NationStates Jolt Archive

The United Nations;

RECONGNIZING the intent of UNR#113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban";

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax, which enables nations to exploit this oversight and develop biological weapons using such non-contagious infectious agents;

CONCERNED that giving control of all biological research facilities to the military within member nations is excessive and would come at a great cost to the nations civil liberties and economies;

DISTURBED that the resolution severely hinders legitimate research of countermeasures to biological attack;

BELIEVING that the united nations can find better ways to convince non-member nations to refrain from using biological weapons through more diplomatic means than by severing and refusing alliances with them;

HEREBY repeals UN Resolution #113 "UN Biological Weapons Ban", in order to make room for more comprehensive legislation.

Approval Link (http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal1/match=weapons)

Discussion thread for a replacement can be found here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539)

Approved.

You'd have my approval, but.... *mutters something about not being a delegate*

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

NSUNR #113 is, unfortunately, a badly flawed piece of legislation. On the one hand, it fails to cover a broad range of pathogens with substantial potential for use in the military and by terrorists. On the other hand, it covers many pathogens which have no reasonable potential for military or terroristic application. This second flaw makes the security requirements in the resolution grotesquely impractical.

Ausserland supports the repeal.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

"You can expect full support from the Commonwealth... once it reaches quorum. Unfortunately, the CWG is the only nation in our region to survive to this day. Weakling neighbors."

This is where we're supposed to resist the urge to recruit, right? Because there's always room in the Antarctic Oasis (http://www.nationstates.net/96018/page=display_region/region=antarctic_oasis) for one more intelligent being such as yourself. <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

Not the time nor the place for region pimping.

[Well, given all the bad (http://z10.invisionfree.com/IDU/index.php?showtopic=1040&view=findpost&p=1707667) publicity (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11924907&postcount=1) we've gotten of late, I take it Kiv's just trying to even the score. :cool:]

We support this very necessary repeal, being that we care more about the security of member nations than they do. ~Cmdr. Chiang

Update:

Approvals: 81

You'd have my approval, but.... *mutters something about not being a delegate*

What? I approved it anyway.

Now mind your place minion *whips Paradica*.


...I wish I had a whip smiley.

...I wish I had a whip smiley.
How's this?
http://raven.theraider.net/images/smilies/whip.gif

Love how this thread is turning out.....:rolleyes:

At any rate, at last check there were 101 approvals. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this thing will actually reach quorum.

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w134/Kamricaria/UN%20Cards/crad45eh.png

Congratulations! Here's hoping it stays there for the short duration to get to vote.

Since this is going to hit the floor tomorrow.....

Bump!

Pilot strongly opposes this resolution and asks that all allies and like-minded nations advocate for its defeat.

Pilot strongly opposes this resolution and asks that all allies and like-minded nations advocate for its defeat.

Any particular reasons that you'd care to share with the rest of the class, or did you just read the title and decide that it's bad?

The Federal Republic will be casting its vote in favor of this most necessary repeal, to clear up the flaws in the original resolution, and hopefully correct them in improved replacement legislation. And we usually hate the whole repeal/replace game (unless the proposed replacement is a blocker), so this is huge. We applaud our Karmicarian friends-with-benefits, and we'll be rooting for their success this week.

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
UN DEFCON (s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON): "We care more about your nation's security than you do."

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Oh Yeah.....Fully in support of both this repeal and the replacement to follow. For discussion of the replacement, please go here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539), and voice your opinion.

As a member of DEFCON (albeit not a very active one), I am of course FOR. I'd probably vote for even if I wasn't, the UN Bioweapons Ban is evil and the replacement is better.

Roderick Spear
Paradican UN Ambassador

We support this repeal, and look forward to seeing a flawed piece of legislation replaced.

- Jinella Agaranth, Ambassador

Any particular reasons that you'd care to share with the rest of the class, or did you just read the title and decide that it's bad?
< OOC: You'll find, as you get older and become more aware of real-life international diplomacy, that nations rarely have any rationalization for the things they do.

Basically, this repeal leaves a gaping hole in international law. I am guessing that your "replacement" for the ban will not be the next resolution considered by the U.N. general assembly and, thus, the use of biological weapons will go, for a time, unpunished by the world community as a whole. A lot of unfortunate incidents can occur between the repeal of the standing resolution and the passage of a new resolution.

Passing the replacement resolution first and then the repeal of the standing resolution is the order it should go in, not the other way around. Your insistence to the contrary makes me believe you have no intention of ever passing a stronger resolution. >

< OOC: You'll find, as you get older and become more aware of real-life international diplomacy, that nations rarely have any rationalization for the things they do.

So, no then. That's fine. I just wanted to know how much weight to give any arguments you offer. You are voting without a reason, so the appropriate weight is none. As for the rest,

Basically, this repeal leaves a gaping hole in international law. I am guessing that your "replacement" for the ban will not be the next resolution considered by the U.N. general assembly and, thus, the use of biological weapons will go, for a time, unpunished by the world community as a whole. A lot of unfortunate incidents can occur between the repeal of the standing resolution and the passage of a new resolution.

So you didn't read the repeal at all, just read the title. More weight removed from your opinion.

Passing the replacement resolution first and then the repeal of the standing resolution is the order it should go in, not the other way around. Your insistence to the contrary makes me believe you have no intention of ever passing a stronger resolution. >

So, even after your long history with the UN, you have absolutely no idea how the mechanics of legislation works within it. The weight now granted to your statements is now sufficiently lighter than normal air that we should harness it for use in our next model of zepellin. If that is all you have to offer by way of logic, please don't waste your breath. You might need the oxygen when the bouyancy of your opinion carries you out of the atmosphere.

For sanity's sake, I'm going to cut out the portions of your response which had nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, and just served to make you feel better about yourself and whatever issues you have.

So you didn't read the repeal at all, just read the title.
I did read the repeal. It's only six clauses, so it really isn't all that hard to comprehend.

My point is that I do not want to leave any open time where nations are technically allowed to produce biological agents without specific guidelines as to what the international community feels appropriate. Does your repeal provide any fail safes? Does your repeal place any temporary holds on biological agents while the replacement resolution is being considered?

Seeing that your replacement resolution has not even been submitted yet, I find it hard to fathom that there won't at the very least be a RL week (which is a lot of time in NS) where there will be a hole in international law.

So, really, you didn't address my point at all. Maybe next time read what I have to say, evaluate it, and try to think of an actual response instead of your canned "OMFG HOW DARE YOU OFFER A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW!".

So, even after your long history with the UN, you have absolutely no idea how the mechanics of legislation works within it.
I understand and have up-close experience, probably far more than you, with the mechanics of the United Nations in-game.

Unfortunately, for your plight, I really don't care. Biological weapons is not something to kid around with and if we are being serious here and trying to act as we would if we were actual nations and actual diplomats, this repeal is unacceptable.

There are plenty of examples, if you were to comb through the passed U.N. resolutions, where specific areas of international law are improved upon by subsequent legislation. Why, just look at Pilot's NS HIV/AIDS Act for instance. There were at least 2 resolutions, at the time, that were on the books on this subject. I just submitted a more comprehensive resolution.

Doing what I am suggesting is clearly within the bounds of in-game mechanics, seeing that I have lived through a perfect example.

My point is that I do not want to leave any open time where nations are technically allowed to produce biological agents without specific guidelines as to what the international community feels appropriate. Does your repeal provide any fail safes? Does your repeal place any temporary holds on biological agents while the replacement resolution is being considered?

For starters, it's not Kivisto's repeal, it's mine. Next you cannot introduce new legislation in a repeal. So putting in fail safes and temporary holds on biological agents in the repeal would have rendered it illegal. Try refreshing yourself on the Rules for UN Proposals (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465).

Seeing that your replacement resolution has not even been submitted yet, I find it hard to fathom that there won't at the very least be a RL week (which is a lot of time in NS) where there will be a hole in international law.

Submitting the replacement right now would be counterproductive. What if the repeal were to fail? The replacement would then be removed from the proposals list for being illegal. It would most likely violate the Duplication rule.

So, really, you didn't address my point at all. Maybe next time read what I have to say, evaluate it, and try to think of an actual response instead of your canned "OMFG HOW DARE YOU OFFER A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW!".

Kiv was saying nothing of the sort. He was merely pointing out the flaws in your point.

I support this entirely. The replacement, even if I end up not supporting it, will be better than what we have now.

Submitting the replacement right now would be counterproductive. What if the repeal were to fail? The replacement would then be removed from the proposals list for being illegal. It would most likely violate the Duplication rule.

Counterproductive perhaps, but ultimately necessary if you wish to preserve some semblance of international security. Given the tangled bureaucracy that the UN is, it is my opinion that it will be months upon months before replacement legislation is introduced, if it ever is at all. Perhaps somewhere within the clauses of this proposal, a timetable for when to propose replacement legislation should be included? This would not mean that such legislation be authored before this repeal passes or fails, but rather would insist upon it being authored at some (hopefully soon) predetermined point in the near future. Repeals can be a problem in this sense, with no legal taboo on biological weapons research, a number of rogue nations will seize the opportunity to run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of the international community.

That said, I am not attacking the intent of this legislation. Ultimately I feel the current statute needs reform. What I would like to see however, is inclusion within it a basic timeframe for when its proposers plan to offer a replacement. If this is repealed it will leave a dangerous vacuum, which cannot stay in place for too long. I understand this is always the case when repealing legislation, but for such a CRITICAL issue of International Security, I feel this extra safeguard is necessary.

Unless this issue is addressed, I will be casting my delegation's vote for NAY.

Passing the replacement resolution first and then the repeal of the standing resolution is the order it should go in, not the other way around.Doing what I am suggesting is clearly within the bounds of in-game mechanics, seeing that I have lived through a perfect example.

Perhaps the rules have changed since you were last active, or perhaps we simply missed any overlap. The mechanism they are currently using (Repeal first, replacement later ... or not) is the only currently acceptable mode for replacing or amending a proposal.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop

For sanity's sake, I'm going to cut out the portions of your response which had nothing to do with the actual matter at hand, and just served to make you feel better about yourself and whatever issues you have.

The best you can manage for a start is an ad hominem attack. Your not doing much to improve our opinion of your statements.

I did read the repeal. It's only six clauses, so it really isn't all that hard to comprehend.

I'll get back to this statement in a moment.

My point is that I do not want to leave any open time where nations are technically allowed to produce biological agents without specific guidelines as to what the international community feels appropriate.

You seem to have missed or failed to comprehend (see above) the part of the repeal that deals with the original reso not effectively stopping nations from developing manyt kinds of bioweapons anyways.

So, really, you didn't address my point at all.

What point?

Maybe next time read what I have to say, evaluate it, and try to think of an actual response instead of your canned "OMFG HOW DARE YOU OFFER A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW!".

I fully welcome different points of view that have been properly considered by the one offering it. What I do not welcome is arrogant posturing about how you know oh so much about how things should be when the blatant evidence proves you oh so very wrong.

Unfortunately, for your plight, I really don't care. Biological weapons is not something to kid around with

Which is why the current legislation needs to be replaced with more effective legislation.

and if we are being serious here and trying to act as we would if we were actual nations and actual diplomats, this repeal is unacceptable.

Based on which arguments. The ones you offer are based in fantasy that does not work in the UN that we must deal with.

There are plenty of examples, if you were to comb through the passed U.N. resolutions, where specific areas of international law are improved upon by subsequent legislation.

I agree that there have been such cases. The text of the original resolution in this case does not allow for it.

Why, just look at Pilot's NS HIV/AIDS Act for instance. There were at least 2 resolutions, at the time, that were on the books on this subject. I just submitted a more comprehensive resolution.

The rules have changed a great deal since then. Aside from that, see my above comment. The text of the original resolution does not leave enough room for additional add ons without risking duplication, contradiction, or House of Cards illegalities.

Yes, things were different back then, and you could do things in such a way. They aren't that way anymore.

