!]

The word was appropriate and it doesn't hurt to have it up there ...

As for the Kenny Polls, those are an NS UN institution and needed an article. Now I've love it if somebody were to take the results of this poll and make an entertaining graphic to include in the resolution article and Kenny Poll article.

As for the Kenny Polls, those are an NS UN institution and needed an article. Now I've love it if somebody were to take the results of this poll and make an entertaining graphic to include in the resolution article and Kenny Poll article.The poll does indicate one thing: that forum activity is down or something. Past polls would garner something like 200 votes. Maybe just the puppetwanking in polls has declined. Hmm.

Maybe just the puppetwanking in polls has declined. Hmm.
OOC: I used to come in here and have all of my puppets vote in the Kennypolls. I didn't do it for this one. Some of them couldn't even access jolt the last time I checked.

We would like to thank all those who defended this proposal, as well as those kind enough to offer relevant points of opposition against it, including Ausserland, Artichoke-ville, and Yelda. We apologize that we lacked the requisite energy to give you the response you deserved.And, for our part, we regret that OMGTKK had to drop out of the debate due - or so we understand, anyway - to exhaustion. Having felt equally drained by the fight over the legality of “Individual Privacy”, we know all too well what that feels like.

We welcome our Kennyite colleagues to break this proposal up into three separate proposals. Clause 1-5 would make an excellent convention for limiting military action against civilians, although we believe that it should be extended to include everything but those arms recognized (or perhaps designated) as deterrents. Perhaps a corresponding limitation on the use of deterrent weapons (IOW, requiring their use solely as deterrents) would make this workable.

Likewise - regarding Clause 6 - we admit that perhaps we were overly harsh in our criticism of Commander Chiang and the Texan Hotrodders' position on “better” chemical and biological weapons. It's not precision that matters; it's persistence that makes these weapons problematic. A convention on the durability of passive weapons - chemicals, bioagents, mines and booby traps, etc. - might make such area denial weapons more acceptable to the world community.

Finally, we don't see any way most of the opponents of the UAA would support Clause 7, but we believe that you hurt your cause by pairing it with the first five clauses. The vote should have been closer; few nations opposed to Clause 7 were persuaded to vote for the UAA based on the content of the Clauses 1-5, but the opposite is not true.

But again, to return to our initiial sentiment, we sympathize with OMGTKK for the distress this debate has caused them.

Northasia is behind this proposal 110%. And for those who do not understand why it is in arms control, I can see why it would be. As I interpret this proposal, it is for abolishing weapons of mass destruction. I.E Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox. I may be wrong, but I would like evidence as to why I am if anyone believes such.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of NorthasiaWhen it comes to nukes you're definatly wrong, UN Resolution #109 prevents the UN from telling it's members that they can't possess nukes.

Timothy Schmidt
Bob Flibble's PA

The poll does indicate one thing: that forum activity is down or something. Past polls would garner something like 200 votes. Maybe just the puppetwanking in polls has declined. Hmm.
OOC: I don't know, for me puppetwanking actually went up on this poll.

OOC: Don't forget the main lesson of this poll: That Prince Leonhard has the authority to boss about the governments of sixteen foreign nations.

OOC: Don't forget the main lesson of this poll: That Prince Leonhard has the authority to boss about the governments of sixteen foreign nations.
OOC: And that eight nations want Kenny to stop swearing or they'll tell the mods.:D

The poll does indicate one thing: that forum activity is down or something. Past polls would garner something like 200 votes. Maybe just the puppetwanking in polls has declined. Hmm.

Yes, it does ... but even puppetwanking is some measure of activity. Like Yelda, I've brought the Intl Red Cross in a few times voting either in silly "Kenny Polls" or as a non-UN member in more "conventional" polls.

I'm just amused that Eco joined me on the Nuke Norderia option.

And, for what it's worth, I think I'll give this a chance to sink normally. I don't like to insta-lock AT VOTE threads. If too much jackassery happens, then I will.

Dicey, in Cassandra mode, intones:

DOOMED!

Alas, eheu, O me miserum, woe, etc, etc, I repeat, DOOOOMED, Omigodwhatthehell areyouuptonowkilledkenny, DOOOOOOMED!

(But then, as previously mentioned, (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11908896&postcount=4440) pre-cognition is not Dicey's forte.)

Comrade Termeenatuur, Does that not violate this (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7030111&postcount=52) UN resolution?

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

Ah, but see here, the childern of my Nation become soldiers willingly. Even though military is compulsory, the childern grow up learning that you are NEVER to young to defend your Nation and I think that all UN members can agree on this. I will never stop one from being a patriot! No matter how old.

