NationStates Jolt Archive

That's my first draft on this proposal. Every hint and correction is appreciated and taken into consideration. i know I have made mistakes when I didn't consider enough the help it was given me in my past draft proposal, but now I'm eager to confront myself and accept any criticism.


The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weaopns from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Weapons Possession Act.

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

True, but the main point is that non-WA nations can still have nuclear weapons if we ban them. Hence, they need them. Arms keep peace by mutual fear. Would you rather have one nation wipe out all others or for two nations to wipe out each other?

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weaopns from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former; The WA doesn't actually ban killing civilians (yet), and chemical or biological weapons are not banned either. Civilians may still be killed, and I like to think it is not about the quantity of deaths but rather the deaths themselves.

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations; Well I can agree to this one, but the same point applies as at "believing"

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth. Well, you've got me there. However, even if we would ban nuclear weapons non-WA nations would still have plenty of nuclear weapons to wipe us all out.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands'; True, true.

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

A good attempt at a repeal, and I can see it working out, if not for the fact that most people in the WA do indeed like nuclear weapons.

That's my first draft on this proposal. Every hint and correction is appreciated and taken into consideration. i know I have made mistakes when I didn't consider enough the help it was given me in my past draft proposal, but now I'm eager to confront myself and accept any criticism.Oh goody! I love ripping repeal attempts of my resolution to shreds.


The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weaopns from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;Hmm, you mean that dropping large numbers of regular bombs on cities doesn't result in massive civilian casualties?

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;Irrelevant, since my resolution also doesn't prevent someone from coming along and writing a resolution that limits their use.

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';That wasn't included to accommodate the varying tech levels of WA member nations

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;What the fuck does human rights have to do with nuclear weapons?

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Weapons Possession Act.

OH, I guess you weren't going after my resolution after all since my resolution is called the "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

What the fuck does human rights have to do with nuclear weapons?


Now now, let's remain diplomatic, shall we?

OH, I guess you weren't going after my resolution after all since my resolution is called the "Nuclear Arms Possession Act."

Ahah, you are a funny man. I obviously confused myself with my native language.

A good attempt at a repeal, and I can see it working out, if not for the fact that most people in the WA do indeed like nuclear weapons.
thank you; I'll try to build a massive anti-nuclear coalition.

I'll consider your good points and corrections (i'm talking to Desh-Shrik obviously) and post the draft corrected.

Now now, let's remain diplomatic, shall we?

OK, fine, I'll reword it. What the frak does human rights have to do with nuclear weapons?

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

What the frak does human rights have to do with nuclear weapons?
ask the japanese.

Bashing America is a surefire way for your legislative efforts to fail the first day. You might find a more receptive audience in General, though. :rolleyes:

ask the japanese.

OOC: Great, make me go out of character.:rolleyes: You do realize that the Japanese attacked the US first, don't you? You know, Pearl Harbor.

Why has this degenerated in to a discussion of fairytales and myths about the fantastical "Real World" ? Have we not enough problems to deal with in this one ?


Yours,

Minucular Bob will never give up its nuclear weapons program. If anyone repeals weapons manufacturing, we will leave the WA and continue anyway.
The entire point of government is to protect its citizens from outside harm. Limiting my ability to do so, limits my effectiveness as a leader.
We as a nation wish that nuclear weapons or war for that matter never existed but since it does, we must beat the enemy in power so that we are not taken over.

As I do like the thought and the sentiment, I will not abandon my nuclear weapons programs. When you ensure that all non-WA nations, terrorists, etc dont have them then we will gladly fork ours over.

You do realize that the Japanese attacked the US first, don't you?
So Saddam Hussein was authorized to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?

Let's try this:


The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weaopns from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Weapons Possession Act.

Do you mean The Ba'athist Arab Dictatorship of Al-Saddam Hussein (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=al-saddam_hussein), or The Arab Socialist Republic of Saddam Hussein of Iraq (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=saddam_hussein_of_iraq)? Or yet the The Dictatorship of Saddam Ra Sun (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=saddam_ra_sun)?

And when did The Unstoppable Juggernaut of New Old New New York (http://www.nationstates.net/nation=new_old_new_new_york) get nuclear threats?

And for the record, antimatter bombs do not rely on neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion, and are far, FAR more destructive and portable. Wha' 'bout 'em?

Do you mean The Ba'athist Arab Dictatorship of Al-Saddam Hussein, or The Arab Socialist Republic of Saddam Hussein of Iraq? Or yet the The Dictatorship of Saddam Ra Sun?

And when did The Unstoppable Juggernaut of New Old New New York get nuclear threats?

Ok, no more rl reference!!! :eek:

And for the record, antimatter bombs do not rely on neither nuclear fission nor nuclear fusion, and are far, FAR more destructive and portable. Wha' 'bout 'em?
Well, I'm repealing a resolution, I can't write another piece of legislation.

Well if we're on the subject anyway, why not write as part of your repeal that this could be repealed and then a new, more general bill be drafted on "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?

Is it legal?

It is illegal to write new legislation in a repeal, but not illegal to state that you intend to write new legislation.

It might not be illegal but it would be dishonest since no actual replacement is being written.

Repeal the statute if you must ( though we would vote against it ) but do so on the basis of the lack of merit you perceive in it, not on some spurious proposed replacement which you have no intention of writing.

Yours,

So Saddam Hussein was authorized to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?Dude, take it to General. Seriously.

Who says I've no intention of writing?
But I will not write it, because i think a repeal must contain only sentences that support the repeal, and not furthere invisible proposals.

If there are no further objections, I'm going to post it.

Who says I've no intention of writing?
But I will not write it, because i think a repeal must contain only sentences that support the repeal, and not furthere invisible proposals.

But are you telling us that you do intend to write a replacement to the current law if you are successful in repealing it ?



Yours,

In the immediate future no, but I intend to do this because there is a vacuum in our legislation.
Any further objections?

The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weapons from traditional ones is the enormous number of civilians killed by the former;

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existence itself of many WA nations;

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;

SEEKING the opportunity to establish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Weapons Possession Act.

Here is the correction of spelling errors that I found in the draft. Good luck with the repeal.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Thanks for the good luck.
Damn, I posted it too soon!!

OOC: You can try to go to the Moderation forum and ask Mods if they can delete your proposal so you can re-submit it with corrected spelling.

Well, it doesn't matter, after all this is a repeal, not a resolution.
Thanks again.

We absolutely disagree, honoured ambassador. Misspellings in a resolution are unfortunate, but the possibility remains of them being cleaned up along with other infelicities in a repeal. Misspellings in a repeal are on the statue books for all time.

It is like the noble Prince Rhodri said. It is impossible to repeal repeals. When the Assembly approves repeal all its imperfections will stay with the WA for eternity. Because of this some delegations can be even more selective about the repeals than about normal resolutions.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Thanks for the good luck.
Damn, I posted it too soon!!You know, I have a saying, "Writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint." What it means is when writing a resolution, don't be in a rush to submit it. Take the time to get all the wrinkles ironed out, spelling and grammatical errors corrected, illegalities resolved, etc. In fact, your failing to do that is what got your National Healthcare proposal deleted.

Well, it doesn't matter, after all this is a repeal, not a resolution.
Thanks again.

You can not be more wrong, it is a resolution, a resolution to repeal a resolution, but a resolution nonetheless. And as has already been pointed out, you can't repeal a repeal so any typos in a repeal can't be eliminated.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

You know, I have a saying, "Writing a resolution is a marathon, not a sprint." What it means is when writing a resolution, don't be in a rush to submit it. Take the time to get all the wrinkles ironed out, spelling and grammatical errors corrected, illegalities resolved, etc. In fact, your failing to do that is what got your National Healthcare proposal deleted.


Yes i know, I'll try to do this from now on.
i'm redrafting the Healthcare proposal at the moment.

Yes i know, I'll try to do this from now on.
i'm redrafting the Healthcare proposal at the moment.

May we respectfully suggest you focus on one proposal at a time? You'll probably get better results that way.

Yes, but that is one resolution at a time. I've already posted the repeal.

20 more approvals and it's a resolution!

20 more approvals and it's a resolution!

You mean, 20 more approvals and an affirmative vote of 50% + 1 of the entire voting WA membership, right?

Not that's impossible, but hold your horses.

Quite, you aren't out of the woods yet my friend.

WYMP

I know i know, I just meant it becomes a resolution to be voted by all WA members. The road is long, but I'm on the right path...

The Serbian Soviet Union Delegation strongly disagrees with this repeal as possessing nuclear arms is the right of everysingle sovereign nation and the rights to each WA members in possessing nuclear arms if wishes to in terms of defense, retiliation purposes, research and in trade. However i strongly agree that those nations possessing nuclear arms must at all times under all circiumstances safe guard their nuclear stockpiles and make sure that these nuclear weapons do not get into the wrong hands of rogue nations and terrorist/criminal organisations.

Therefore if such a repeal is put into voting, FSSU will strongly vote against the proposal. My nation has sent all of it's nuclear stockpiles to be dismantled and converted into civilian use and energy which we already got back and now using them for energy.