Counterproductive perhaps, but ultimately necessary if you wish to preserve some semblance of international security. Given the tangled bureaucracy that the UN is, it is my opinion that it will be months upon months before replacement legislation is introduced, if it ever is at all. Perhaps somewhere within the clauses of this proposal, a timetable for when to propose replacement legislation should be included? This would not mean that such legislation be authored before this repeal passes or fails, but rather would insist upon it being authored at some (hopefully soon) predetermined point in the near future. Repeals can be a problem in this sense, with no legal taboo on biological weapons research, a number of rogue nations will seize the opportunity to run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of the international community.

That said, I am not attacking the intent of this legislation. Ultimately I feel the current statute needs reform. What I would like to see however, is inclusion within it a basic timeframe for when its proposers plan to offer a replacement. If this is repealed it will leave a dangerous vacuum, which cannot stay in place for too long. I understand this is always the case when repealing legislation, but for such a CRITICAL issue of International Security, I feel this extra safeguard is necessary.

Unless this issue is addressed, I will be casting my delegation's vote for NAY.


It is impossible within the current ruleset to replace, safeguard, or whatever the current legislation without repealing it first. That is just the way the rules work. We can't change it, so we have to work with it and take the risk in order to make things better.

First of all, Kivisto, I'm not particularly fond of your tone in this debate either. I'm not posturing or chest-puffing, I'm airing my concerns about your resolution. You can't run from them, or go off on every one that that brings them up, because they are real, founded and will be expressed to as many regional delegates that I can communicate with before voting ends on it.

Second, without restating my whole argument, which you still refuse to address with anything other than "You don't even have a point! LMFAO!", I'll just say that I basically agree with the sentiments of Siecle des Lumieres. The UN is too slow and the repeal of this resolution will leave a dangerous vacuum, as the esteemed delegate says.

Anyways, I'll be in opposition, you'll be in support and we'll see which side wins.

The representative from Kivisto's tone is fine, it is the representative from Pilot that needs to change his tone.

We disagree with the logic used by the opposition, suggesting that it is far better to keep flawed legislation on the books rather than take a chance, repeal it, and later replace it. The inability of the UN to act quickly is not reason enough to refuse repeal of this resolution.

Most courteously,

The representative from Kivisto's tone is fine, it is the representative from Pilot that needs to change his tone.

We disagree with the logic used by the opposition, suggesting that it is far better to keep flawed legislation on the books rather than take a chance, repeal it, and later replace it. The inability of the UN to act quickly is not reason enough to refuse repeal of this resolution.


We support, both this and the replacement.
Most courteously,

First of all, Kivisto, I'm not particularly fond of your tone in this debate either.

Suck it up, princess. Swagger around like a peacock and there will be those who take shots at you.

I'm not posturing or chest-puffing,

to wit:

You'll find, as you get older and become more aware
I understand and have up-close experience, probably far more than you, with the mechanics of the United Nations in-game.
just look at Pilot's NS HIV/AIDS Act for instance

yeah, you were.

I'm airing my concerns about your resolution.

It ain't mine. I'm merely a supporter. Apparently you can't read anything written by the author;

For starters, it's not Kivisto's repeal, it's mine.

You can't run from them, or go off on every one that that brings them up, because they are real, founded

On the fact that you think the replacement should occur before the repeal. Yeah. Fris caught that point so I didn't feel it necessary or appropriate to reassert that what you suggest is completely illegal by the currently binding rules surrounding these things. Note the highlight on currently. Things have changed. Welcome to the new world order. Get used to it or get packing.

And the very fact that you have still refused to actually argue any of the points presented in the repeal, specifically the one I already pointed out about the original resolutions failure to actually stop nations from producing biological weapons, merely demonstrates that you are the one running from the reality of the situation.

Repeal or not, there is a legislative hole that must be filled, but cannot be until this drivel is removed from the books. This is not the first time I have mentioned it, while it is also not the first time I have addressed your arguments. Methinks you are mistaking your mirror for me.

and will be expressed to as many regional delegates that I can communicate with before voting ends on it.

Good for you. Perhaps you'd be best off checking the last at vote thread about how much some of the delegates appreciate being harassed about their votes once something has hit the floor. In any case, I look forward to your Telegram.

Second, without restating my whole argument, which you still refuse to address with anything other than "You don't even have a point! LMFAO!",

I asked what your point was, because a great deal of what you have previously stated involved altering the rules for submitting legislation, which is outside of our power to do. Not once did I say that you did not have a point, nor did I ever express such disrespect as to laugh at your comments. Putting words into my mouth in such a fashion will only make you look foolish as any here are free to go back over the minutes of this debate to see that all you have said in regards to my statements are nothing but falsehoods and blatant fabrications. Too boot, your continued ad hominem attacks rather effectively show the complete lack of substance to your actual case.

I'll just say that I basically agree with the sentiments of Siecle des Lumieres.

Who stated here that they wanted us to alter the rules surrounding how we submit resolutions, which, as has been previously stated by members of the General Assembly as well as the UN Secretariat (moderator team) is impossible for us to do. Siecle des Lumieres also took the trouble to follow the link to examine the proposed replacement and offered their support of the replacement once the repeal has passed. Seems to me that they, the rookie in these chambers, got the message, where you, the veteran, seem incapable of the same.

The UN is too slow and the repeal of this resolution will leave a dangerous vacuum, as the esteemed delegate says.

It is a vacuum which exists already, and cannot be repaired while the extant resolution remains in place.

Anyways, I'll be in opposition, you'll be in support and we'll see which side wins.

Here's a prediction or two for you to make, guess what will happen if this repeal fails, and guess how little it will shake our resolve to make this effort to improve the state of UN legislation.

As a nation representative of a region that is obviously in favor of the resolution, please excuse me if I do not take your opinion on my diplomatic tone to heart. This is not a place to play footsie with the resolution author.

Nevertheless, the U.N.'s inability to act quickly enough to close the loophole which will rip open as a result of this resolution is more than enough reason, despite there being many other reasons, to vote against this resolution.

Take this example: Say your national legislature (if you have one) wants to repeal its murder and rape statutes, claiming that they are to be replaced with something "more comprehensive"... so you agree, and the statutes are repealed... what happens to all the murders and rapes that take place before it can get around to passing some new laws?

Pilot will be openly opposing this resolution and, hopefully, by the Grace of God, it can be defeated.

This is not a place to play footsie with the resolution author.

Your failure to comprehend the simplest of notions is absolutely astounding.

In the shortest of words: I did not write this. I am not the author.

Nevertheless, the U.N.'s inability to act quickly enough to close the loophole which will rip open as a result of this resolution is more than enough reason, despite there being many other reasons, to vote against this resolution.

So you are not at all bothered by the fact that the current resolution continues to allow nations to develop, produce, and utilize biological weapons? I'd actually like a straight yes or no answer to that, if at all possible.

Take this example: Say your national legislature (if you have one) wants to repeal its murder and rape statutes, claiming that they are to be replaced with something "more comprehensive"... so you agree, and the statutes are repealed... what happens to all the murders and rapes that take place before it can get around to passing some new laws?

National legislatures are not held to the same rules as the UN is. Again, a simple point that has been repeatedly stated. I'll repeat it once again for you.

WE CANNOT REPLACE THE FLAWED RESOLUTION WITHOUT FIRST REPEALING IT.

We cannot amend it. We cannot edit it. We cannot correct the egregious errors in it. We must remove it and replace it.

Pilot will be openly opposing this resolution and, hopefully, by the Grace of God, it can be defeated.

If the Grace of God has anything to do with it, this repeal will be allowed to pass so that we may finally be able to pass more effective legislation that will allow us to prevent some of the horrific atrocities that occur in this world through the use of biological weaponry. I seriously doubt that the grace of god would wish us to bind ourselves against the possibility of preventing wholesale and indiscriminate slaughter of innocent civilians. That you apparently condone these activities is atrocious.

We have a saying in Pilot... "if you are in a glass house, you should not throw stones." So, when you accuse other people of arrogance, or chest-puffing, it is always helpful to see how you have contributed.

Any particular reasons that you'd care to share with the rest of the class, or did you just read the title and decide that it's bad
The weight now granted to your statements is now sufficiently lighter than normal air that we should harness it for use in our next model of zepellin. If that is all you have to offer by way of logic, please don't waste your breath. You might need the oxygen when the bouyancy of your opinion carries you out of the atmosphere.
Suck it up, princess.
Methinks you are mistaking your mirror for me
Seems to me that they, the rookie in these chambers, got the message, where you, the veteran, seem incapable of the same.
Your failure to comprehend the simplest of notions is absolutely astounding.

Is that the sound of glass shattering?

Oh, nice one Pilot. Now I am completely AGAINST this repeal, just because of that.

This is not a place to play footsie with the resolution author.

Just because you get no love doesn't mean you have to be jealous of those who do.

We have a saying in Pilot... "if you are in a glass house, you should not throw stones." So, when you accuse other people of arrogance, or chest-puffing, it is always helpful to see how you have contributed.
Is that the sound of glass shattering?

None of what you quoted is either arrogance or chest puffing. They are insulting. Possibly condescending.

You still have yet to address any of the points or arguments I have put to you. Nor have you actually answered the question that I have asked of you. You seem content to attack my person and my style.

Allow me to simplify that for you. I am a conceited, belligerent, snivelling, condescending, sacrastic arse-hole. I have been known to do and say all manner of things during the course of a debate. I have been reprimanded for my behaviour in the past. I also have no particular compunction to attempt to impress a foolish braggart with my diplomatic skills.

For the sake of everyone else here, restrict any further comments you have to the actual subject which is at hand. The one that you have, as yet, failed to directly deal with. The text of the repeal that is up for vote. You have been offered points and arguments to counter what you have put forward and have not responded to any of them.

I'm done hijacking this debate with your posturing and fantasy. Join the debate or leave. I care not which.

We have a saying in Pilot... "if you are in a glass house, you should not throw stones." So, when you accuse other people of arrogance, or chest-puffing, it is always helpful to see how you have contributed.
Is that the sound of glass shattering?

None of what the representative from Kivisto said was arrogant. Insulting yes, but not arrogant.

Now, as the author of this resolution, I ask that, if you do not have any valid arguments, either for or against the repeal, you stay out of the debate. No, your arguments are not valid. They're ridiculous.

If you boys want to continue playing mine is bigger than yours, do it elsewhere.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
The Harem of Karmicaria

Ha! UN debates rarely get me to laugh, but that post did... good job!

Oh, nice one Pilot. Now I am completely AGAINST this repeal, just because of that.

Out of curiousity, because of what?

That is a pretty good way to get people on your side... call any differing opinion "ridiculous"... that is one way of stoking up goodwill, I guess.

Not any differing opinion, just those that have no basis in reality.

Do you actually have anything to say about the text of the repeal, or do you want to continue whining about the way the UN works? There's a card for the latter, if such is the case. I'm sure someone will be more than happy to dig it out for you.

None of what the representative from Kivisto said was arrogant. Insulting yes, but not arrogant.

Now, as the author of this resolution, I ask that, if you do not have any valid arguments, either for or against the repeal, you stay out of the debate. No, your arguments are not valid. They're ridiculous.

If you boys want to continue playing mine is bigger than yours, do it elsewhere.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
The Harem of Karmicaria
That is a pretty good way to get people on your side... call any differing opinion "ridiculous"... that is one way of stoking up goodwill, I guess.

Knock off the sniping, the lot of you. Grow up, for Pete's sake.

Sorry Fris. I'll dial it back. My sincere apologies to any I might have accidentally offended with my tone.

OK. Back to debate. Here is my official argument/concerns against this resolution.
The United Nations is currently considering a resolution that would repeal the international ban on the proliferation and use of biological weapons. According to its text, it seeks to replace the ban with “more comprehensive” legislation. Certainly a noble goal, but if you will allow, we would like to state some reasons why you should not support this resolution.

We believe this resolution will leave a dangerous vacuum in international law. Whether the international community approves a new biological weapons ban or not, the time that this resolution is off the books is the time that rouge nations are allowed to seize the opportunity and run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of basic humanity. The United Nations bureaucracy is slow and it could be months or years before the so-called “replacement resolution” takes effect. In this time, our Department of Specious Statistics estimates that more than 600 trillion tons of biological agents will be produced.