Warmancer General
Keeluur von Termeenatuur:gundge:

I have yet to see an actual debate in the last 10 pages, all that i have seen is the majority are bashing each other. I personaly think this is ludicris. Im going to vote against it on the grounds that i have yet to see a proper response to a counter argument on why this shouldnt be passed.

And this is Ludacris.

http://www.coasttocoasttickets.com/images/concerts_ludacris.jpg

I'm voting against by the way. Partially because of the issues raised by a number of nations, partially because of the failure of a minority of nations to answer those issues in a dignified and civilized manner.

Piss off.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Hirotan Times
201106

In Capitol today, Hirotan diplomats were claiming a victory for common sense everywhere after the latest legislation to be voted upon by the UN was rejected by an almost two-thirds majority.

Chants of "nobody likes us, we don't care" were heard coming from the diplomatic corps building last night, as spokesman for the diplomatic corps, a Mr FC Millwall revealed the nation came in for a great degree of pressure from supporters of the legislation.

“We were receiving calls throughout the night from certain member states trying to highlight the merits of this legislation, and calls from other member states being somewhat more….direct in their comments.”

Mr Millwall went on to admit that the Hirotan government almost lobbied in favour of the legislation, “we saw some great benefits in the proposal, but our government were reluctant to stomach some of the strategies employed to get this legislation through.

“Some nations really shot themselves in the foot on this one.”

Mr Millwall revealled Hirota would not be adverse to supporting, and possibly campaigning for similar legislation in the future, and remained open for the future. “We will work with anyone, irrespective of grudges, or what has happened in the past. Good international legislation is about keeping a professional and open attitude towards our fellow nations.”

Gloating is a pastime for the small-minded..

One of the greatest victories you can gain over someone is to beat him at politeness.

Josh Billings (1818 - 1885)

I believe the children are the future, unless we stop them now. ~Homer Simpson

One of the greatest victories you can gain over someone is to beat him at politeness.

Josh Billings (1818 - 1885)

Fuck "politeness."

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Excuse me for breaking into this enlightening conversation, but I have an announcement....

Your attention, please! Would the representatives of the 16 nations (16 = 17 - us) who voted against this legislation because Prince Leonhard told them to please see me sometime today? We need to know where to send your instructions on how to vote on future resolutions. Thank you.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

The Beloved President for Life of the Democratic Republic of Excruciatia returns from real life stuff, sees the defeat of this proposal, and springs in to action. He quickly declares war on a few neighbouring nations, and obliterates their populations with such a barrage of chemical and biological weapons that the cities will be uninhabitable for a few thousand years at least.....then looks for a few more nations to spray. :gundge:



OOC: So what's the story? How'd this lovey-dovey one get knocked down? More importantly though how can it be kept down? ;)

Excuse me for breaking into this enlightening conversation, but I have an announcement....

Your attention, please! Would the representatives of the 16 nations (16 = 17 - us) who voted against this legislation because Prince Leonhard told them to please see me sometime today? We need to know where to send your instructions on how to vote on future resolutions. Thank you.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Not necessary in our case. This was a result of a misunderstanding. Seems an over zelous tabloid reporter in our nation mistook a smile across a crowded room for a torid affair between Prince Leonhard and our Queen. News that the Prince was Queen Ramolla's new squeeze spread through the nation like a wildfire, and my vote was cast with that in mind. Crossing the Queen can be very hazardous to ones health.

Now that the Queen has released an official statement denying any such relationship, and while I do respect the Prince and his opinion, we no longer feel it necessary to take that opinion into account when deciding our vote.

Kirin
The Reformers
Witchcliff representative to the UN

Northasia is behind this proposal 110%. And for those who do not understand why it is in arms control, I can see why it would be. As I interpret this proposal, it is for abolishing weapons of mass destruction. I.E Nukes, Anthrax, Smallpox. I may be wrong, but I would like evidence as to why I am if anyone believes such.

Comrade General Seceratary Mikhail Illianovich
United Nations representitive for the United Socialist States of Northasia

If you put your full support behind it, you support it 100%. It is not possible to be behind something at any greater percentage. If you support it somehow more than you did when you supported it 100%, then the previous level was LESS than 100%. You cannot give more than you have, however, you can give what you were uaware you had.

Sorry. Pet peeve.

Okay. If all that's left is pedantry, I'm closing this.

And just to tweak such people, I'll add that this thread was somewhat unique.