The Serbian Soviet Union Delegation strongly disagrees with this repeal as possessing nuclear arms is the right of everysingle sovereign nation and the rights to each WA members in possessing nuclear arms if wishes to in terms of defense, retiliation purposes, research and in trade. However i strongly agree that those nations possessing nuclear arms must at all times under all circiumstances safe guard their nuclear stockpiles and make sure that these nuclear weapons do not get into the wrong hands of rogue nations and terrorist/criminal organisations.

This resolution doesn't ban nuclear weapons, it just delets a resolution which is in my opinion written badly and because it doesn't put any limits and control in the use of nuclear weapons.
Then we cand discuss together on a better and more pratical resolution.

STILL LACKING 8 VOTES: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_proposal

This resolution doesn't ban nuclear weapons, it just delets a resolution which is in my opinion written badly and because it doesn't put any limits and control in the use of nuclear weapons.


So write a resolution that does put limits and controls on the use of nuclear weapons, my resolution doesn't stop you from doing that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Your resolution just liberalize the contruction of nuclear weapons, and I can't accept that.

I had considered bringing back the old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, but since we now have someone actively campaigning to remove the right of WA nations to possess nuclear weapons I will not be doing that.

No support for this absurd repeal, by the way.

Aüþgæþ Spøtyiú
Ambassador

Where can I find that act?

ooc: like i said IC you guys are off to ban war alltogather arnt you:)

So does the honoured Ambassador want to ban member states from using Thermonuclear and other Nuclear weapons altogether ? Is this the motivation behind this repeal ?


Yours,

i just want to repeal this resolution because i think it is written badly and block us from writing a better resolution. After the repeal, I'll be ready to openly discuss a comprehensive national Security resolution.

P.S. LAST MINUTES AVAILABLE AND STILL LACKING 2 APPROVALS!! IT CAN'T END LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, will this resolution (if voted for by the World Assembly and enabled) restrict Nuclear Weapons or will it just decatergorize? Because according to Resolution 10, the one this proposal wishes to repeal, Nuclear weopons are used for defence. But my quetion already has an answer.
"SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons"

What do we do until another resolution, as said above, comes into effect that concerns nuclear weapons?

Repealing the Nuclear Proliferation Act will be met with opposition, the only nations who are willing to repeal the act and set heavy limits with ridiculous proposals only benefit the very large nations and it gives them the adventage to control states which are smaller then 1 billion in population from possessing nuclear arms for defensive purposes and research. It will not be accepted by the Federation of Serbian Soviet Union as it goes strongly against sovereign nations wishing to possess arms or already is possessing nuclear arms.

PS, good riddance that the proposal was not put through the vote due to lacking in support. Therefore the Nuclear Proliferation Act will stay intact and all nations members of the WA should respect the resolution. This repeal is as bad as The Arnhem Federation's resolution on the Non-Proliferation Act, infact even worser.

i just want to repeal this resolution because i think it is written badly and block us from writing a better resolution.How many times do I have to say it before it gets through that thick head of yours? The only thing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act blocks, is an outright ban on nuclear weapons. You want to limit how powerful they can be, go for it. Limit a nation to having no more than one at a time, fine. Hell, you can completely ban their use without repealing the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

So, will this resolution (if voted for by the World Assembly and enabled) restrict Nuclear Weapons or will it just decatergorize?The only effect that repealing my resolution will have, is nations will no longer be required to keep their nuclear weapons secure. Which, let's face it, is not exactly a key selling point in favor of the repeal. What do we do until another resolution, as said above, comes into effect that concerns nuclear weapons?Pray some terrorist nutjob doesn't take advantage of the lax security that some nations will probably end up having, get their hands on a nuclear device and detonate it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well it hasnt made it thru the floor vote yet. We will not be supporting the repeal.

There is no point telling that person anything because your just going to be wasting your time talking to a brick wall, what he wants to do is create a new resolution a Non-Nuclear Proliferation Resolution ban on all nuclear weapons and dismantle all and dispose all nuclear weapons, that is the persons aim on creating the resolution once and if he got this repeal to have the adequate approvals to be put to vote.

The voting ended yesterday and the resolution required 52, and only 50 voted for the approval of the resolution and voting ended yesterday with only 50 votes, why is there 55 votes now and the resolution is put to the quer???

The voting ended yesterday and the resolution required 52, and only 50 voted for the approval of the resolution and voting ended yesterday with only 50 votes, why is there 55 votes now and the resolution is put to the quer???

Well, the fact is that it did reach 52 before the midnight of GMT -3. Even if it didn't, numbers are updated (and the Delegate approval window closed) at around 06:00am (GMT -3) of the next day. In fact, it is (as of now) still open for more delegate approvals.

It didnt reach 52 before the midnight as i was online at the time i checked and it was only 50 approvals, lacking 2 approvals and today i checked it was still 50, and then few hours later i am checking it again and there is 55 votes and the resolutions are still open for more approvals even if it said that the voting is closed, why can people still vote even if the voting is closed and the repeal of the Nuclear Arms Possession Act didn't get enough approval on time? Why is it still going through?

What's your time zone? (OOC: don't say it.) Maybe the "midnights" are different between yours and GMT -3. And I am checking it this very moment, it is still open for approval (05:21am GMT -3 now). Go check.

GMT+10:00 (Canberra, Sydney, Melbourne)

ahah. Someone doesn't like the fact that i won the first half of the match in the last seconds? :D

So Saddam Hussein was authorized to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?
saddam hussein never attacked new york osama bin laden did

ahah. Someone doesn't like the fact that i won the first half of the match in the last seconds? :D

Either way if the resolution is repealed or not, it is still too earlie to tell, but even if a resolution banning all nuclear weapons is proposed and put to vote, alot of nations who has a giant private sector of uranium minning will leave the WA as the nations do intend to keep all of their nuclear stockpiles and produce more nuclear weapons so either way the WA holds no jurisdiction over nations who wish to possess nuclear weapons and those that don't.

Therefore you haven't won anything.

saddam hussein never attacked new york osama bin laden did
we said no more rl references; if you want to discuss it, and I can smash you on this argument you can bet, go to General.

alot of nations who has a giant private sector of uranium minning will leave the WA
that's the first positive effect of my resolution...

that's the first positive effect of my resolution...

Why?

if we don't have nuclear weapons what am i supposed to do with all the money i just through away on nuclear weapons to take over other nations? that is a waste of money to everyone who spent money on them!

There is nothing wrong with the original resolution, so I firmly voted against this repeal.

All WA member states should vote against the repeal as it will in danger the national security of all member states that possess nuclear weapons and those that have safeguarded their nuclear stockpiles.

All WA member states should vote against the repeal as it will in danger the national security of all member states that possess nuclear weapons and those that have safeguarded their nuclear stockpiles.
I don't see how it endanger the national security of WA nations.
It doesn't ban Nuclear Wapons, it just delets a resolution that liberalize everything, blocking us from freely discuss a better resolution.

We are disgusted by this reckless and ill conceived repeal. No argument is made within this repeal which is compelling or coherent enough to justify the removal of the NAPa from the laws of this organisation.

The intent is made clear in some of the honoured Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck's comments earlier in this debate, they oppose member states of this organisation possessing the vital necessity of a nuclear deterrent, and they exult in the prospect of thousands of states leaving the w.a. because they must protect themselves and their national economies from the prospect of grossly irresponsible w.a. legislation.

This repeal ranks among the worst pieces of legislation put to this organisation in some time, it is as, if not more, foolish then the Veterans Reform act and is radically more dangerous.


Yours,

ah ah ah.
it's a democracy, babe.
if wa peoples want it, will it be.

ah ah ah.
it's a democracy, babe.
if wa peoples want it, will it be.


Is this random collection of phrases supposed to be a response ? Who is this "babe" ? Is the honoured Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck referring to our Ambassador, Mongkha, Khan of Kashgar ?

The W.A. has already made its democratic will known by having assented to the NAPa , this is an exercise in vanity, the honoured Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck simply wishes to have this organisation congratulate them for their preposterous and dangerous ideas.

We are appalled.

it's a quote by the way.

it's a quote by the way.

A quote ? Of whom ?


Yours,

I don't know whom, it's just common to say 'It's ..., baby.' to say that it's sometihng you can't change and you have to face.

p.s. look at the votes; the WA doesn't seem to think this resolution is stupid.

Yeah, they didn't think Max Barry Day was stupid, either, but there you have it (www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=Max_Barry_Day).

I don't know whom, it's just common to say 'It's ..., baby.' to say that it's sometihng you can't change and you have to face.

p.s. look at the votes; the WA doesn't seem to think this resolution is stupid.

It may be "common" to use this phraseology in Kohlhassenbruck, but we assure you we take a dime view of being referred to as an infant, when despite our differences we always offer the honoured Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck at least the minimum of respect due to someone in their position.

Thousands have yet to vote honoured Ambassador, and we have seen numerous votes swing back and forth. delegates have not yet voted in significant numbers and we imagine most of those will oppose this repeal.


Yours,

This is a disgrace, again. If repealed I urge Flibbleites to resubmit it without adjustments. Something as crazy as this is what brought down Coordinating Relief Aid and I vote against.

This resolution could have been written better, but as it stands it should contribute to the peace of the world, and it has our support.