The primary sponsor of this resolution and regional allies have a long history of repealing U.N. resolutions which ban extreme military tactics; and it is no surprise, all of these nations are militarist dictatorships. They have previously tried to reverse the U.N. ban on the use of landmines, have tried to pass a resolution that would affirm the “right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense” and encouraged the “development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel”. Thankfully, both of these resolutions failed by wide margins.

Their regional delegate has voted against the Nuclear Responsibility resolution, against banning extraordinary rendition and in favor of repealing international due process. At a certain point, we must consider the source… the sincerity of the resolution’s authors that they want to replace this biological weapons ban with anything stronger is laughable at best.

We understand that every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself, but humanity must prevail in this fight. I urge you to use your voting power to block rogue nations from getting the biological weapons that could cause unmitigated disaster and cost innumerable lives.

Thank you,
Deacon Palmer
Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations

the time that this resolution is off the books is the time that rouge nations are allowed to seize the opportunity and run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of basic humanity.

Clearly, Rouge Nations are a threat to international security and need to be stopped.

Out of curiousity, because of what?

That was supposed to be sarcasm. The that referred to Pilot's post.

Pilot, your last post is almost as bad as American political attack ads. I was waiting for "I'm Pilot, and I approve this message." May I refer to you as Sir Swift Boat?

That was supposed to be sarcasm. The that referred to Pilot's post.

Pilot, your last post is almost as bad as American political attack ads. I was waiting for "I'm Pilot, and I approve this message." May I refer to you as Sir Swift Boat?
Almost being the key operative word there. As long as it is not "as bad" or "worse", I'm alright with it. And yes, you may. :P

Sir Swift Boat: If you're going to argue...argue against the resolution, not the proposer.

Sir Swift Boat: If you're going to argue...argue against the resolution, not the proposer.
First of all, I can argue against or for anything I want. I find the character of the region that is supporting the resolution relevant to this debate, you might not. In that case, I argued against both the resolution and the proposer... na na na boo boo.

We believe this resolution will leave a dangerous vacuum in international law. Whether the international community approves a new biological weapons ban or not, the time that this resolution is off the books is the time that rouge nations are allowed to seize the opportunity and run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of basic humanity.

Rogue nations exist outside the laws of the UN. They are not effected by this resolution anyways.

The United Nations bureaucracy is slow and it could be months or years before the so-called “replacement resolution” takes effect. In this time, our Department of Specious Statistics estimates that more than 600 trillion tons of biological agents will be produced.

The very fact that you admit these facts to be specious, speaks for itself.

The primary sponsor of this resolution and regional allies have a long history of repealing U.N. resolutions which ban extreme military tactics;

Which ones? Name them for me please.

and it is no surprise, all of these nations are militarist dictatorships.
Very few of us are, actually.

They have previously tried to reverse the U.N. ban on the use of landmines,
Which completely fails to stop nations from using landmines anyway.

have tried to pass a resolution that would affirm the “right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense”

Which was part of a resolution that was designed to reduce the military and police budgets of all UN nations.

and encouraged the “development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel”. Thankfully, both of these resolutions failed by wide margins.

So you support supplying Radiological materials and weapons to terrorists?

Their regional delegate has voted against the Nuclear Responsibility resolution,

This resolution did nothing to promote responsible handling of nuclear materials. It seems to me that his vote against was correct.

against banning extraordinary rendition

Extraordinary Rendition was a good resolution, but it had some unfortunate failings in its definitions, much like the resolution that we're currently trying to repeal.

and in favor of repealing international due process.

There was no resolution called International Due Process. The Due Process resolution failed to accommodate for nations that do not utilize a Supreme Court judicial system.

At a certain point, we must consider the source…

The source? It's the words on the page that matter. For that matter, are you ever actually going to address the text of the repeal that is currently in front of the GA or continue to attack the character of the supporters of it?

the sincerity of the resolution’s authors that they want to replace this biological weapons ban with anything stronger is laughable at best.

I think that I will leave this point for the Ausserland delegation to deal with.


I guess we can assume that that will be the text of your telegram that you intend to bother the delegates with. Lies, fabrications, straw men and smear campaigns. Fascinating.

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

That was supposed to be sarcasm. The that referred to Pilot's post.

Sorry. I missed the sarcasm.

First of all, I can argue against or for anything I want. I find the character of the region that is supporting the resolution relevant to this debate, you might not. In that case, I argued against both the resolution and the proposer... na na na boo boo.emphasis mine

That, sir.....was actually kinda funny. I don't particularly agree with your use of ad hominem arguments, but I don't have to.

Rogue nations exist outside the laws of the UN. They are not effected by this resolution anyways.
Since, out of character, we are only dealing with the UN community, you can safely assume that my statements are directed at UN members.

The very fact that you admit these facts to be specious, speaks for itself.
You missed the point of that "fact". I don't think that it is unreasonable assumption, but I don't have anything official, obviously. If I had said "Department of X", you would have just went "YOU MADE THAT UP!". I saved you the effort (or not, I guess).

Which ones? Name them for me please.
You go through the resolutions I talk about later in your post.

Very few of us are, actually.
That is just untrue. Anyone who combs through the active nations in your region will find that most of them aren't exactly New York Times Democracies.

Which completely fails to stop nations from using landmines anyway.
This resolution did nothing to promote responsible handling of nuclear materials. It seems to me that his vote against was correct.
Which was part of a resolution that was designed to reduce the military and police budgets of all UN nations.
That is your opinion, not fact.

Extraordinary Rendition was a good resolution, but it had some unfortunate failings in its definitions, much like the resolution that we're currently trying to repeal.
Excuse.

There was no resolution called International Due Process. The Due Process resolution failed to accommodate for nations that do not utilize a Supreme Court judicial system.
And that is certainly an argument you can use to justify that vote, but the fact remains that your delegate voted against it. People have the right to know the full of your region's long history of rejecting resolutions that standardize basic human rights.

The source? It's the words on the page that matter. For that matter, are you ever actually going to address the text of the repeal that is currently in front of the GA or continue to attack the character of the supporters of it?
As much as you don't want it to be, it is relevant. This resolution is like Strom Thurmond saying that we need an overhaul of the nation's civil rights laws so that we can finally eliminate racial discrimination.

By the way, please go over the second paragraph of our statement. You'll find criticism of the proposal. It makes it seem like you didn't even read the statement, rather just skipped to the parts that seemed inflammatory.

I guess we can assume that that will be the text of your telegram that you intend to bother the delegates with. Lies, fabrications, straw men and smear campaigns. Fascinating.
It isn't actually. No one reads telegrams that long. Hell, if I was to receive a telegram that long, I'd delete it on spec, without even considering what it was about.

I think you'd be hard pressed to find our statement as a whole to be "lies" or "fabrications". The information may not be presented in a way that is favorable to you, but that is the point, of course.

Thank you,
Deacon Palmer
Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations

We believe this resolution will leave a dangerous vacuum in international law. Whether the international community approves a new biological weapons ban or not, the time that this resolution is off the books is the time that rouge nations are allowed to seize the opportunity and run amok free of the scorn and scrutiny of basic humanity.

You have a valid fear. However, that fear should not stand in the way of progressive and improved legislation. This body requires a more comprehensive and progressive radiological weapons resolution; this repeal must go through for that to happen.

The United Nations bureaucracy is slow and it could be months or years before the so-called “replacement resolution” takes effect. In this time, our Department of Specious Statistics estimates that more than 600 trillion tons of biological agents will be produced.

So not only are you suggesting that the Kivistans are lying to the entire assembly and don't intend to submit the replacement, you are supporting your arguments with numbers pulled directly out of your ass. Bravo.

The primary sponsor of this resolution and regional allies have a long history of repealing U.N. resolutions which ban extreme military tactics;

Since you are clearly referring to the member nations of the Antarctic Oasis, let me be the first to say: not this shit again.

and it is no surprise, all of these nations are militarist dictatorships.

Omigdotheykilledkenny: Federal Republic, elected President
Kivisto: Autocratic sovereign, non-military.
Karmicaria: Formerly Autocratic Queendom, now a democracy
The Palentine: Evil Conservative Empire (non-military)
Jenstown: Got no idea
Evil Smurfs: Speaks for itself.

You are either a liar or an idiot.

They have previously tried to reverse the U.N. ban on the use of landmines, Which, as has been stated, did absolutely nothing to prevent the use of landmines

have tried to pass a resolution that would affirm the “right of nations to develop, produce, deploy and utilize any and all weapons their leaders deem necessary for their national defense”

Which was defeated by the General Assembly, and was also designed to ensure the safety and defense of all members nations within the United Nations.

and encouraged the “development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel”.

As opposed to chemical arms designed specifically to target civilian and non-combatant personnel.

Their regional delegate has voted against the Nuclear Responsibility resolution, against banning extraordinary rendition and in favor of repealing international due process. At a certain point, we must consider the source…

1. "Due Process" did absolutely nothing, and was a laughable parody of a piece of legislation.
2. I can't speak for the motives of the Kivistan government as to their delegate votes, and neither can you.
3. According to Antarctic Oasis rules, the delegate is not required to follow regional opinions in their voting. The other members have no say as to how the delegate votes.

the sincerity of the resolution’s authors that they want to replace this biological weapons ban with anything stronger is laughable at best.

So you are suggesting that the Kivistans are liars. You, sir, are despicable for even suggesting such a thing about them. I have never, ever, doubted that they will not do what they said they would- their delegation has my utmost confidence. Your character attacks are unwarranted and disgusting. You should be ashamed, resorting to such ad hominem.

We understand that every sovereign nation has a right to defend itself, but humanity must prevail in this fight. I urge you to use your voting power to block rogue nations from getting the biological weapons that could cause unmitigated disaster and cost innumerable lives.

Which is why we need to close the legal gaps and ensure that they do not, by first repealing and replacing the resolution.

I am very disappointed in the performance of the Pilot delegation. Not only have they failed to issue any complaints about the legislation itself, instead resorting to personal attacks on the character and motives of the entire Antarctic Oasis region, they have continually refused to follow their own advice and answer the questions posed to them about the legislation.

Rang Erman
ADvisor

Since, out of character, we are only dealing with the UN community, you can safely assume that my statements are directed at UN members.

Fair enough, but then what would you have us do? They are already permitted to produce, develop and use certain Biological Weapons anyways under the current resolution. Should we allow this travesty to continue? Or should we take the necessary steps and risks to rectify the situation?


That is just untrue. Anyone who combs through the active nations in your region will find that most of them aren't exactly New York Times Democracies.

Many of them are not dictatorships. Many are not that militaristic. That they are not perfect democracies does not nullify the inaccuracy of your claim.

That is your opinion, not fact.

It is fact. One simply has to go over the minutes of those debates and the texts of those resolutions to see where the problems lay. And with the Global Disarmament resolution, what Karmi stated is the exact effect of that nature of reso.

Excuse.

How so? The definitions offered in that otherwise very worthy work of legislation were unfortunately open to some severe misinterpretations that would have caused more international conflict than they would have solved. I have continued to hope since the failure of Extraordinary Rendition that the author would redraft to fix the problems and resubmit. Were that to occur, I would more than happily support its passage.

And that is certainly an argument you can use to justify that vote, but the fact remains that your delegate voted against it.

{running under the OOC assumption that you meant FOR}
I did. Due Process assumed the use of one specific form of judicial system, which is unfair to any nation that does not use it. We would be more than happy to consider any legislation that guaranteed the rights that Due Process granted that was more considerate of differing judicial processes from nation to nation.

People have the right to know the full of your region's long history of rejecting resolutions that standardize basic human rights.

In which case you completely omitted the only piece of new legislation authored by the delegate himself. Emigration Rights. It's an HR reso that guarantees people the freedom to leave their nation if they wish. That is the only thing I have on the books as legislation. I'm hoping to add the replacement to this reso to the books as well. A new ban on bioweapons that is much more prohibitive and effective than what we currently have.

As much as you don't want it to be, it is relevant. This resolution is like Strom Thurmond saying that we need an overhaul of the nation's civil rights laws so that we can finally eliminate racial discrimination.

It isn't like that at all. Thurmond is not bound by the rule that we have which says we have to get rid of the old law before submitting a new one.

By the way, please go over the second paragraph of our statement. You'll find criticism of the proposal. It makes it seem like you didn't even read the statement, rather just skipped to the parts that seemed inflammatory.

The jist of your second statement is wrapped up in the fact that we have to repeal before we replace. Having already come to the realization that you aren't going to accept that reality, there's not much point in continuing with that line of thought. That isn't criticism of the repeal, it's criticism of the repeal system, which we are powerless to change. You have still completely failed to address the content of the repeal itself.


I think you'd be hard pressed to find our statement as a whole to be "lies" or "fabrications".

How about these parts...

The primary sponsor of this resolution and regional allies have a long history of repealing U.N. resolutions which ban extreme military tactics;

all of these nations are militarist dictatorships.

encouraged the “development of chemical arms designed specifically to target legitimate military and/or political personnel”.

Not a single one of these statements is true. The rest of it is buried in pettifoggery, and useless as actual fact. {ooc:I've been waiting to use that word}

The information may not be presented in a way that is favorable to you, but that is the point, of course.

It is presented in a fashion that is intended to mislead and misinform. It might as well be a lie. You can spin doctor it however you wish to allow you to sleep better at night, but the regulars here in the General Assembly are smarter than you give them credit for if you expect them to fall for that sort of thing.

Admiral Shackleford
acting UN Ambassador for Kivisto and its Protectorates

You have a valid fear. However, that fear should not stand in the way of progressive and improved legislation. This body requires a more comprehensive and progressive radiological weapons resolution; this repeal must go through for that to happen.
There absolutely has to be some sort of process whereby member nations are not granted a mulligan if they decide to use the in-between-time to exact biological warfare on any nation.

So not only are you suggesting that the Kivistans are lying to the entire assembly and don't intend to submit the replacement, you are supporting your arguments with numbers pulled directly out of your ass. Bravo.
You too are missing the point. I am saying that I don't think that it was an unreasonable estimate. It was judged by the UN prior to the 1991 Gulf War that Saddam Hussein had 400 billion tons of chemical and biological weapons. There are more than 91,000 nations in the NS world. If we assume that 2% of them are Iraq-like militarists, which is also not unreasonable, the resulting figure is far more than estimated in my statement. Be thankful.

You are either a liar or an idiot.
Talk about handpicking...

Kivistan UN Bordello -- UN Delegate -- Father Knows Best State (low civil/political rights)
Gruenberg -- Past UN Delegate -- Right-wing Utopia (low civil/political rights)
Palentine UN Office -- Past UN Delegate -- National slogan: "New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"

I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture...

According to Antarctic Oasis rules, the delegate is not required to follow regional opinions in their voting. The other members have no say as to how the delegate votes.
Your regional delegate, by whatever process your region chooses, represents your region at the UN. Can't change that, sorry.

You, sir, are despicable
You should be ashamed, resorting to such ad hominem
Someone call the irony police.

Not only have they failed to issue any complaints about the legislation itself, instead resorting to personal attacks on the character and motives of the entire Antarctic Oasis region, they have continually refused to follow their own advice and answer the questions posed to them about the legislation.
I'll quote my previous statement on this matter:

By the way, please go over the second paragraph of our statement. You'll find criticism of the proposal. It makes it seem like you didn't even read the statement, rather just skipped to the parts that seemed inflammatory.

Thank you,
Deacon Palmer
Pilot Ambassador to the United Nations

There absolutely has to be some sort of process whereby member nations are not granted a mulligan if they decide to use the in-between-time to exact biological warfare on any nation.

Trade embargoes, political and military pressure, economic sacntions, almost anything you wish to do {in RP}. Unfortunately, there is little the UN can do to close that gap except attempt to get the replacement to vote as quickly as possible.

Talk about handpicking...

Still doesn't refute that your portrayal of the region is inaccurate.

I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture...

That you are purposefully attempting to mislead the GA? Yeah, they probably get it.


I'll quote my previous statement on this matter:

I have already answered that issue ad nauseum. I see no reason to repeat it so soon after the last time.

Talk about handpicking...

Kivistan UN Bordello -- UN Delegate -- Father Knows Best State (low civil/political rights)
Gruenberg -- Past UN Delegate -- Right-wing Utopia (low civil/political rights)
Palentine UN Office -- Past UN Delegate -- National slogan: "New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 24/7"

I could go on, but I think everyone gets the picture...

That you, a nation where poor people are starving and have easily curable diseases, is fit to make claims about other nations?


Your regional delegate, by whatever process your region chooses, represents your region at the UN. Can't change that, sorry.

Yeah? The Delegate of the Antarctic Oasis is chosen largely by Kenny himself. Sure, there's a voting process, but ultimately Kenny is in charge. Also, Kenny is ultimately the final say in AO government, outside of the delegate and his votes. AO doesn't dictate how Kivisto votes.

I'm making an official request to all involved to get this back on topic. So far all that the representative from Pilot has put forth are attacks on the character of the submitter's region. We need to be discussing the merits of the repeal itself- not what the Kivistan delegation had for breakfast and how it might be part of an ulterior conspiracy.

Rang Erman
Advisor

Trade embargoes, political and military pressure, economic sacntions, almost anything you wish to do {in RP}. Unfortunately, there is little the UN can do to close that gap except attempt to get the replacement to vote as quickly as possible.
Yes, there is something the UN could do. Not pass your resolution, and at least some sort of protection against biological weapons will exist.

Still doesn't refute that your portrayal of the region is inaccurate.
Your region continually elects militarist dictatorships to its UN delegateship. Most of the prominent members severely restrict civil and political rights. My portrayal of your region is nothing but accurate.

I have already answered that issue ad nauseum. I see no reason to repeat it so soon after the last time.
I would like to see where you addressed that point. All I am hearing from your side of the debate is that Pilot is not offering any content criticism, despite the fact that I have directed them numerous times to it. Or, which is our personal favorites, your allies in this debate are issuing rebuttals to our content criticism, and then saying we have no content criticism.

That you, a nation where poor people are starving and have easily curable diseases, is fit to make claims about other nations?
If this were a resolution on curing diseases, then yes. But it's not, so that point makes no sense.

Yeah? The Delegate of the Antarctic Oasis is chosen largely by Kenny himself. Sure, there's a voting process, but ultimately Kenny is in charge. Also, Kenny is ultimately the final say in AO government, outside of the delegate and his votes. AO doesn't dictate how Kivisto votes.
Again, I will state: Your regional delegate, by whatever process your region chooses, represents your region at the UN. Can't change that, sorry.

I'm making an official request to all involved to get this back on topic. So far all that the representative from Pilot has put forth are attacks on the character of the submitter's region. We need to be discussing the merits of the repeal itself- not what the Kivistan delegation had for breakfast and how it might be part of an ulterior conspiracy.
Do you not feel a little bit silly putting your "official request" in when you are answering my supposed personal attacks with your own personal attacks?

There absolutely has to be some sort of process whereby member nations are not granted a mulligan if they decide to use the in-between-time to exact biological warfare on any nation.

We find it astounding that the honoured delegate from Pilot has failed to take on board the repeated statements of all concerned that the protective process he demands that this repeal is expressly forbidden by the mechanisms through which UN legislation operates. It cannot be done.

For the avoidance of side-tracks, we present our credentials as a liberal monarchic democracy which does not lie within the Antarctic Oasis, and indeed normally disagrees with the repeal-happy member nations from that region.

Yes, there is something the UN could do. Not pass your resolution, and at least some sort of protection against biological weapons will exist.

Your stance is advocating that we allow people to use biological weapons then. Alright. Why go through all of the fussing over the gap if you just wish us to let people have bioweapon arsenals. Support the repeal and that won't change. Where's the problem?

Your region continually elects militarist dictatorships to its UN delegateship. Most of the prominent members severely restrict civil and political rights. My portrayal of your region is nothing but accurate.

Your portrayal was this
all of these nations are militarist dictatorships
The fact is, not all nations in the Antarctic Oasis are militarist dictatorships. Your portrayal remains inaccurate.

I would like to see where you addressed that point. All I am hearing from your side of the debate is that Pilot is not offering any content criticism, despite the fact that I have directed them numerous times to it.

Your "content criticism" that you point out in the second paragraph of your position is that this repeal will leave a gap in legislation until the replacement passes. That is not a content critique, that is a mechanic critique, and one that cannot be changed. That we cannot replace the legislation without repealing is part and parcel of the Rules for UN Proposals. It has been pointed out to you a number of times, and you have yet to refute or properly respond to this fact.

Or, which is our personal favorites, your allies in this debate are issuing rebuttals to our content criticism, and then saying we have no content criticism.

Our "rebuttal" of what you offer is a statement of fact. The gap already exists. We must remove this law to repair it.

What we are hoping for when we ask for a content critique is some form of argument that actuallyu involved the text of the repeal itself. Some argument offered in the text that doesn't make sense. Something that has anything to do with what has actually been drafted. What we are not looking for is a complaint that the UN cannot pass replacement legislation wothout first repealing its predecessor.

We find it astounding that the honoured delegate from Pilot has failed to take on board the repeated statements of all concerned that the protective process he demands that this repeal is expressly forbidden by the mechanisms through which UN legislation operates. It cannot be done.

For the avoidance of side-tracks, we present our credentials as a liberal monarchic democracy which does not lie within the Antarctic Oasis, and indeed normally disagrees with the repeal-happy member nations from that region.
I will direct the Honorable Delegate from Gobbannium to my previous statement:
Trade embargoes, political and military pressure, economic sacntions, almost anything you wish to do {in RP}. Unfortunately, there is little the UN can do to close that gap except attempt to get the replacement to vote as quickly as possible.
Yes, there is something the UN could do. Not pass your resolution, and at least some sort of protection against biological weapons will exist.

I will direct the Honorable Delegate from Gobbannium to my previous statement:

And you will be directed back to the numerous responses to that exact type of statement. I'm not going to bother quoting them. I'll leave it with the statement that delgations from Discoraversalism and Community Property would let go of their fantasies when presented with truth. You, apparently, cannot.

Clearly, Rouge Nations are a threat to international security and need to be stopped.

The mascara nations scare us more.

Yes, there is something the UN could do. Not pass your resolution, and at least some sort of protection against biological weapons will exist.

Or we could go with the replacement that does an even better job.

Your region continually elects militarist dictatorships to its UN delegateship. Most of the prominent members severely restrict civil and political rights. My portrayal of your region is nothing but accurate.

Uh...Cluichstan's not a member of Antarctic Oasis, yet fully supports this repeal and its replacement. Nice try, though. (OOC: You're one of those silly "I hate the AO clique" people, aren't you? :rolleyes: )

I would like to see where you addressed that point. All I am hearing from your side of the debate is that Pilot is not offering any content criticism, despite the fact that I have directed them numerous times to it. Or, which is our personal favorites, your allies in this debate are issuing rebuttals to our content criticism, and then saying we have no content criticism.

You just choose to ignore the substantive responses from supporters of the repeal and, instead, whinge about cliques and such. You fail. Try again.

Again, I will state: Your regional delegate, by whatever process your region chooses, represents your region at the UN. Can't change that, sorry.

Wow...you might be pretty good at predicting votes, but you're not all that good at this whole politics thingy, are you?

Do you not feel a little bit silly putting your "official request" in when you are answering my supposed personal attacks with your own personal attacks?

I've yet to see a personal attack on you from the Kivistan representative that wasn't warranted. Yours, on the other hand, have just been ludicrous. "You bad boy! You represent an evil region!" Get over yourself already.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

There are plenty of examples, if you were to comb through the passed U.N. resolutions, where specific areas of international law are improved upon by subsequent legislation. Why, just look at Pilot's NS HIV/AIDS Act for instance. There were at least 2 resolutions, at the time, that were on the books on this subject. I just submitted a more comprehensive resolution.