Aside from the amateurish spelling and grammar foibles evident in the text, the content of the resolution itself reveals an author dangerously out of his element, seemingly not even aware that nuclear arsenals are constructed for deterrent purposes, not offensive attack. Add to that his willful ignorance that concerns over non-proliferation and the actual use of nuclear weapons could easily be sorted by future legislation. To compensate for his obvious negligence of knowledge on the subject matter, however, the author has resorted to cheap scaremongering on the effects of nuclear weaponry as the bulk of his argument. It would be hilarious if so many of our colleagues weren't buying into this crap.

The Federal Republic is opposed to this repeal, and will lobby for an immediate replacement should it pass.

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

OOC: Kohlhaasenbruck, now when your repeal is at vote I recommend you to edit your first post so it will include both the text of your repeal in its recent state and the text of the resolution that you are trying to repeal. This can be very helpful for people who will join our discussion only from now on.

The only effect that repealing my resolution will have, is nations will no longer be required to keep their nuclear weapons secure. Which, let's face it, is not exactly a key selling point in favor of the repeal.


Pray some terrorist nutjob doesn't take advantage of the lax security that some nations will probably end up having, get their hands on a nuclear device and detonate it.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

But WA Representative Flibble, WA Resolution #10 “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” does not disallow national governments to sell or give away nuclear weapons to ‘some terrorist nutjob’. Here is the only section of the Resolution #10 that has something to do with the security of nuclear arsenals:

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Resolution does not define “wrong hands”, so national governments can define them in any way they want. Where it is written that ‘some terrorist nutjob’ has ‘the wrong hands’?

“Nuclear Arms Possession Act” is definitely very dangerous and disgraceful resolution and must repealed!

Citenkanian SSR is vote for the repeal at vote and urges all other nations to do the same!

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

But WA Representative Flibble, WA Resolution #10 “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” does not disallow national governments to sell or give away nuclear weapons to ‘some terrorist nutjob’. Here is the only section of the Resolution #10 that has something to do with the security of nuclear arsenals:



Resolution does not define “wrong hands”, so national governments can define them in any way they want. Where it is written that ‘some terrorist nutjob’ has ‘the wrong hands’?

“Nuclear Arms Possession Act” is definitely very dangerous and disgraceful resolution and must repealed!

Citenkanian SSR is vote for the repeal at vote and urges all other nations to do the same!

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador




All of this is nonsense. The NAPa did not prevent further legislation to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear arms or material in to dangerous hands.

If that is what motivated this repeal then a non-proliferation act could have been drafted which respected the rights of member states to have a nuclear deterrent and prevented dangerous dissemination of nuclear weaponry to those who would misuse them.

All this repeal does is open the way for attempts at the banning of nuclear arms possession within the w.a. and de-regulates the nuclear arms industry in the process, making the w.a. a dramatically more unstable organisation, vulnerable to all kinds of threats, in the process.


Yours

I voted against the repealing of Nuclear Arms Possession Act !
If member states vote for repealing of this Act, The United States of Selkaria will resign from the WA.
And we will continue to develop our nuclear program, because we need to protect ourselves against hostile nations.

I will vote against this repeal.
Not only is it a threat to many nations' independence, it is a threat to the WA itself. I have recently done a little "survey" (those who I telegrammed know what I am talking about) and so far I know at least 13 nations that will resign from the WA if this is passed, including me. Some of these members are experienced, long time members, and others have been here a few months, such as I.
I urge all WA nations to vote against this repeal, and hurry, for right now there are more votes for it.

The sound of loud footsteps running up to the doors of the assmebly echoed through the halls. Louder and louder they grew, until at their fever pitch the doors to the chamber swung open so violently, that they knocked down several of the delegations sitting in the isle beside them as they fell from their hinges. The figure in the doorway, stood still for a moment, then began to walk with a purpose to the center of the room.

What in the hell is wrong with you people? This shouldn't even be an issue. We know why this was passed in the first place, and it's removal will be an untimely mistake. Why the devil would you want to remove this and pave the way for an outright ban of armaments leaving member nations vulnerable to non member attacks?

All of this is nonsense. The NAPa did not prevent further legislation to prohibit the proliferation of nuclear arms or material in to dangerous hands.

If that is what motivated this repeal then a non-proliferation act could have been drafted which respected the rights of member states to have a nuclear deterrent and prevented dangerous dissemination of nuclear weaponry to those who would misuse them.

Well, you are probably right about open dissemination of nuclear weaponry, khan Mongkha. But in any case it is definitely block any future attempts to legislate on WA level more strict security measures, so national governments can just ‘close its eyes’ on stealing of parts of its nuclear arsenal by ‘some terrorist nutjob’.

All this repeal does is open the way for attempts at the banning of nuclear arms possession within the w.a. and de-regulates the nuclear arms industry in the process, making the w.a. a dramatically more unstable organisation, vulnerable to all kinds of threats, in the process.

It is impossible to ban the nuclear weapons if the majority in WA will vote against such resolution, so I do not see any serious reasons for concern. And your second point is not true at all. Resolution #10 does not regulate the nuclear arms industry so repeal cannot de-regulate it.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

A lanky individual dressed in tattered and oil-stained blue jeans, a wife beater t-shirt, and a crumpled up hat approaches the podium. He is carrying a bottle of Jim Beam whiskey, which he takes a swig of, then wipes his mouth. He slowly leans forward and drawls into the microphone...

Mornin'. I'm Chairman Hank, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Worker's Paradise of Soviet Arkansas. It ain't often that a head o state sich as myself addresses this here organ-i-zation. But I'm here on important WA business an' figured I might as well put in my two cents worth on behalf of the workers, soldiers, peasants and cadres of Soviet Arkansas.

You fellers have done lost yore minds if you thank we're a gonna support this here repeal. Mister Flibble's fine resalushin on nukular arms don't need repealin'. All of them high-falutin' things you're a wantin' to do could be done without repealin' this.

Look here.

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;
We been survivin' this long with 'em. I don't see why that oughta change. You do know that them folks that ain't in the WA is gonna keep their nukular weapons, don't ya boy? Reckon how long we'll survive when they're the only ones that has 'em? An what about them non-human nations we heard tell of? Ain't them non-human fellers survival important?

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weapons from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;
You kin kill an e-normous amount of folks with conventional bombs. You can kill 'em with poison gas an' germs.

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;
So pass a resolution puttin' limits on how they can be used. Ain't no need to repeal thissun.

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.
Now this here is startin' to sound like an argument from a nukular disarmament proposal. Is that what yore real agenda is? To disarm us?

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';
Are you simple minded? Why do you fellers need guidance from the WA to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands'?

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;
So we should set an example by disarmin', then fight 'em? You really are simple minded ain't ya? My maw always taught me to have pity fer them that ain't right in the head, but maw wouldn't of let the town idiot take away her shootin' irons claimin' it was fer her own good either.

FURTHER OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution is only a liberalization of Nuclear Weapons' use without setting any kind of rules or limitations who can garantee the security of our people;
I like the way you spelled garantee there. At you seem to of had some schoolin' at some point. But aside from that, this ain't a reason to be repealin' Mister Flibble's resolution. You kin write a resolution settin' all kinds of rules and limitations...unless yore real goal is to outlaw nukular weapons.

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;
And I'm a guessin' this "better resolution" will involve the outlawin' of nukular weapons. Am I right?

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.
Not if I got anything to do with it.

Chairman Hank
Revolushionary

Takes off one of his worn out cowboy boots and bangs it on the podium for emphasis.

But WA Representative Flibble, WA Resolution #10 “Nuclear Arms Possession Act” does not disallow national governments to sell or give away nuclear weapons to ‘some terrorist nutjob’. Here is the only section of the Resolution #10 that has something to do with the security of nuclear arsenals:

Do you see what its title says? It says "possession", its only premise is to grant the right to own nuclear weapons to member nations. It can't regulate them, because it would be too fuddled, but it is worded in such a way that it doesn't block another resolution from coming to vote that can limit this end.



Resolution does not define “wrong hands”, so national governments can define them in any way they want. Where it is written that ‘some terrorist nutjob’ has ‘the wrong hands’?

It doesn't need to, that why we have a Counterterrorism Act (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Counterterrorism_Act). If you people would actually look through the old resolutions, you would see that measures have already been taken to prevent these weapons from falling into the "wrong hands." The reason this proposal did not define that at the time is because that's not what its purpose was. The WACA tied up this loose end. So in effect all of your arguments to the contrary are gibberish.

“Nuclear Arms Possession Act” is definitely very dangerous and disgraceful resolution and must repealed!

Citenkanian SSR is vote for the repeal at vote and urges all other nations to do the same!

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

How is NAPA "..very dangerous and disgraceful.."? You're using a strawman hoping that others will listen to you and see you as the authority on the matter. All I hear is bullshit.

Well, you are probably right about open dissemination of nuclear weaponry, khan Mongkha. But in any case it is definitely block any future attempts to legislate on WA level more strict security measures, so national governments can just ‘close its eyes’ on stealing of parts of its nuclear arsenal by ‘some terrorist nutjob’.

No part of the NAPa would have prevented further regulation of security measures relating to Nuclear weapons. Where within the body of the NAPa can you point to any clauses which would do so ?