Doing what I am suggesting is clearly within the bounds of in-game mechanics, seeing that I have lived through a perfect example.

The representative of Pilot is quite correct that, at times, existing legislation can be supplemented and problems fixed without repeal of the original resolution. But that is completely dependent upon the nature of the problems posed by the original resolution. It simply cannot be done in all cases.

In the instant case, our delegation argued against and voted against the original resolution. Even while that process was taking place, we were looking to the possibility of drafting a resolution which would eliminate -- or at least mitigate -- the problems caused by the resolution. It was -- and remains -- the considered judgment of our nation that the nature of the flaws in the resolution preclude doing that without being in violation of the contradiction rule. We see no recourse but to support repeal and replacement with a reasonable, properly effective resolution.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Yes, there is something the UN could do. Not pass your resolution, and at least some sort of protection against biological weapons will exist.
Wolfgang stood, meaning to speak, but was stopped by a CWG Office of Security Spook who just became visible. The man, wearing a Splinter Cell-looking getup, stepped forward. "I have been authorized to tell the opposition a story. The resolution currently in place allows 250 milligrams of anything it bans, for exploratory purposes, right? Well, our Bio-Warfare Countermeasure division has one job: to make the most lethal virus possible and a neutralizing agent. Every year they come out with a new one. We have no more than 250 milligrams of each stockpiled, and they are kept in the most secure area in the Great Commonwealth. Making the countermeasures is the hard part, since we can't produce more than 250 milligrams of each one to work with. Now, the only problem is, say that someone invincible, because that's what it'd take, somehow got out some of those vials. For that matter, imagine if they were all released? There are thousands of them. And the best thing is, just ONE of the vials, if detonated in the atmosphere, could wipe out the planet VERY quickly. Do you really still feel safe with the current resolution in play? I'd like very much for us to have to destroy the entire stockpile, which we would do if a new resolution passes. The current resolution does absolutely nothing for your safety, as a proper virus or other such contagion could easily cause insane damage even in the amounts allowed. Furthermore, there is no limit to the number of these amounts that are allowed. And, you should see how many noncontagious bits we have, too. Makes the Virus Vault look quark-sized. The current resolution literally does nothing for your safety. In fact, it pushes the envelope for bio-weapon research." He looked sternly at Wolfgang, saying, "The Great Commonwealth is in resounding support of this repeal and of any sufficient replacement." The Spook then vanished, leaving Wolfgang to shout at nothing, "Thanks, I'm going to sleep a lot better tonight!"

OOC: Oh, and, until recently, I had my own little region with just me. Region has very little to do with anything of notable relevance. It happens fairly often that like-minded people gather in social groups, and it's little surprise that they mostly agree with and support something put forth by one of their members. You're bashing on a common social phenomenon.

The Most Glorious Hack gives its full support to this repeal and the subsequent replacement. We feel the original resolution is so full of loopholes, poor definitions, and, frankly, terrible science that it is worse than having no resolution on the books. Furthermore, the fact that the replacement is categorically superior is just another nail in the coffin of this terrible piece of law.

Personally, I find the arguments from the Pilot delegation to be utterly incomprehensible and utterly nonsensical. Worrying about the brief window between repeal and replacement is a terrible reason to oppose a desperately needed repeal.

And should the delegation attempt to appeal to irrelevencies about representing nations, I would remind him that the Hack is a world leader in all forms of freedom (civil, economic and political), spends only a fraction of its budget on defence, and has never used, produced, or owned biological weapons.

So let's stick to the proposal at hand, hmm?


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/Tindalos/UN/Verm.jpg
Vermithrax Pejorative
UN Observer
The Federated Technocratic Oligarchy of the Most Glorious Hack

Pilot, after further consideration, withdraws its objection and issues a statement of support for this resolution.
We are confident that the world community will act quickly to approve a new, more comprehensive biological weapons ban. Regardless of our doubt as to the motives of this resolution's prime supporters, we believe that the issue has been pushed far enough and that the new legislative language to be proposed should be received with open arms by the United Nations member nations.

We are proud to stand by the international community and the zeal for reform at the United Nations.

Pilot, after further consideration, withdraws its objection and issues a statement of support for this resolution.

We are confident that the world community will act quickly to approve a new, more comprehensive biological weapons ban. Regardless of our doubt as to the motives of this resolution's prime supporters, we believe that the issue has been pushed far enough and that the new legislative language to be proposed should be received with open arms by the United Nations member nations.

We are proud to stand by the international community and the zeal for reform at the United Nations.


We're very pleased that the nation of Pilot has reconsidered its stance on this proposal. That displays commendable open-mindedness, which this Assembly could certainly use more of.

We do have one comment, not to be taken as a criticism. We would be happy to have Ausserland characterized as a "prime supporter" of this repeal. And we are quite willing to stand on our record of honest dealings in this Assembly. Perhaps that might allay the concerns of the representative a little bit.

Balthasar H. von Aschenbach
Prime Minister

The small but highly motivated mountainous Federated States of Kula Kangri applauds Pilot's willingness to revise its viewpoint. We also applaud those responsible for the revised Ban, and hope that it is passed with alacrity should the present one be repealed.

We further propose, in the spirit of those suggesting titles for this ban, the following:

"Biological Weapons Make Us Sick!"

We shall unlodge our tongues from our cheeks at the first available opportunity....

My very first knee jerk reaction to the repeal, was a resounding no, but then I read this thread, and the proposed replacement, which is a very will written document, and deserves its chance on the floor. First though the old reso needs to go.

After reading all the comments, especially Ausserland's, whose opinion I trust way above most, Waterana's one puny vote will be cast in favour of this repeal.

I've been lurking on the discussion prior to publication on here. I've no objections to the repeal, and thus pledge my vote in favour of the repeal.

:sniper: Amerion parliement ruled to vote not to lift the UN ban I believe we have enough problems without bio weapons we have increased military funding so if this ban gets lifted we're jumping

As a new delegate to the UN, you will have to forgive me if I seem a little stilted and formal. As someone who is more used to giving lectures at a university, I am not used to speaking in such illustrious company.

I felt the same knee-jerk reaction to the repeal as the representative from Waterana.

However, on a closer persual of the repeal document, I feel it has significant merit.

I am therefore pleased to announce that I am also casting my vote to repeal this piece of legislation, and will await the new language being proposed.

Regards,
Cornelius Higginbotham
Representative for New Archadia, UN
Emeritus Professor of Political Studies, University of New Archadia (UNA)

As a new delegate to the UN,Welcome to the UN!

Pilot, after further consideration, withdraws its objection and issues a statement of support for this resolution.

We are confident that the world community will act quickly to approve a new, more comprehensive biological weapons ban. Regardless of our doubt as to the motives of this resolution's prime supporters, we believe that the issue has been pushed far enough and that the new legislative language to be proposed should be received with open arms by the United Nations member nations.

We are proud to stand by the international community and the zeal for reform at the United Nations.

Um...hey, genius, did you happen to notice that the prime supporters of this repeal are also those who are pushing the proposed replacement? Both the repeal and its placement were drafted at DEFCON HQ (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON), onboard the Cluichstani Death Star (http://z15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON/index.php?showtopic=180&st=0).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As a new delegate to the UN, you will have to forgive me if I seem a little stilted and formal. As someone who is more used to giving lectures at a university, I am not used to speaking in such illustrious company.

I felt the same knee-jerk reaction to the repeal as the representative from Waterana.

However, on a closer persual of the repeal document, I feel it has significant merit.

I am therefore pleased to announce that I am also casting my vote to repeal this piece of legislation, and will await the new language being proposed.

Welcome to the UN, Professor Higginbotham. For your reading pleasure, the proposed replacement text can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539).

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Welcome to the UN, Professor Higginbotham. For your reading pleasure the proposed replacement text can be found here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539).

Much obliged, Sheik bin Cluich.

I have read the proposed language, and I feel proud that one day, I will be able to place both my name, and that of my country, on this piece of legislation.

Regards,
- Prof. C. Higginbotham, Reprenentative for New Archadia.

I felt the same knee-jerk reaction to the repeal as the representative from Waterana.

However, on a closer persual of the repeal document, I feel it has significant merit. Greetings professor, and we hope you enjoy your stay.

You've hit upon a point there. If a casual glance draws an intial vote of opposition, how many votes are there going to be against the repeal from those who do nothing more than a casual review?

Not going into a discussion about the replacement here, but it's certainly going to be an improvement on the existing legislation if everything passes.

I approve as it is rediculous for the UN to ignore so many other biological weapons possibilities. I also say that we shouldnt completely remove that law but make an amended version after the original is abolished.

I didnt realize they already had what I said above in mind, so I guess I just completely agree.

I didnt realize they already had what I said above in mind, so I guess I just completely agree.

OOC: That's why it pays to read threads before posting in 'em. ;)

EDIT: Oh, and this thread needs a poll. *nods*

As a new delegate to the UN, you will have to forgive me if I seem a little stilted and formal. As someone who is more used to giving lectures at a university, I am not used to speaking in such illustrious company.

I felt the same knee-jerk reaction to the repeal as the representative from Waterana.

However, on a closer persual of the repeal document, I feel it has significant merit.

I am therefore pleased to announce that I am also casting my vote to repeal this piece of legislation, and will await the new language being proposed.

Regards,
Cornelius Higginbotham
Representative for New Archadia, UN
Emeritus Professor of Political Studies, University of New Archadia (UNA)

The Ausserland delegation would like to extend a most hearty welcome to the distinguished Professor Higginbotham, accompanied by its congratulations on an eminently sensible first comment in this Assembly.

It will be a distinct pleasure for us to finally have some competition for the presigious title of "Stuffiest Delegation in the NSUN Assembly".

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

I will support the repeal when it comes to the floor. Indeed the original resolution is badly flawed and is in need of replacement.

May I offer my compliments to the good Sheik and his allies for also committing to a replacement resolution? I look forward to reading the text of it and supporting it. I will be encouraging my delegate to support this repeal.

Thomas B. Lynniston
Ambassador to the UN
Coomonwealth of Schwarzchild

We are happy to have the support of the Schwarzchild delegation. If you would like to read the text of the proposed replacement, you can find it here (http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=518539).

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

A most interesting resolution; it appears as though the international community is in a repealing mood, considering the number of repeals both proposed and passed.

But concerning the resolution before us, I feel compelled to vote against it. The previously concocted resolution, 113, is perfectly reasonable, albeit with a few faults. However, this is no reason to repeal it and formulate an entirely new resolution to replace it. One of the arguments against 113 is that it does not include non-contagious agents such as anthrax; however, upon closer inspection of 113, you will find that it defines a "virus" as "a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions." I believe that anthrax indeed falls under this category, but please correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I've read up on biological weaponry.

If anyone else has any thoughts concerning my argument or the resolution, please bring up any issues I have missed or failed to bring fully to light.

Matthew Korbon
Overseer of the United Socialist States of Korbonis

But concerning the resolution before us, I feel compelled to vote against it. The previously concocted resolution, 113, is perfectly reasonable, albeit with a few faults. However, this is no reason to repeal it and formulate an entirely new resolution to replace it.

That's an excellent reason to repeal it, and here's the beauty of the whole process: the replacement's already been drafted!

Of course, we could always hang onto a flawed resolution, but why would we? I suppose you're still working on an old Commodore Vic 20, too. I mean, it's a perfectly reasonable machine, so why would you want a newer, better computer -- you know, one that actually works?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

A most interesting resolution; it appears as though the international community is in a repealing mood, considering the number of repeals both proposed and passed.

But concerning the resolution before us, I feel compelled to vote against it. The previously concocted resolution, 113, is perfectly reasonable, albeit with a few faults. However, this is no reason to repeal it and formulate an entirely new resolution to replace it. One of the arguments against 113 is that it does not include non-contagious agents such as anthrax; however, upon closer inspection of 113, you will find that it defines a "virus" as "a microscopic infective agent with DNA or RNA guiding its actions." I believe that anthrax indeed falls under this category, but please correct me if I am wrong, it has been a while since I've read up on biological weaponry.