And your second point is not true at all. Resolution #10 does not regulate the nuclear arms industry so repeal cannot de-regulate it.



Honoured Ambassador Cabaladze, a regulation currently exists bringing nuclear arms possession in to legality, it creates a legal framework in to which further regulations could have been built. If this regulation is repealed then no legal framework regarding Nuclear weapons will exist at all. Essentially nuclear arms will fall in to a total legal black hole in which anything will surely go.


Yours,

I voted against the repeal. If we had a stronger security resolution, or I knew a stronger security resolution would come immediately after, I would vote for the repeal. For now, however, the resolution in place is the best way to ensure the safety of WA nations.

I voted for the Resolution
My reason is because Nuclear Weapons shouldnt be used as a defence. I still believe that Nuclear Weapons should be able to be built, but have atleast some regulation on them. Resolution 10 clearly doesn not regulate,in any form, the amount at which Nuclear Weapons are created. True, these weapons can cause much suffering and future resolutions could restrict them. But after you restrict Nuclear Weaponry, who will stop the WA from restricting the domestic and scientific use of Nuclear energy? I truly hope that a future resolution will make some law concerning Nuclear Capabilities.

I think the same way. But the resolution at vote hints to another resolution that could be passed shortly after this one.

Resolution does not define “wrong hands”, so national governments can define them in any way they want. Where it is written that ‘some terrorist nutjob’ has ‘the wrong hands’?

“Nuclear Arms Possession Act” is definitely very dangerous and disgraceful resolution and must repealed!

Citenkanian SSR is vote for the repeal at vote and urges all other nations to do the same!


I absolutely quote Citenka.
For all of you who say that if this repeal gets approved, they won't be able to have nuclear weapons: THAT IS NOT TRUE, because a repeal can't introduce another piece of legislations, it just deletes resolution which liberalize everything without saying anything at all.
After that ridiculous resolution gets deleted, we can discuss on a better one, without being limited by the NAPa.

And the NAPa doesn't say that the nuclear weapons can ONLY be used for defense, authorizing nuclear attack without any kind of control.

HERE IS THE NPAa AND THE REPEAL:

Description: REALIZING that WA members are outnumbered by non members by about 3 to 1,

ACKNOWLEDGING the fact that only WA members are required to comply with WA resolutions,

NOTICING the fact that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members,

REALIZING that the WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked,

1. DECLARES that WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons to defend themselves from hostile nations,

2. PRESERVES the right for individual nations to decide if they want to possess nuclear weapons,

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

####################################################

Argument: The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weapons from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;

FURTHER OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution is only a liberalization of Nuclear Weapons' use without setting any kind of rules or limitations who can garantee the security of our people;

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Please let me defend my people. I am not an agressor, I'm a defender of my people at all costs. I want nuclear weapons so that another country wouldn't be dumb enough to risk nuclear war.
BTW in this world how was nuclear weapons founded? Have we seen weapons dropped or any evidence of its use?

My resolution DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Is that clear or not???

For all of you who say that if this repeal gets approved, they won't be able to have nuclear weapons: THAT IS NOT TRUE, because a repeal can't introduce another piece of legislations, it just deletes resolution which liberalize everything without saying anything at all.
After that ridiculous resolution gets deleted, we can discuss on a better one, without being limited by the NAPa.

And the NAPa doesn't say that the nuclear weapons can ONLY be used for defense, authorizing nuclear attack without any kind of control.


Who said the NAPa required that nuclear weapons could only be used in defense ? Who said that this repeal was banning nuclear weapons ?


Becoming hysterical is not helping your case honoured Ambassador.


In what respect does the NAPa "liberalise" anything ? Gratuitously throwing accusations at the NAPa is pointless and not reasonable. If your delegation wants more regulation of Nuclear weapons it could have introduced a statute to do so without removing the membership's legal ability to retain such weapons.

This is a form of legal vandalism which will only cause more chaos and will significantly damage the unity of this organisation.

We have repeatedly asked the respected Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck to address certain specific concerns regarding their repeal and they have consistently ignored us. Are we then to believe that the only reason for this repeal is that the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck simply dislikes the NAPa ?


Yours,

It doesn't need to, that why we have a Counterterrorism Act (http://www.nswiki.net/index.php?title=WA_Counterterrorism_Act). If you people would actually look through the old resolutions, you would see that measures have already been taken to prevent these weapons from falling into the "wrong hands." The reason this proposal did not define that at the time is because that's not what its purpose was. The WACA tied up this loose end. So in effect all of your arguments to the contrary are gibberish.

Hmm, you are right that Resolution #25 “WA Counterterrorism Act” disallow any support to the terrorists. This probably means that national governments cannot ‘close its eyes’ on stealing their weapons by ‘some terrorist nutjob’.

But there exists one little problem. By the definition provided by the Resolution #25 any violence which is not used ‘for the propose of creating fear or terror’ is not terrorism. So national governments can ‘close its eyes’ on stealing their weapons by ‘some not terrorist nutjob’ who can use nuclear weapons for some pure destruction, but as long as this is not done ‘for the propose of creating fear or terror’ he is not committing terrorist acts.


No part of the NAPa would have prevented further regulation of security measures relating to Nuclear weapons. Where within the body of the NAPa can you point to any clauses which would do so ?

Clause 3 of the Resolution #10 is already ‘REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands’. I think that any future regulations will to some extent duplicate this clause, and duplication is illegal.

Honoured Ambassador Cabaladze, a regulation currently exists bringing nuclear arms possession in to legality, it creates a legal framework in to which further regulations could have been built. If this regulation is repealed then no legal framework regarding Nuclear weapons will exist at all. Essentially nuclear arms will fall in to a total legal black hole in which anything will surely go.

I am probably misunderstood you, honorable khan Mongkha. I thought you are talked about regulating nuclear arms industry, not about regulating nuclear arms itself. But in any case Resolution #10 is not do much to regulate nuclear arms.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Who said that this repeal was banning nuclear weapons ?


ahah:
Please let me defend my people. I am not an agressor, I'm a defender of my people at all costs. I want nuclear weapons so that another country wouldn't be dumb enough to risk nuclear war.

outright ban of armaments leaving member nations vulnerable to non member attacks?

And we will continue to develop our nuclear program, because we need to protect ourselves against hostile nations.

et cetera.

Clause 3 of the Resolution #10 is already ‘REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands’. I think that any future regulations will to some extent duplicate this clause, and duplication is illegal.
Exactly what I wanted to say. Fortunately Citenka speak a better english than mine so that you all can understand our point

ahah:






et cetera.



All of these quotes express the fear that without a legal ability to possess Nuclear arms another statute may be brought to vote which would ban such weapons, they do not suggest that your repeal bans nuclear weapons, the difference is profound, misquoting these comment suggests that the honoured Ambassador for Kolhhassenbruck did not understand the comments in question or is deliberately pretending that they mean things which they do not..


Yours,

Maybe you misunderstood them.
But the point is that you shouldn't vote against a repeal beacuse you fear that another resolution wil get passed. If you believe that a resolution need to be repealed, you should have the moral dignity to repeal it, and then vote against another resolution you disagree with.
In fact, I don't want the complete ban of nuclear Weapons, also because I fear it will not pass, but I surely want STRICTER RULES that limits their use, and with this resolution valid, I can't do it.

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

Alright my lad, let's look at this right here. This single phrase at the very beginning of your repeal infers that are leaning towards an outright ban of weapons since they "..are incompatible with human survival." What exactly does that mean, they're inferior? No, it means in order for humans to survive, nucleaar weapons can't. Is this not what you mean? Do you see why people are misconceving you?

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weapons from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;

This isn't entirely true, the Empire of Zarquon Froods, has several weapons in its arsenal that are just as deadly as nukes, without being nukes themselves.

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;

Really, is this your best argument? The purpose of not putting limits in is so sovereignty can be maintained. When the WA starts regulating how and when weapons may be used, that is an extreme breech of national integrity. It's like saying, "You may only use nuclear weapons if Nation A has killed X number of citizens in Nation B." Do you see how cumbersom that becomes? The individual nations should be competant enough to determine when these weapons are necessary. Remember, there are non member nations who don't exercise such cautions and will fire at will.

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

Again, this is more wording that leads many to believe this is an outright ban of nukes. And where is this "Earth" you speak of?

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

Because that wasn't its original intent. It only provided the means for nations to construct the weapons. As I meantioned earlier, there is a WA Resolution which covers these weapons from falling into the "wrong hands." Which you have obviously failed to read before drafting this.

2) BANS WA member states from providing funding, weapons, or any other form of assistance to any party committing terrorist acts against another nation, or from using other WA states or non-member states as a third party to conduct terrorist acts against another nation.

See there, it's covered.

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;

Ambassador, I'm pretty sure nations are already doing this.

FURTHER OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution is only a liberalization of Nuclear Weapons' use without setting any kind of rules or limitations who can garantee the security of our people;

This is just nonsense, you've yet to provide any evidence to this extent.

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

You say you want a new resolution, yet I see none in sight. Am I led to believe you put this in so you may falsely acquire votes? If you are to put a clause such as this in a repeal, I would suggest you have a written replacement on standby. As you have not done so, I take it that you have no intention of doing so.