If anyone else has any thoughts concerning my argument or the resolution, please bring up any issues I have missed or failed to bring fully to light.

Matthew Korbon
Overseer of the United Socialist States of Korbonis

A couple of points for the consideration of the representative of Korbonis....

First, if we believe NSUNR #113 has "a few faults", and we wish to correct those faults, the only way to do that is to repeal the original resolution and replace it, since resolutions cannot be amended. In some cases, flaws in resolutions may be mitigated or eliminated by new legislation. We don't believe that is possible in this case.

Second, the anthrax pathogen is not a virus. It's a bacterium: Bacillus anthracis. The problem is not with the biological classification of the pathogen; it's with the use of the word contagious. Since anthrax is not, in most cases, passed from human to human, it isn't, by most definitions of the term, contagious, although it's infectious. And nations wishing to evade the effects of the resolution would surely seize upon that loophole.

The other problem with the definition is that it includes all pathogens of diseases that are contagious and could be "harmful" to humans -- including thousands of microorganisms with absolutely no potential for use in biological warfare or biological terrorism. And then, given this absurdly broad scope, the resolution imposes completely impractical requirements for security of the material.

We hope that provides some food for thought for the representative.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

While the world's diplomats continued their discussion on whether to reverse a bioweapons ban in the UN General Assembly, Alex Tehrani was busy fighting the war at home, filled with sudden concern over a recent defeat on that front as he rushed to the Executive Residence to inform his boss of the blunder.

It being nearly noon, the secretary found the president in his usual spot, lazily snoring the morning away in the "Karmicarian embassy." Luckily, sleeping was the only thing Fernanda and the Karmicarian ambassador were doing at the moment. Audaciously Tehrani poked at the larger of the lumps in the bed.

"Execute the jaywalker!" came the groggy reply as the Destructor lifted his head and rubbed his eyes to see who the intruder was. For a moment he glared at the blob standing over the bed as it came more and more into focus. "Oh, it's you, Alex," he eventually said, drowsily. "What do you want?"

"Just to inform you that your plan has failed, Mr. President," Tehrani told him.

"What plan?"

"You know, your secret plan to publicly disclose certain details about this region's nations (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=13) and their UN activities (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Antarctic_Oasis/index.php?showtopic=2)?"

"Huh?"

"So opponents of Karmicaria's bioweapons repeal will go off on their region instead, detracting from any relevant points that could be made against the actual proposal?"

"When did I ever--?"

"Well, you can forget about it, Mr. President, since the Pilot delegation has decided to drop any objections it had about the region proposing the repeal, and support it, saying something about having trust in the international community to rally around a replacement."

Fernanda widened his eyes at glared at the nightstand, still trying to wake up. "So you're telling me a plan I didn't even know I had has failed?"

"Yes, sir. You're a far greater Evil Genius than our UN colleagues give you credit for."

"Dude, whatever," the Destructor concluded as he rolled back over to get in a few extra hours of sleep before the Amb. Chase was ready to go again.

Did I mention that Ariddia, after some hesitation, supports this? No? Well, we do.

*returns to letting her 4 year-old son play with the microphone*


Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

We of the Palentine are happy to support the repeal of this tragically flawed resolution, and look forward to voting for the replacement in this festering snakepit...err august halls. We wish to thank Mrs. Dioce for her hard work on this repeal. Our nations reputation has been insulted here in these hall, recently. Implying that just because of our motto and our methods of defense that our views and those of our region should be suspect...at least when it comes to this debate. For the Record, the Palentine has never used or manufactured any bio-weapon. Until we were certain that there was a suitable resolution in the works, we did not support this repeal. However our fears were proven groundless, and the replacement is a much more comprehensive bio-weapon ban.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN Office
"New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo(TM) 24/7"

You better not go and sell your vote on this one, Sulla, or I'll see to it that your special CPESL privileges are revoked. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Dahlia smiles and stands. "I would like to thank Sen. Sulla for his support and the support of The Palentine UN Office. In fact, I would like to personally thank all those in support of both the repeal and replacement. Without any of you, this repeal wouldn't have made it as far as it has. As for those in opposition, that's your choice, though there has been a lot of whining and complaining that there will be a huge hole left in the UN legislative books. This is unfortunate, but it's the way things work. We know that the Kivistan delegation will promptly submit the replacement and do what it takes to get to the floor. I know that coming from me this doesn't mean much to most." she pauses as her assistant, Tana approaches her and whispers in her ear. "I'm sorry, I have to step out for some other rather important business. Tana here will be filling in for the rest of the debate. Once again, thank you to all who support the repeal."

Dahlia Dioce
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

You better not go and sell your vote on this one, Sulla, or I'll see to it that your special CPESL privileges are revoked. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

No worries there, Mate. I only sell my vote for stuff HIH Jhessan (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/shirow/Jspaulding.jpg) doesn't care if it gets passed.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

No worries there, Mate. I only sell my vote for stuff HIH Jhessan (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/shirow/Jspaulding.jpg) doesn't care if it gets passed.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

Would you consider selling Jhessan?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

The Commonwealth of Akimonad is proud to offer its support for this repeal and we congratulate Ms. Dioce and all of Karmicaria on another job well done.

Dr. Jules Hodz
Akimonad UN Representative and
Professor Emeritus of Political Science
University of Kent

We fully support this resolution due to the fact that we feel giving control of all biological research facilities to the military would give them to much power. In an epidemic they would control all vaccinations, which they would then be able use as leverage to stage a coup and seize power.

:sniper: Amerion parliement ruled to vote not to lift the UN ban I believe we have enough problems without bio weapons we have increased military funding so if this ban gets lifted we're jumping

I don't mean to sound excessively callous about this, but who cares?

Scratch that, I guess I did mean to sound fairly callous about that.

hrmph. Seems I'm getting a little grumpy. The other supporters have this fairly well in hand. I'm gonna nip off to this bar that I've recently heard about and see how much trouble I can get Oskar into for when he gets back.

*Admiral Shackleford rises out of his seat and ambles off towards the Stranger's Bar after discreetly asking directions from the nearby delegations.*

The Nation of Blue Dinosaurs has misgivings about this. We are very sensitive about possible extinction events, and bio-weapons are probably second only to asteroid strikes in their potential to end life.

However, we do agree that the current law is very flawed. Therefore, we vote for this repeal with the expectation that the replacement will be approved ASAP.

After viewing the replacing resolution and following the repeal debate (many thanks to Ausserland who, as always, provides great comments) the GPRG has decicded to cast it's vote in favour of this repeal. We too wish to see the replacement at vote ASAP.

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

The Soviet Socialist Republic of Citenka supports this repeal. Resolution #113 “UN Biological Weapons Ban” is flawed far beyond the repairing. We must try to build safe future for our children, so we hope that’s replacement will be much better then original.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

If you repeal the ban without replacing it immediately, you're allowing a window to be opened in which all nations could start developing these weapons. You think that there are bio-weapons not being covered under the old ban, then do an amendment, or propose an amendment that fixes the problem. But you can't just repeal it and walk away. That's nuts!!!!

If you repeal the ban without replacing it immediately, you're allowing a window to be opened in which all nations could start developing these weapons. You think that there are bio-weapons not being covered under the old ban, then do an amendment, or propose an amendment that fixes the problem. But you can't just repeal it and walk away. That's nuts!!!!

Well, unfortunately, we cannot amend the resolution once it has been passed. We must repeal it first, then replace it. And it just so happens that there is a replacement waiting in the wings, but the repeal needs to pass before the new legislation can be submitted for approval.

Tana Petrov
UN Representative (temporary)
Harem of Karmicaria

If you repeal the ban without replacing it immediately, you're allowing a window to be opened in which all nations could start developing these weapons. You think that there are bio-weapons not being covered under the old ban, then do an amendment, or propose an amendment that fixes the problem. But you can't just repeal it and walk away. That's nuts!!!!

We're not going to walk away after this is repealed. If you'd actually read the transcripts of this debate before spewing your silly little tirade, you'd know that the replacement has already been drafted and will be submitted as soon as the repeal passes (it can't, according to the rules of the NSUN, be submitted before then). Also, amendments are illegal. Our only recourse is to repeal and replace. Now, if you seriously think someone will be able to develop and employ biological weapons in the couple of weeks it will take us to replace the current resolution, you're the one who's nuts.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

As it stands right now, there is nothing in the queue. If that situation maintains until the end of this vote, we could potentially have the replacement up to vote within a couple of days. It will be difficult bringin something to quorum starting on the weekend, but I intend to do an extensively throrough TG campaign for it using every available second I have starting the moment I can safely submit the replacement.

I’ve really been trying to avoid this point of the debate (OOC: That’s because Jolt acted up when I first saw it and it was resolved by the time I got back) but I think we really need to address the so called “window” problem. Windows are for defenestration, not for cheating.

The fact is that any nation can “opt out” of any UN resolution by simply leaving the UN. They won’t even get a slap on the wrist for doing so, just a nasty gram from a disgruntled UN gnome. So the notion that nations are waiting (days months years) for the resolution to be repealed just so they can have a few glory days under the sun to make and use weapons before the new resolution is put in place is nonsense.

(Magistria is ranked 70,171st in the world for Stupidest Citizens.)

The UN Gnomes say you’re too smart to make such a mistake deliberately, so I’ve ordered a cup of coffee for you instead. On the other hands they have also gave me a new way to promote this repeal.

(Omigodtheykilledkenny is ranked 256th in the world for Stupidest Citizens.)

“Repeal "UN Biological Weapons Ban"” So simple even a Kennite can understand it.

If you repeal the ban without replacing it immediately, you're allowing a window to be opened in which all nations could start developing these weapons. You think that there are bio-weapons not being covered under the old ban, then do an amendment, or propose an amendment that fixes the problem. But you can't just repeal it and walk away. That's nuts!!!!

Since the representative of Magistria is quite new in this Assembly, allow us to provide a bit of information and advice.

First, you can not amend a resolution. That's against the rules of the NSUN. Those rules are posted as a "sticky' at the top of this forum. If a resolution is flawed, it must be repealed so it can be replaced. We'd strongly recommend you take a few minutes to read the rules.

Second, it's a good idea to read through at least part of a debate thread before posting in it. If you had done that in this case, you would have seen an explanation of the point we just made. You would also have learned that there is a replacement resolution which has been drafted and posted on this forum for comment. You're welcome to look it over and see what you think.

Travilia E. Thwerdock
Ambassador to the United Nations

NSUNR #113 is, unfortunately, a badly flawed piece of legislation. On the one hand, it fails to cover a broad range of pathogens with substantial potential for use in the military and by terrorists. On the other hand, it covers many pathogens which have no reasonable potential for military or terroristic application. This second flaw makes the security requirements in the resolution grotesquely impractical.

Ausserland supports the repeal.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

HEREHERE! do you REALLY think terrorists are going to abide by UN resolutions? *Scoffs* Why should they? The worst the UN can do is come after them like a certain fictional nation...(OOC-The U.S. in Afghanistan) and while this would certainly put a damper on their lil escapades it won't stop them completely. The only sure-fire way to crack down on terrorists is to squash them wholly...:D
Stoogeonia thoroughly supports this repeal! (And until a more suitable one is put in place you can be sure I will be using Biological Weapons to their fullest capability against said terrorist scum, and a few nations to boot...:gundge:)
Sincerely,
The Grand High Emperor-King of Stoogeonia.

*snip*

OOC: Ah, now there's a brilliant first post. :rolleyes:

IC:

Good luck having the time to develop and employ bioweapons. The replacement is likely to hit the floor next.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Intangelon votes FOR.

(Kinda strange to not be speaking for a region anymore...liberating, too.)

Repeal this thing, already.

HEREHERE! do you REALLY think terrorists are going to abide by UN resolutions? *Scoffs* Why should they? The worst the UN can do is come after them like a certain fictional nation...(OOC-The U.S. in Afghanistan) and while this would certainly put a damper on their lil escapades it won't stop them completely. The only sure-fire way to crack down on terrorists is to squash them wholly...:D
Stoogeonia thoroughly supports this repeal! (And until a more suitable one is put in place you can be sure I will be using Biological Weapons to their fullest capability against said terrorist scum, and a few nations to boot...:gundge:)
Sincerely,
The Grand High Emperor-King of Stoogeonia.

If the Emperor-King would spend less time scoffing and more time thinking, he might be able to understand the issues involved. No, we don't expect terrorists to abide by NSUN resolutions. But we also undertsand a basic principle of security management: proliferation increases probability of compromise.The more weaponizable biological material there is available, the greater the probability that it will fall into the wrong hands. If it ain't there, they can't get their paws on it.

Now, that's not too hard for you, is it?

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

Recognizing and respecting the right of every nation to properly defend itself against any enemies wishing to harm it, Bukkakus wholeheartedly supports this UN measure.

Since much of this debate seems to be focused on a glaring oversight in the original resolution. Let's see if we can find it, shall we?

Resolution #113:
DECLARING “bioweapons” are contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection.


Repeal:

NOTING that UNR #113 includes such things as the common cold and flu, but does not include non-contagious infectious agents such as anthrax[...]


The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition:

con·ta·gious (kn-tjs)
adj.
1. Of or relating to contagion.
2. Transmissible by direct or indirect contact; communicable.
3. Capable of transmitting disease; carrying a disease.


non-contagious infectious agents, hmm? This suggests something you can be infected with, but cannot receive, transmit, or carry. Would anyone care to explain the reasoning here?

Further, Anthrax is a spore producing bacteria that can be transmitted via spore inhalation, physical contact, or ingestion. Sounds contagious to me. As harmful bacteria are fully covered by UNR#113's definition, the repeal is simply incorrect in this regard.

The Repeal's authors wish to replace the former legislation's definition with this new gem.

Suggested proposal:
DEFINES Biological Agent as any infectious microorganism that is capable of producing lethal or debilitating disease and that has reasonable potential for military application;


Let us now look at the definitions of 'organism' and 'virus'.

The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 2nd Edition:

or·gan·ism (ôrg-nzm)
n.
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.


vi·rus (vrs)
n. pl. vi·rus·es
1. Any of a large group of submicroscopic agents that act as parasites and consist of a segment of DNA or RNA surrounded by a coat of protein. Because viruses are unable to replicate without a host cell, they are not considered living organisms in conventional taxonomic systems.


We point out that viruses are not considered "living things" and as such would be perfectly permissible under this new proposed resolution.
So we are expected to replace a glaring (<<read:non-existent) oversight, with one that is far worse?

A few more points to ponder....

Repeal:

CONCERNED that giving control of all biological research facilities to the military within member nations is excessive and would come at a great cost[...]


Resolution #113:

[...]and kept under the highest of that nation’s military security.


This does not suggest military control at great expense, it suggests military security at a single installation. Totally reasonable considering the implications of a security breach.

Repeal:

BELIEVING that the united nations can find better ways to convince non-member nations to refrain from using biological weapons through more diplomatic means than by severing and refusing alliances with them;


Resolution #113:

UN member nations are proscribed from military partnerships of any kind with any nation known to be using, trafficking, producing or in possession of bioweapons which are proscribed as described by this resolution.


A UN member nation can still be an ally of a transgressing non-member nation, they are simply prohibited from joint military action/partnerships.

UNR#113 even goes so far as to encourage UN nations to rally against hostile non-UN nations who use these weapons against the UN, and also encourages UN nations to offer trade incentives/sanctions if it will assist in aiding transgressing nations to disarm their biological arsenal.

Finally, we would like to point out that UNR#113 provides adequate steps for the isolation and treatment of infected individuals, whereas the proposed legislation fails to even make mention of such an occurance.

Due to the inherent danger of repealing the former legislation (As is illustrated by Stoogeonia's recent comment), and the inability of the proposed legislation to effectively deal with issues the original already has well in hand, I urge the assembly to vote against the repeal.

Arch-Ponderer Michael of The Collective Consciousness of Transcendant Pilgrims.
UN Representative for The Exodus

Ridiculous. "Contagious" obviously means transferred person to person, which does not cover anthrax. Moreover, if you have problems with the proposed replacement, here's a tip: it hasn't been submitted yet. You can still get in your two cents before it is. We simply don't buy all this twisting in the wind to find something, anything in the language of the original resolution in order to make it sound reasonable, because it clearly isn't. Otherwise, such stout disarmament advocates as Yelda and Ausserland would not be behind this repeal.

We note with interest that, in citing a dictionary, the representative of Transcendant Pilgrims was required to dig down to the third definition to find one that agreed with his interpretation of the term contagious. Let's try another dictionary -- Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary:

Contagious: capable of being transmitted from one individual to another, as a contagious disease; communicable. Cf. infectious.

Infectious: caused by or capable of being communicated by infection, as an infectious disease; infective. Cf. communicable, contagious, and infestation.

Infectious is clearly a broader term, and thus would cover pathogens which are not included under the resolution's definition. We'd prefer a resolution in which the lovers of loopholes would have a harder job.

Now to the security issue. The representative claims: "This does not suggest military control at great expense, it suggests military security at a single installation. Totally reasonable considering the implications of a security breach."

We don't know how he came to that conclusion, but, for the sake of argument, let's say he's correct. The resolution covers all "contagious biological viruses, bacteria or microbes with the effect of harming, incapacitating, or killing a person upon infection". The representative would have us consolidate all medical research into contagious diseases that requires maintenance of samples into "a single installation"? Even research on pathogens which have no reasonable potential for use in biological warfare or biological terrorism? We find that absurd, and note that no such thing is required or even suggested by the resolution.

The resolution would, however, require that all such research facilities be "kept under the highest of that nation’s military security". All our in-hospital and university research? Nothing is impossible, but such a requirement is ridiculously impractical and completely cost-prohibitive.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

First of all...(Magistria is ranked 70,171st in the world for Stupidest Citizens.) this means that there are 70,170 nations stupider than I am. Where did you rank Retired WerePenguins?

I've only been on here a little while, but I've seen things get repealed because there was already a better resolution in place that covered everything the old one did and more. So I ask again, why aren't you putting the correct mechanisms in place to protect the member nations completely before you repeal this resolution, which passed resoundingly when it came to a vote, I might add?

Can't do an amendment, fine. Didn't know. Sorry. But apparently similar resolutions can be in place at the same time, because, like I say, I've seen others get repealed because there were already better resolutions in place. So why not put the replacement up to vote before the repeal?

Again, I'm new at this, so help me out.

:sniper:

Finally, you guys are kind of rude to each other. I hope the real UN is more civil than this.

Magistrian Delegate.

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #201

Repeal "Hydrogen Powered Vehicles"

excerpt:
"EMPHASIZING that automobile manufacturers are already required to contribute 1% of their profits towards the development of alternative fuels under Resolution #39, "Alternative Fuels", and that this would include hydrogen powered vehicles,

FURTHER EMPHASIZES that a comprehensive emmission reduction program covering all industries is mandated by UN Resolution #126, "Fossil Fuel Reduction Act""
or

UNITED NATIONS RESOLUTION #196

Repeal "UN Educational Committee"

excerpt:
Strongly identifying with the principles of promoting quality in education espoused in UN Resolution #54, "UN Educational Committee",

Taking note of the passage of UN Resolution #171, "UN Educational Aid Act", and specifically its creation of a UN Educational Advancement Fund,

Recognizing that while committees can serve useful functions, assigning two to oversight of UN educational projects is not only excessive, bureaucratic and wasteful, but further poses the risk of creating confusion and inefficiency,

Believing the UNEAF to be a generally better model than the UNEC, given the latter's powers are poorly delineated, and no provision is made for funding of its projects,

Realizing that UNEC's functions are more than sufficiently performed by UNEAF,

Thereby considering that UNEC has been relegated to the status of another useless committee,

Wishing to clarify the UN's objectives, increase its efficiency and streamline its operations, through the elimination of committees that serve no purpose other than to drain member resources,

Repeals "UN Educational Committee". "

So there were already resolutions in place to cover many of the functions of the repealed resolution. Why is that not appropriate in this case? Just asking. Trying to understand. If I get to the bottom of this now, I won't have to ask again next time.

Thanks

Finally, you guys are kind of rude to each other. I hope the real UN is more civil than this.

OOC: Unfortunately, no. They go off on each other almost as badly as some of us do here. Hell, we're a civil afternoon tea party compared to some RL legislatures. Try and find some film footage of the Japanese or Irish Parliaments. Those guys are nuts. Fist fights and chairs being thrown. It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad.

IC: For the other resolutions you cited, the key word that you use is similar. The newer resolutions cover similar areas, but not exactly the same area. With Hydrogen Powered Vehicles, the "replacement" covered all areas of alternative fuels, including but not limited to hydrogen. With the Educational Committee, the Educational Aid Act covers more area than the limited scope of the previous committee. In both cases, there was some overlap, but they did not duplicate the previous legislation.

With BioWeapons, we are looking for a new Ban, which would duplicate the desired effect of the first, albeit more effecctively. The only way we could avoid doing so would be to have a much more all-encompassing bil that would outlaw more than just bioweapons, including say - Radiological and Chamical Weapons as well. While that might be possible, it would be taking huge leaps and bounds to do so, where it is more wise, in this case, to simply take a leap at a time. There is less risk of the legislation failing that way.

Allow me to say, while I'm here, that I appreciate your openness to asking for clarification, and willingness to find perrtinent examples to demonstrate the point of your query. Such behaviour is welcomed and should be applauded. I am sure that there are others here who are happy to see that there are still those like you in the world.

Would you consider selling Jhessan?

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

My friend, I would highly not recommend making the offer to HIH. While she might go for the offer(especially if it was flattering enough in size),HIH does have a rather vile and wicked temper, and also is quite proficient with the Red Ranger's Gelding Grip(TM)(the manly way to hold your opponent.)

Now on to other things. We also wish to ecourgage and praise Magistria in there willingness to ask questions about issues and procedures they are unsure. It seems that a few new nations just go on instinct and gut feelings insted of delving deeper.
Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
Palentine UN office
"New Improved Barbaric Militant Machismo 27/7"

My friend, I would highly not recommend making the offer to HIH. While she might go for the offer(especially if it was flattering enough in size),HIH does have a rather vile and wicked temper, and also is quite proficient with the Red Ranger's Gelding Grip(TM)(the manly way to hold your opponent.)

What a pity...

First of all...(Magistria is ranked 70,171st in the world for Stupidest Citizens.) this means that there are 70,170 nations stupider than I am. Where did you rank Retired WerePenguins?

I've only been on here a little while, but I've seen things get repealed because there was already a better resolution in place that covered everything the old one did and more. So I ask again, why aren't you putting the correct mechanisms in place to protect the member nations completely before you repeal this resolution, which passed resoundingly when it came to a vote, I might add?

Can't do an amendment, fine. Didn't know. Sorry. But apparently similar resolutions can be in place at the same time, because, like I say, I've seen others get repealed because there were already better resolutions in place. So why not put the replacement up to vote before the repeal?

Again, I'm new at this, so help me out.

:sniper:

Finally, you guys are kind of rude to each other. I hope the real UN is more civil than this.

Magistrian Delegate.

It's always a relief and a pleasure to see a new member of this Assembly asking for help in understanding the rules and procedures. Perhaps we can help a bit. We like using silly examples to demonstrate points. It helps focus on the principle rather than the subject. So let's make up a really silly one.

NSUNR # 3907: Consumption of Apples

Eating green apples is prohibited.

Now let's say we decide that this resolution is badly flawed. Whether I have to repeal it to fix the problem depends on what the problem is. Cases:

Case #1: The flaw is that the whole thing is stupid. I cannot write a resolution saying it's OK to eat green apples. That would contradict the resolution. Illegal under the contradiction rule. To eliminate the problem, I have to repeal the resolution.

Case #2: It should have covered red apples instead of green ones. Again, I'd have to repeal and replace the resolution.

Case #3: The scope is too narrow. It should have prohibited eating both red and green apples. Aha! I can fix the problem by writing a resolution prohibiting eating red apples. While the subject matter is the same, it doesn't duplicate the resolution or contradict it.