But there exists one little problem. By the definition provided by the Resolution #25 any violence which is not used ‘for the propose of creating fear or terror’ is not terrorism. So national governments can ‘close its eyes’ on stealing their weapons by ‘some not terrorist nutjob’ who can use nuclear weapons for some pure destruction, but as long as this is not done ‘for the propose of creating fear or terror’ he is not committing terrorist acts.

This is true, and I'm sure that issue was brought up during the WACA, but it is very hard to regulate crime on a level like that. Therefore, we must assume the national governments are capable of detecting such threats. There will be some who willingly allow it to happen, but there is nothing you can do about it other than drafting some exhaustedly complicated resolution.

I am probably misunderstood you, honorable khan Mongkha. I thought you are talked about regulating nuclear arms industry, not about regulating nuclear arms itself. But in any case Resolution #10 is not do much to regulate nuclear arms.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

You are not confused Honoured Ambassador. Without a regulatory framework for the possession and use of Nuclear weapons ( making them legal or illegal ) their would be little or no point in regulating the Nuclear arms industry.

The whole point is that further regulations could have been introduced on possession and use of Nuclear weapons without needing to repeal the NAPa. Indeed without legalising their possession and use, their can be no further regulation of their possession and use.


This repeal is utterly utterly foolish and will cause havoc, the workings of this organisation will be paralysed for weeks perhaps months while we endeavour to remedy the situation, if this repeal passes. In the interim a large number of nations will resign and a general air of security chaos will prevail.


Yours,

I think the obvious answer to this is pretty simple. In looking to our own world as an example, we can see obvious consequences to allowing nuclear arms to be possessed. The main foreseeable issue being if a nation with no reservations about using arms to terrorize other nations gets a hold on some arms, the danger to other nations would be extreme. This goes back to the idea of preventing something before it happens instead of dealing with something WHEN it happens. We as a World Assembly have to realize that all it takes is for one nation to abuse their power they are granted before others will follow suit. Yes, this is a virtual game where others cant attack you anyways, but that does not make it right to ignore common sense in light of what is more "fun". We are in potential positions of leadership in this world and we need to step up to the plate and make the decisions that will lead to less conflict, not more.

Can someone tell me why we are repaeling this Nuclear Arms Possession Act? What is the point? This is a waste of a repeal! The Act states that nations can possess nuclear arms. It does not state that nations must possess nuclear arms. So what is the repeal for? Why not add another bit of legislation to tighten the rules on it a little instead of trying to repeal it? Why is it that everyone that absolutely has to write a piece of legislation they always move for the extreme instead of trying a compromise or even adding to something? Every nation that writes a piece of legislation should try fixing something before making an absolute. As I stated earlier, this is a waste of time. Maybe I should write a piece of legislation that prohibits authors of legislation taking items to the extremes. The author and its respectable nation of this repeal is hereby no longer recognized by the nation of Kayoria. Kayoria is voting NO!

Can someone tell me why we are repaeling this Nuclear Arms Possession Act? What is the point? This is a waste of a repeal! The Act states that nations can possess nuclear arms. It does not state that nations must possess nuclear arms. So what is the repeal for? Why not add another bit of legislation to tighten the rules on it a little instead of trying to repeal it? Why is it that everyone that absolutely has to write a piece of legislation they always move for the extreme instead of trying a compromise or even adding to something? Every nation that writes a piece of legislation should try fixing something before making an absolute. As I stated earlier, this is a waste of time. Maybe I should write a piece of legislation that prohibits authors of legislation taking items to the extremes. The author and its respectable nation of this repeal is hereby no longer recognized by the nation of Kayoria. Kayoria is voting NO!

Well said! I just hope enough WA members will use their common sense, if it exists, and shoot down the repeal.

This is true, and I'm sure that issue was brought up during the WACA, but it is very hard to regulate crime on a level like that. Therefore, we must assume the national governments are capable of detecting such threats. There will be some who willingly allow it to happen, but there is nothing you can do about it other than drafting some exhaustedly complicated resolution.

Considering the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons and horrible consequences of nuclear fallout it is absolutely necessary to not allow some random nutjobs to possess nuclear weapons.

You are not confused Honoured Ambassador. Without a regulatory framework for the possession and use of Nuclear weapons ( making them legal or illegal ) their would be little or no point in regulating the Nuclear arms industry.

Noble khan, I fear that I cannot agree with you here. Regulating possession of the nuclear arms is not necessary for the regulation of production of nuclear arms. Nuclear arms industry is not affected by the Resolution #10.

This repeal is utterly utterly foolish and will cause havoc, the workings of this organisation will be paralysed for weeks perhaps months while we endeavour to remedy the situation, if this repeal passes. In the interim a large number of nations will resign and a general air of security chaos will prevail.

Resolution #10 does not do anything positive for the security, so repealing it will not cause havoc. But like I said before it blocks future attempts to improve nuclear security, so it must be repealed.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

I should quote everything Citenka said!

Noble khan, I fear that I cannot agree with you here. Regulating possession of the nuclear arms is not necessary for the regulation of production of nuclear arms. Nuclear arms industry is not affected by the Resolution #10.

So you would recommend regulating the Nuclear arms industry without regulating the use and possession of Nuclear weapons ?



Resolution #10 does not do anything positive for the security, so repealing it will not cause havoc. But like I said before it blocks future attempts to improve nuclear security, so it must be repealed.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

So your delegation has a detailed and coherent replacement to the NAPa which you have kept in readiness for just this situation and which you will produce on the instant the NAPa is repealed does it ? And your delegation has in its infinite subtlety of perspicacity preempted every possible concern which the membership of this organisation may have surrounding this subject and accounted for them, and this resolution is so cleverly written that it will insure the security of w.a. member states while balancing moral and ethical issues e.t.c.

Has your delegation also set aside the time to campaign for this miraculous statute and to argue for it in debate e.t.c. ?


Yours,

So your delegation has a detailed and coherent replacement to the NAPa which you have kept in readiness for just this situation and which you will produce on the instant the NAPa is repealed does it ? And your delegation has in its infinite subtlety of perspicacity preempted every possible concern which the membership of this organisation may have surrounding this subject and accounted for them, and this resolution is so cleverly written that it will insure the security of w.a. member states while balancing moral and ethical issues e.t.c.

Even if we don't approve immediately another resolution involving this matter, can you say me what would appear chaos because of the repeal?

Even if we don't approve immediately another resolution involving this matter, can you say me what would appear chaos because of the repeal?



The work of producing a resolution alone creates a chaos which was ended by the NAPa, without the NAPa the w.a. has no clear policy on the possession of Nuclear weapons or their legality, all the competing and clashing agenda which fight over this issue will be unleashed once again to further elaborate the complexity of the issue. Let us say this repeal is successful, we are sure that it will be a matter of days before statutes banning Nuclear weapons begin to appear in the queue, what if one of these achieves quorum ? This organisation will have to go through the scarring and divisive dispute regarding such ban. If that ban passed numerous states, including ours, would leave the w.a., indeed the exodus would be catastrophic.


And who is to write the replacement for the NAPa, your delegation honoured Ambassador ? We have no confidence that your delegation is experienced enough or even capable enough to write such a thing.

So some other delegation will have to write this replacement, they will have to work, possibly for months and possibly incurring the enmity of other delegations in the process simply to clean up the mess your delegation would have made.


This is chaos.


Yours,

If that ban passed numerous states, including ours, would leave the w.a., indeed the exodus would be catastrophic.

That's your problem.

And if writing a resolution is chaos for you, then you should change game.

That's your problem.

And if writing a resolution is chaos for you, then you should change game.



O.O.C. Are you serious ? I'm speaking to you out of character now because you seem to have a really serious attitude problem and I think you need to be told about it.

There are players here who have offered you genuine good advice and whether or not its because you have a problem with English you've done nothing but ignore them and in some cases insulted them.

Mongkha, Urgench's ambassador, has rightly pointed out to you that this isn't the Kohlhassenbruck club where everyone must put up with your unpleasant attitude towards their points of view or get lost.

The reason another player wrote the NAPa is because the issue is so divisive and causes so much dispute that it needed to be muted instead of causing so much enmity that this part of the game wouldn't function any more.


So before you tell me that Urgench being forced to leave the w.a. is my problem and basically telling me to f*** off and telling me what game I should be playing why don't you take a minute and think about what your doing and saying and maybe, just maybe for one second remember that you could be wrong and other players who've been around for a long time ( most a lot longer than me ) might be talking sense.

Is that possible ?

Considering the sheer destructive power of nuclear weapons and horrible consequences of nuclear fallout it is absolutely necessary to not allow some random nutjobs to possess nuclear weapons.

This is true, but doing something on the international level will do nothing short of opening a can of worms. I have seen proposals that have tried to do that very thing, and all have met with stiff opposition. The fact of the matter is, we can only regulate to an extent before we start stepping on toes across the board. I think the WACA does a sufficient job of regulating the manner in which these arms deals are carried out by terrorists and the like. We must assume that nations will do everything within their power to see that these weapons do not fall into the hands of those that would seek inflicting great harm.