The key to understanding, we think, is right there in the representative's own post. He's very right. "Similar resolutions" can be in place simultaneously. A proposal cannot contradict or duplicate an existing resolution. And the duplication issue is a judgment call: how much duplication is illegal duplication?

The situation is different from resolution to resolution. Sometimes, whether a new resolution contradicts or duplicates an existing one is the subject of heated debate here. The moderators sometimes face a difficult decision and even withhold judgment until they confer with each other. You have to carefully study the provisions of each item. In this case, we believe that the problems with NSUNR #113 cannot be properly corrected without repealing and replacing it. Others obviously disagree. That's fine. If we all agreed on everything, this would be a really boring place.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

OOC: Apples? Your brilliant mind works in very strange ways, my friend. ;)

First of all...(Magistria is ranked 70,171st in the world for Stupidest Citizens.) this means that there are 70,170 nations stupider than I am. Where did you rank Retired WerePenguins?

Well if you must know ...
Retired WerePenguins is ranked 1st in the region and 67,438th in the world for Stupidest Citizens.

Of course my region has three nations in it, so we can ignore that number for now. It seems we are more stupid than you, although I did suggest that your number was an indication that you weren't stupid.

So there were already resolutions in place to cover many of the functions of the repealed resolution. Why is that not appropriate in this case? Just asking. Trying to understand. If I get to the bottom of this now, I won't have to ask again next time.

A resolution cannot directly cover the area of an existing resolution. That would be an amendment to the resolution which is not allowed. However some resolutions are very poorly written. Even those that are well written often have their intent different from their effect. You can't duplicate the effect, but you can duplicate the intent.

Take hydrogen powered vehicles. The real intent of that reslution was the reduction of fossil fuel use, but that's not what the effect of the resolution was. Any other resolution that reduced fossil fuel use was fair game. Any reslution that changed the mandate for hydrogen powred car deveopment was duplication / amendments and thus illegal.

It's easier to see this with the eariler resolutions which were less detailed than later resolutions. I hope this makes sense. We often argue intent, but duplication rules are just about effect. In Biological weapons we are mostly talking about effect.

OOC: Apples? Your brilliant mind works in very strange ways, my friend. ;)

OOC: Eyup. I think those years of teaching adults warped it some. They tend to turn into alien beings when you plop 'em in a classroom. ;)

If anybody's interested in this odd teaching technique, ask me in one of the off-sites, where we won't be hijacking a thread.

Cool beans. I understand now. It still worries me, but I understand why's and the wherefore's now. I'll just hope for the best.

I'm still voting no though, for the record.

Thanks for the insight.

Magistrian Delegate

It's always a relief and a pleasure to see a new member of this Assembly asking for help in understanding the rules and procedures. Perhaps we can help a bit. We like using silly examples to demonstrate points. It helps focus on the principle rather than the subject. So let's make up a really silly one.
*snip the brilliance*


STANDING OVATION.

Excellently put, sir.

As the representative for Lower Pittsburghistan I must convey my nations pleasure in seeing the grip of international loosen from our necks. We will be pursuing several biological options, contingent upon the passing of this repeal.

It is our true hope that our plans are not compromised by future legislation of this body. Until such a time, however, Lower Pittsburghistan will be hard at work in this (likely) free and bountiful field of science.

*Linda Anaris walks up to the representative from Lower Pittsburghistan and hands over a transcript of this debate*

"Here, take a look at this."

*Miss Anaris walks back to her seat and sits down.*

Linda Anaris
UN-Office
GPRG

I hope that nations haven't just scanned the title "Ban Biological Weapons" and clicked 'Against' without a second thought, having not even read the full proposal!

As the representative for Lower Pittsburghistan I must convey my nations pleasure in seeing the grip of international loosen from our necks. We will be pursuing several biological options, contingent upon the passing of this repeal.

It is our true hope that our plans are not compromised by future legislation of this body. Until such a time, however, Lower Pittsburghistan will be hard at work in this (likely) free and bountiful field of science.

Yeah, um...well, good luck developing those "biological options" in just a few days. The replacement should be on the books by then, and you'll have to abandon all that hard work.

I hope that nations haven't just scanned the title "Ban Biological Weapons" and clicked 'Against' without a second thought, having not even read the full proposal!

I hope not, too, because this proposal is titled "Repeal 'Ban Biological Weapons.'" Any nations that are reading the title as you suggest are horribly failing at basic reading.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I hope that nations haven't just scanned the title "Ban Biological Weapons" and clicked 'Against' without a second thought, having not even read the full proposal!It appears our shared concern at the collective intellect (or lack of) within the UN was misplaced. Or lots of nations want to develop new and unpleasant ways of hurting one another.

As the representative for Lower Pittsburghistan I must convey my nations pleasure in seeing the grip of international loosen from our necks. We will be pursuing several biological options, contingent upon the passing of this repeal.

It is our true hope that our plans are not compromised by future legislation of this body. Until such a time, however, Lower Pittsburghistan will be hard at work in this (likely) free and bountiful field of science.

Of course, should this repeal pass, Lower Pittsburghistan will be perfectly free to sink its money and effort into developing and producing biological weaponry. And then, when the replacement passes, it can watch all that money and effort get flushed down the drain as it destroys its stockpile.

This would truly be another case of building a Bridge to Nowhere.

Amadeus T. Tankhurst
Brigadier, AoA
Military Attache

The nation of Theta Sigma will, after observation of the lively debate and review of the original legislation, the repeal, and the replacement, be casting its single vote in favor of the repeal.

This UN Ambassador would also like to thank the Delegate from Ausserland, who was able to explain things clearly and rationally, and the Delegate of Magistria, who was willing to ask questions so that by the time we entered chambers, we didn't have to.

This would truly be another case of building a Bridge to Nowhere.


I prefer "Road to Nowhere." Talking Heads rock. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

It appears our shared concern at the collective intellect (or lack of) within the UN was misplaced. Or lots of nations want to develop new and unpleasant ways of hurting one another.

I'm guessing that it's a little from column A, a little from column B. ;)


Tana Petrov
UN Representative
Harem of Karmicaria

I prefer "Road to Nowhere." Talking Heads rock. ;)

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Well we know where we're goin', but we don't know where we've been
And we know what we're knowin', but we can't say what we've seen
And we're not little children, and we know what we want
And the future is certain -- give us time to work it out

(Yeah)

We're on a road to nowhere -- come on inside
Takin' that ride to nowhere -- we'll take that ride
Feelin' okay this mornin', and you know
We're on a road to paradise...here we go...here we go

We're on a road to nowhere -- come on inside
Takin' that ride to nowhere -- let's take that ride
Maybe they'll wonder where you are -- I don't care
Seein' as how time is on our side...take you there...take you there

(various grunts, "hoos" and "has" and an accordion solo)

We're on a road to nowhere -- ha -- ha
We're on a road to nowhere -- ha -- ha

Can you see it in my mind, come along and take that ride
Baby it's alright -- baby it's alright

And it's feels so far away, but it's growin' day by day
Baby it's alright -- baby it's alright

Would you like to come along, you could help me sing this song
Baby it's alright -- baby iiit's aaalll riiight...

(various repeats and "hoos" and "has")

We're on a road to nowhere...

[/Talking Heads spam + admiration]

With this resolution or with it's replacement Biological weapons is as easy as a phone call to your local non UN Puppet. :p

Except of course if you are RWP. Frustrated franciscans doesn't have any defense budget, conventional or otherwise. Tzorsland is so high fangled with it's DEFCON membership that it refuses to consider biological weapons. (It's a touchy subject with the daleks I'm told.) I really need another puppet.

[/Talking Heads spam + admiration]

Baby, it's alright!

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

OOC: Hey, it's gonna pass tomorrow. We may as well have some fun while we can, eh? ;)

From Representative Borat Sogadiev,

"Ahah!!! This proposal is a very niice!! I applaud Karmicaria for issuing it. It points out the flaws that the UN has failed to address with this illegal arms ban! The UN has no right to ban a nation's arms, or the composure of their military in the first place. Second, this arms ban fails to apply the very purpose that it's intended for. This proposal is most assuredly approved!! Thank-a-you again Karmicaria!!!"


-Rep. Borat Sogadiev

Uh....you're welcome... http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g93/JamieNesci/Smile%20Emos/PancakeBunny-1.gif

See, Karmi? YOU'RE getting the hang of this "your" nonsense, eh?



Sorry, I just had to poke a little more fun. :D

Hush up Wolfie or I'll start throwing bureaucrats at you! /inside joke :p

Bring it on! *Loads bureaucrat cannon*

Now dear, this isn't the time nor the place for such a thing. Besides, I want to get you when you're least expecting it. :p

So many random posts about the UN are so negative, I thought I'd weigh in one more time on this thread by stating that the debate here has clearly done a very good job at informing the voting members. Of course, I'm biased because I've voted for the currently passing side, but it seems that the honest, if occasionally heated, discussion has taken the usual title-acting votes and reduced them somewhat.

If this post makes no sense, blame the George Dickel No. 8 whiskey. Delicious, if a but muzzifying.

Seriously, though, good debate, clearly-stated objectives -- result: (in my opinion) a worthy outcome.

Bravo to the Assembly.

Im against this proposal. As I think there shouldn't be a ban on Chemical Weaponary because it acts as a deterant rather than a use of threat. If it was invidulated that only stable countries with safe diplomacy with other Nation's were allowed to be armed with Chemical Weapons. I also agree with Nuclear Warfare.

Im against this proposal. As I think there shouldn't be a ban on Chemical Weaponary because it acts as a deterant rather than a use of threat.

Too bad this isn't about Chemical Weapons.

If it was invidulated that only stable countries with safe diplomacy with other Nation's were allowed to be armed with Chemical Weapons.

I have not idea what you're talking about here. Again, not about Chemical weapons. This is about Biological weapons. There's a big difference.

I also agree with Nuclear Warfare

Good for you. Remind me not to get involved with your nation in any way, shape or form.

"According to the Commonwealth Encyclopedia, 'invidulated' is not a word."

OOC: Firefox's inline spell-check and Merriam Webster agree.

Oh, and

As I think there shouldn't be a ban on Chemical Weaponary because it acts as a deterant rather than a use of threat. If it was invidulated that only stable countries with safe diplomacy with other Nation's were allowed to be armed with Chemical Weapons.

Neither of these are complete sentences. As you think blah blah blah, what? and If it were nonsensed that blah blah blah, what?

Wolfgang touches a control, and about 20 Guardians appear in the room. The lot of them raise the Karmicarian delegate over their heads, cheering, "Hooray for sanity!"

I take it you've heard.

The resolution Repeal "UN Biological Weapons Ban" was passed 8,877 votes to 2,960.

Everyone who supported the repeal is invited to a party at the Karmicarian Burlesque!

Burlesque party? Oh yeah, baby! Count me in!

We couldn't be happier at our Spankingly Delicious friends' success. If it pleases the Assembly, my security detail would like to commemorate this moment with a sexy dance! Girls?

[A troop of Kennyite commandos marches into the chamber and severally jump up on the tables of various delegations, treating the international community to a display of eroticism unparalleled since CPESL's last visit to the UN.]

Feel free to rip off your clothes and join them, ladies, if the urge overtakes you. You are Karmicarians, after all.

Sammy Faisano
Ambassador to the United Nations

Don't mind if we do, Mr. Faisano! Oh and free drinks for everyone in the Strangers' Bar!

Tana Petrov
stuff.....

Congratulations!

Christelle Zyryanov,
etc...

i comply

i approve this:cool:

i comply
Well, there you have it. The resolution has officially passed, PICKER has announced their compliance.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I take it you've heard.

The resolution Repeal "UN Biological Weapons Ban" was passed 8,877 votes to 2,960.

Everyone who supported the repeal is invited to a party at the Karmicarian Burlesque!

Another victory for DEFCON (http://s15.invisionfree.com/UN_DEFCON)! :cool:

http://pic9.picturetrail.com/VOL291/1756382/3421442/131749899.jpg
We care more about your nation's security than you do.