To the author, while I am not an advocate for keeping a bad proposal on the books for the sake of having it there, I will say that the Urgench Ambassador has a point, NAPA is in effect a blocker that would keep an outright ban of weapons from ever coming to vote. The controversy stirred by your measure is that there is no replacement either written or even being drafted at the present. If there is no intention to draft one then I protest that NAPA must not be removed, the potential of a particularly damning proposal coming to vote that would allow for the global disarmament of all nukes would prove to be disasterous.

You are new here, and you have not seen how quicky some will jump at submitting a proposal to that extent.

I suppose as the situation merits, I may decide to begin work on a replacement, with the graces of Mr. Flibble of course. I will, however, not submit and will leave that to whomever should wish to see it through. I am not about to let Zarquon Froods re-enter this organization until I am certain the leaders within have come to their senses, and if the current proposal at vote is any indication of the current state of mind of the members, we are not likely going to rejoin anytime soon.

For all of you who say that if this repeal gets approved, they won't be able to have nuclear weapons: THAT IS NOT TRUE, because a repeal can't introduce another piece of legislations, it just deletes resolution which liberalize everything without saying anything at all.Except that in this case, the resolution protected member nations from the WA legislative body. It restricted the WA, not member nations. So you've liberated the WA to infringe on member nations--in this case to infringe on their ability to defend themselves. That puts us a step closer to exactly what was said: abject WA nuclear inferiority in comparison to the rest of the world.

I would say that's a net loss for the WA's security situation.

Beyond that, there seems to be enough fanagling room in the NAPA for non-proliferation legislation. It just takes an imaginative proposal author, which apparently we're running short on these days.

Beyond that, there seems to be enough fanagling room in the NAPA for non-proliferation legislation. It just takes an imaginative proposal author, which apparently we're running short on these days.
Not sure that's fair. There are plenty of imaginative proposal authors: some of them just got rather fed up when all their resolutions were deleted. We've already passed this resolution, twice, having voted, twice, to defeat nuclear arms bans, now we're voting on a repeal. Furthermore, what's the point of coming up with a well-crafted proposal when all it elicits on the forums is a wave of rampant asshattery?

Not sure that's fair. There are plenty of imaginative proposal authors: some of them just got rather fed up when all their resolutions were deleted. We've already passed this resolution, twice, having voted, twice, to defeat nuclear arms bans, now we're voting on a repeal. Furthermore, what's the point of coming up with a well-crafted proposal when all it elicits on the forums is a wave of rampant asshattery?

Quite right, there are those still among us that are fully capable of drafting such a resolution, but most are just not interested anymore. They've served their time in the organization that dare not speak its name, and just don't feel like doing it again.

what's the point of coming up with a well-crafted proposal when all it elicits on the forums is a wave of rampant asshattery?The furtherment of the asshattery industry?

I agree, though, I wasn't being fair with that jab--either with the poster I was responding to or with the WA as a whole. I was just frustrated that people weren't seeing the room this resolution leaves for non-proliferation legilsation. It wasn't fair, though. Sorry.

I find Resolution #10 to be unnecessary, but this proposal is even worse. Against repeal.

--Plutonian delegate Raymond Gardner

If the resolution #10 is repealed, then there is no finding out what can happen and whos hands will the nuclear weapons fall into, it will fall into the wrong hands and god knows what will happen after, i strongly support all WA members in voting against the repeal because if another resolution was to come in, it will restrict member states from even possessing nuclear weapons and even go as far as banning all nuclear weapons and then what??

The Federal Republic is opposed to this repeal, and will lobby for an immediate replacement should it pass....On second thought, what better way to mark this body's auspicious one-year anniversary than to pass the worst resolution in history??*

Many good wishes to the author's success! May he grow fat on congratulatory wine!

- Jimmy Baca, Deputy Ambassador

*...with the possible exception of Repeal "Abortion Rights" (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11154473&postcount=325).

The Nuclear Arms Possession Act has been on the books for far too long. The WA should be remaining silent on the issue of nuclear proliferation, not openly promoting it.

We hope the region of Equinox will allow us to vote in favor of this repeal.

Either way if it gets passed or doesnt it will go down as the worst repeal ever in NS history.

I don't see how it endanger the national security of WA nations.
It doesn't ban Nuclear Wapons, it just delets a resolution that liberalize everything, blocking us from freely discuss a better resolution.Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bull fucking shit!
I've told you numerous times in this very thread that you can still limit nuclear weapons without repealing the NAPA, and you've continually ignored me.

This is a disgrace, again. If repealed I urge Flibbleites to resubmit it without adjustments. Something as crazy as this is what brought down Coordinating Relief Aid and I vote against.I'd be happy to, but I currently lack the endorsements necessary to do so. but hopefully I won't have to.

I voted for the Resolution
My reason is because Nuclear Weapons shouldnt be used as a defence. I still believe that Nuclear Weapons should be able to be built, but have atleast some regulation on them. Resolution 10 clearly doesn not regulate,in any form, the amount at which Nuclear Weapons are created. True, these weapons can cause much suffering and future resolutions could restrict them. But after you restrict Nuclear Weaponry, who will stop the WA from restricting the domestic and scientific use of Nuclear energy? I truly hope that a future resolution will make some law concerning Nuclear Capabilities.So write a proposal restricting nuclear weapons, as long as your don't ban them you'll have no conflict with the NAPA.

My resolution DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.
Is that clear or not???No, but it's fairly obvious from your repeal that that is your intent.

Can someone tell me why we are repaeling this Nuclear Arms Possession Act? What is the point? This is a waste of a repeal! The Act states that nations can possess nuclear arms. It does not state that nations must possess nuclear arms.In fact, I specifically wrote the NAPA so it wouldn't require any nation to possess them.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

If the resolution is past, i will be the first to put the Nuclear Proliferation Act as a proposal for the delegates who voted against the repeal to be able to put a vote inorder to gather as many approvals as possible for the NPA to be put to vote and reinstated again as the NSA original resolution #10.

If the resolution is past, i will be the first to put the Nuclear Proliferation Act as a proposal for the delegates who voted against the repeal to be able to put a vote inorder to gather as many approvals as possible for the NPA to be put to vote and reinstated again as the NSA original resolution #10.
That's a very endearing sentiment...but...personally, I would motion that Flibbleites be the nation who submits a re-passing (which I would gladly run the tg campaign for if that's a consideration). It is his proposal. It's his work that got it drafted and passed in the first place.

I've told you numerous times in this very thread that you can still limit nuclear weapons without repealing the NAPA, and you've continually ignored me.
Maybe he's trying to capitalize on the fact that a falsehood repeated often enough is taken by many for the truth. So he keeps parroting away, oblivious to your L.O.G.I.C. cannons blasting his battleship into a sinking fishing canoe from Age of Empires.

Maybe he's trying to capitalize on the fact that a falsehood repeated often enough is taken by many for the truth. So he keeps parroting away, oblivious to your L.O.G.I.C. cannons blasting his battleship into a sinking fishing canoe from Age of Empires.

It does seem that way since he's yet to give an argument defending his stance.

That's a very endearing sentiment...but...personally, I would motion that Flibbleites be the nation who submits a re-passing (which I would gladly run the tg campaign for if that's a consideration). It is his proposal. It's his work that got it drafted and passed in the first place.

Your actually right about that, if the repeal is passed, and if or when he resubsmits his proposal, i will also join in, in the campaign for reinstating the resolution #10.

I'd be happy to, but I currently lack the endorsements necessary to do so. but hopefully I won't have to.

If it ever comes to that (hope it does not), count me in!

Yours truly,

BTW in this world how was nuclear weapons founded? Have we seen weapons dropped or any evidence of its use?OOC: If you mean in the NS world, then yes... They've been used in the 'International Incidents' forum, all too often. However a lot of the nations that post there either aren't in the WA at all or are in it for 'Gameplay' reasons but don't recognise its existence in RP matters...

we need nuclear weapons with them we wouldn't have the nuclear power we have today and all the progress what has come from this power source we need nuclear weapons to make other more aggressive country's think twice before attacking us

If the resolution is past, i will be the first to put the Nuclear Proliferation Act as a proposal for the delegates who voted against the repeal to be able to put a vote inorder to gather as many approvals as possible for the NPA to be put to vote and reinstated again as the NSA original resolution #10.
Then i would repost the repeal and beat all of you another time.

Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bull fucking shit!
camomile?

It does seem that way since he's yet to give an argument defending his stance.
Citenka has already answered to this objection. you should read the thread before posting.

Then i would repost the repeal and beat all of you another time.

This is highly unlikely indeed.





Citenka has already answered to this objection. you should read the thread before posting.

So the Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck feels no responsibility to defend the vapid piece of imbecility they have forced this organisation to deal with then ?


yours,

So the Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck feels no responsibility to defend the vapid piece of imbecility they have forced this organisation to deal with then ?
I agree with all said by Citenka, so I take responsability for that.
You should stop saying stupid things trying to weaken my repeal, because it doesn't work.

I agree with all said by Citenka, so I take responsability for that.
You should stop saying stupid things trying to weaken my repeal, because it doesn't work.


What we say about this repeal is our own business and the honoured Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck has no business telling us what to do.



The epithet "stupid" should be used with caution with regards this debate, especially from a delegation which produced an unintelligible document which as a result of its numerous spelling mistakes is virtually meaningless. Nor should any nation which cannot even defend its own drivelous legislative offerings be accusing any other delegation of a deficit of intelligence.


The arrogance and foolishness of this repeal are utterly mind boggling, the conduct of the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck has been shocking and we can only presume that they have meant all along to insult and undermine this organisation and the states who are its members.

The delegation of Kohlhassenbruck should be ashamed of this entire debacle.


Yours,

shut up once and for all and let the WA peoples tell their opinion.

shut up once and for all and let the WA peoples tell their opinion.



Is this how low the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck has sunk ? telling other delegations to shut up like children ?

Your delegation has no right to tell any other to "shut up" we are free to comment upon this repeal as often and as vehemently as we wish so long as we remain within the basic laws of civility regarding debates.

This repeal is lunacy, it will lead to very great woes for this organisation especially if the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck introduces their planned ban on Nuclear weapons.


Yours,

Delegates, delegates, I have custard pies and I'm not afraid to use them. Please return to the subject at hand.


-- Dicey Reilly,

Acting chair (and doing it woodenly).

We never strayed from it esteemed Chair, but we were told to shut up.


Yours,

we are free to comment upon this repeal as often and as vehemently as we wish so long as we remain within the basic laws of civility regarding debates.


Is this civilty?
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bull fucking shit!

their planned ban on Nuclear weapons.
I never said i plan to ban Nuclear Weapons; you also should read the entire thread before posting.

Is this civilty?



That was not our contribution that was another delegation's words, we have repeatedly tried to have your delegation address serious and real concerns which we have raised over and over again and which you have never even attempted to answer. We have remained civil to your person specifically in order to try to get some kind of response, and we have been insulted and told to shut up in response.


Does the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck have a detailed answer to why they believed this repeal was necessary instead of introducing further resolutions to regulate nuclear weapons ?

I never said i plan to ban Nuclear Weapons; you also should read the entire thread before posting

We have read the entire debate, indeed we have present for most of it, we simply believe your delegation does in fact intend to ban nuclear weapons if it can, that is what may be surmised from the rest of your scant contribution to this debate at least.

Yours,

The only contribution that can be made in a debate with you is the one i posted at 14:14 GMT+1

OOC: Okay, okay, I'll try it wearing my mod-hat. This:

You should stop saying stupid things trying to weaken my repeal, because it doesn't work.

is not debate. If someone opposes your repeal, they should try to weaken it, or, rather, weaken the arguments supporting it. That's what they're supposed to do in a debate.

So complaining that he's doing what he should in fact be doing sounds a bit odd. Remember that it's not the person-who-plays-Urgench you're addressing, it's an Urgenchian, his nation's spokesman, who has come here with, one assumes, instructions from his government to oppose the repeal.

And I am doing my work to support the repeal; and, by looking at the numbers, it seems I work better than him.

OOC: you give yourself too much credit; maybe 1% of the voting public actually reads this forum.

You should stop saying stupid things trying to weaken my repeal, because it doesn't work.We don't have to say "stupid things" to weaken your repeal, it contains enough stupid things to weaken itself.

Is this civilty?If you're going to quote me, don't take my quotes out of context.Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bullshit!
Bull fucking shit!
I've told you numerous times in this very thread that you can still limit nuclear weapons without repealing the NAPA, and you've continually ignored me.

The fact is, I've caught you in a lie and you refuse to admit it. You continue to claim that the NAPA prevents the WA from regulating nuclear weapons which is completely untrue. All the NAPA does is block a total ban on nuclear weapons.

I never said i plan to ban Nuclear Weapons; you also should read the entire thread before posting.As I just pointed out, again, the only reason to repeal the NAPA is to ban nuclear weapons. So your actions speak louder than your words here.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Here and again, read before posting:

Clause 3 of the Resolution #10 is already ‘REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands’. I think that any future regulations will to some extent duplicate this clause, and duplication is illegal.

Snip


That clause never mentioned what these precautions should be, future resolutions could easily have created the precautions which member states would then have been bound to enforce. No duplication would have been involved.


Yours,

Here and again, read before posting:

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/icon_facepalm.gifAnd since it's already being done, there's obviously no need to put in a clause that duplicates the NAPA's clause 3. I feel like I'm doing a standup routine here.

Doctor: What seems to be the problem?
Patient: It hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Well then, don't do that.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Doctor: What seems to be the problem?
Patient: It hurts when I do this.
Doctor: Well then, don't do that.

It's exactly because this resolution prevent us from doing another resolution involving Nuclear Weapons that we are repealing it.

The United Socialist States of Dark Lychinda, opposes this resolution full heartily we believe that it is up to the nations themselves weather or not to ban nuclear weapons, We would like to keep our weapons to defend ourselves. Also you did take away most of our mines.

Jorgan Winkle
WA Representative of the USSDL

we believe that it is up to the nations themselves weather or not to ban nuclear weapons, We would like to keep our weapons to defend ourselves. Also you did take away most of our mines.
This is the last time i say it: this repeal DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

but considering the IQs of many nations who posted here, it would be a wise decision not to let you use them.

This is the last time i say it: this repeal DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

but considering the IQs of many nations who posted here, it would be a wise decision not to let you use them.

And the delegation from Kohlhaasenbruck once again resorts to childish throwaway insults. Color me unsurprised.

The Altani Federation, like many nations here, is opposed to this repeal. The ambassador from Kohlhaasenbruck can duck the arguments raised against this repeal all he likes, and insist that his repeal does not ban nuclear weapons, but the intent of repealing this legislation is patently clear - enabling attempts to pass legislation that will do exactly that.

The government of Kohlhaasenbruck does itself no favors in the eyes of the international community by presenting such a disingenuous defense of its repeal, or relying on the equally disingenuous arguments of the Citenkans. The Altani Federation doesn't even possess nuclear weapons, and would not be affected by your repeal, having far more advanced ways to blow you off the map if we so wish. However, we are opposed to this repeal, and the principles it supports in its backhanded way, all the same. The right to defend oneself is among the most sacred rights all nations possess, and we'll be damned if we'll let you tell us how to do so.

If this does pass, and someday a ban on nuclear weapons does pass, it wouldn't surprise us one bit if a non-WA nation decided to thank the nation of Kohlhaasenbruck by dropping a few nukes on it.

....of course, that would be a tragedy, though.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

It's exactly because this resolution prevent us from doing another resolution involving Nuclear Weapons that we are repealing it.


But the NAPa does not prevent further legislation on nuclear weapons, unless that legislation is a ban on possession of nuclear weapons.

How many times does this point need to be made and by how many different delegations ?

The only reason to introduce this repeal is because they only legislation which it would make possible is a ban on Nuclear weapons, there is no other reason for this repeal, we can think of numerous other ways of trying to say this but they all mean the same thing...



Yours,

So you would recommend regulating the Nuclear arms industry without regulating the use and possession of Nuclear weapons ?

I do not try to recommend anything. I just say that Resolution #10 does not affect nuclear arms industry.

So your delegation has a detailed and coherent replacement to the NAPa which you have kept in readiness for just this situation and which you will produce on the instant the NAPa is repealed does it ? And your delegation has in its infinite subtlety of perspicacity preempted every possible concern which the membership of this organisation may have surrounding this subject and accounted for them, and this resolution is so cleverly written that it will insure the security of w.a. member states while balancing moral and ethical issues e.t.c.

Has your delegation also set aside the time to campaign for this miraculous statute and to argue for it in debate e.t.c. ?

I do not promote any specific replacement. We do not debate the replacements here. I promote repealing of resolution that protect the right of the national governments to ‘close its eyes’ on stealing of parts of its nuclear arsenal by some random nutjobs.

That clause never mentioned what these precautions should be, future resolutions could easily have created the precautions which member states would then have been bound to enforce. No duplication would have been involved.

But they are already required to make ‘all available precautions’. I think that if resolution will require any specific precautions it will create duplication. Am I wrong?

This is true, but doing something on the international level will do nothing short of opening a can of worms. I have seen proposals that have tried to do that very thing, and all have met with stiff opposition. The fact of the matter is, we can only regulate to an extent before we start stepping on toes across the board. I think the WACA does a sufficient job of regulating the manner in which these arms deals are carried out by terrorists and the like. We must assume that nations will do everything within their power to see that these weapons do not fall into the hands of those that would seek inflicting great harm.

Of course we must not assume this. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and must be regulated by the WA. The most important of WA purposes is in regulation of things that can create extreme troubles on international scale, like the nuclear weapons. Keeping bad resolutions for the sake of not ‘opening a can of worms’ is a typical example of bureaucratic irresponsibility. My country will never support such approach.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/icon_facepalm.gifAnd since it's already being done, there's obviously no need to put in a clause that duplicates the NAPA's clause 3. I feel like I'm doing a standup routine here.

But the Clause 3 does not explain whose hands are ‘wrong hands’, so it is not working right.

This is the last time i say it: this repeal DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

but considering the IQs of many nations who posted here, it would be a wise decision not to let you use them.

Ambassador, I understand that debates in WA are a hard and tiresome. But it is very, very important to speak respectfully with other delegates, even when you have the impression that they are not doing the same. Please try to restrain yourself.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

....of course, that would be a tragedy, though.
The ambassador of kohhlaasenbruck intends this words as an open provocation without reason, and will take every possible measure to blow up Altan Steppes.

The ambassador of kohhlaasenbruck intends this words as an open provocation without reason, and will take every possible measure to blow up Altan Steppes.

Yeah, we're just shivering in our boots, Spanky.

Given your not-so-subtle opposition to nuclear weapons, we're not even sure what you'd blow us up with. Would your military ferociously rub two sticks together in the vague hope that we might catch fire?

And I note with amusement, and an utter lack of surprise, that you haven't bothered to answer my claim that you're being disingenuous or tried to defend your government's crap repeal.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

O.O.C. ( since Mnyos's post seems to be O.O.C. )





May I have the proof that so many non-WA nations have nuclear weaponry and are hostile to WA nations? Minyos is what, 2.5 years old and hmmm, nobody has attacked us, nor declared war upon us.

Prove that it is not the case, caution is not fear and common sense is not reactionary warmongering.




I know a lot of them are right-wing a**eholes, and attack anyone progressive/Left merely for their politics when it is not even relevant to the discussion, but we don't have to sink to their level.

Who the hell are you referring to here ? Are you seriously suggesting that Urgench or me for that matter are "Right-wing[sic] a**eholes" ?

Moderation has been instigated, so again I ask you Kohlhaasenbruck to tone down your language, focus upon the discussion, and ignore personal attacks if they occur, and desist from such yourself?

What personal attacks are you referring to ?

"Shut up" really isn't very nice, (I'd go for f*** off myself :wink:), but seriously, don't tell people to shut up. We're allowed to be attacked being Leftists OK...but we can't attack back. Why do you think so many fluffies have left the game to concentrate on RL progressive politics instead of the vapidity of NS-WA blather? Nonetheless, your language has been OOC rude, and, do try to play nice hey?

You seem to be taking an inordinate level of interest in something you call vapid and blather, and who has attacked anyone for being leftist ?





I'll not be replying to any post referring to anything I have written nor reading this thread again. This may be interpreted as being arrogant. I am arrogant.

No your just wrong.

It's exactly because this resolution prevent us from doing another resolution involving Nuclear Weapons that we are repealing it.

But the NAPa does not prevent further legislation on nuclear weapons, unless that legislation is a ban on possession of nuclear weapons.

Hm...methinks this little lapse in logic betrays some of the mindset of Kohlhaasenbruck. Well, technically it's not a lapse in logic, it's a rhetorical use of abbreviated logic. Classic enthymeme.

Okay, fine. I have a few minutes here and am happy to ramble about just how this enthymeme by Kohlhaasenbruck betrays his mentality and ideology.

Logic, just like in a mathematical proof, can be seen proceeding from a given to a proven. A = B and B = C therefore A = C. Simple. Enthymeme is the elimination of either A= B or B = C.

So, if the proof is
1) All soda is good
2) 7 up is a kind of soda
3) therefore 7 up is good

Enthymeme would omit 1) or 2). "All soda is good, so this 7 up is good."

We do this all the time in speech (and our senses of humor need it to exist). Usually it's because we consider part of the argument (step 1 or step 2) too obvious to mention. In this case, it'd be a waste of breath to say "7 up is a soda". Duh. Everyone knows it's a soda.

Now when it's just soda involved there's not really anything interesting with the enthymeme. But when we get to nuclear weapons and Kohlhaasenbruck's arguments the use of enthymeme gets really interesting.

His argument goes something like this:
1) NAPA stops the illegalizing of nuclear arms possession
2) ... [unexpressed]
3) therefore NAPA is bad and should be repealed

What's the omitted part of the argument? How can we possibly get from 1 to 3? Only with a statement like "it is good for nuclear arms possession to be made illegal" can we make the jump. This betrays not only his belief that nuclear arms should be banned, but his thought that this belief is so obvious he doesn't have to state it--just like the belief "7 up is a soda".

[/stupid ramble when a simple "I agree with you, khan" would've sufficed]

I think I'll follow Minyos' advice.

'The ambassador of Kohlhaasenbruck is sitting in front of his comupter looking happily that his resolution is up by 300 votes'.

All the rest is crap.



bye bye comrades, we'll see on Friday midnight what the WA has decided.

You know, the whole "I'm not going to respond to any arguments against this repeal or anything I've said" thing is just a dishonest way of saying "I can't defend my arguments and random blather, because they're weak, flawed and wrong, so I'm going to pretend like I'm ignoring you all on principle".

If you can live with that kind of "victory" (assuming this repeal does win, which is far from guaranteed), more power to you. Whatever gets you through the day, I suppose.

Just bear in mind that even if this repeal goes through, someone will just reverse your "victory".

[/stupid ramble when a simple "I agree with you, khan" would've sufficed]

It is none the less still a very useful and improving elucidation of what the logic of this repeal represents.


Yours,

*snip*
bye bye comrades, we'll see on Friday midnight what the WA has decided.
Yeah, whatever dude. See you later.

...You know what this debate needs?? A karaoke contest!! Winner gets the best stuff in Senator Sulla's liquor cabinet!

I'll even start!

[Jimmy jumps up on the Kennyite desk as cheesy '80s-esque music blares from the speakers...]

Stacy's Mom has got in going on!
She's all that I want -- and I've waited for so long!
Stacy can't you see? You're just not the girl for me!
I know it might be wrong, but I'm in love with Stacy's Mom!...

I think I'll follow Minyos' advice.

'The ambassador of Kohlhaasenbruck is sitting in front of his comupter looking happily that his resolution is up by 300 votes'.

All the rest is crap.



bye bye comrades, we'll see on Friday midnight what the WA has decided.


Does the Ambassador realise that 300 votes represents no more than two votes of delegates of large regions, two votes is all it will take to see this ridiculous tissue of foolishness consigned in to legislative oblivion, and it is now that the Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck thinks that they can simply walk away from the only way they might have of securing those two votes.



Yours,

Does the Ambassador realise that 300 votes represents no more than two votes of delegates of large regions, two votes is all it will take to see this ridiculous tissue of foolishness consigned in to legislative oblivion, and it is now that the Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck thinks that they can simply walk away from the only way they might have of securing those two votes.



Yours,

Jaris leans over and hisses to Mongkha

Shhhh! Let them think they've won already! :p

Yeah, whatever dude. See you later.

...You know what this debate needs?? A karaoke contest!! Winner gets the best stuff in Senator Sulla's liquor cabinet!

I'll even start!

[Jimmy jumps up on the Kennyite desk as cheesy '80s-esque music blares from the speakers...]

Stacy's Mom has got in going on!
She's all that I want -- and I've waited for so long!
Stacy can't you see? You're just not the girl for me!
I know it might be wrong, but I'm in love with Stacy's Mom!...



Oh oH OH Us next!!! we want that song that goes " She's just a small town girl livin in a lonely woooorld, she took a midnight train goin an-y-where.."

What's that one called again ?


Yours,

The ambassador of kohhlaasenbruck intends this words as an open provocation without reason, and will take every possible measure to blow up Altan Steppes.

Don't get your undies in a knot. For God's sake take as deep breath and have a popsicle.

Now then, I wish to say that my government opposes this repeal, as we believe in the rights of nations to have nuclear weapons to act as a deterant. Might I point out Einstein, that oppopsing the rights of WA nations to deleop and keep nuclear weapons put said nations at the mercy of the goddless bloodthirsty hordes of non-member nations out there. You have checked out International incidends, havent you? Some of the crackpots there scare my nation senseless. Another good reason to be allowed to have nukes is that it pisses off fluffies(an activity that is most satisfying to the soul, it warms the cockles of my blackened heart).

On the other hand without any nuclear regulation resolution on the books, my nations Premier Arms Manucfacturing company Imperial Palentine Amalagamared Arms will be able to sell there items with no one able to stop me. Gather round me, my friends and feast your eyes on this lovely lady...

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/atomic_annie_test.gif

Her name is Annie, and she is the finest Atomic Cannon on the market today. She is built to exacting specifications, thus upholding the quality one expects from IPAA. With a couple of Annies in your arsenal, you'll be the envy of all your naighbors, and any tin-pot dictator throught the world. And as a special bonus during this vote, IPAA has agreed to give you a 30% markdown. not convinced, well then IPAA has an additional incentive. Anyone who buys a "Annie" during this sale will also receive 3 "Davy Crocketts" for FREE. Yes, you heard right...FREE
http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f235/HoratioSulla/mark54_daveycrockett.jpg
The Mark 54 Davy Crockett is our latest product in Tactical nuclear armaments for the ground pounders. "Davy" is a nuclear capibal recoiless ricket that is easily mounted on a Jeep or Humvee. as all our other armements you can rest assured in our quality, and attention to detail. So what are you waiting for. Order now, this offer will not last forever.

Excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla
"Now with 50% more Barbaric Machismo and Unwholesomeness"

but considering the IQs of many nations who posted here, it would be a wise decision not to let you use them.

TROLLING is not only against the rules but an exceedingly bad idea if you want to maintain a good reputation.

Lastly, Kohlhaasenbruck, could you please address the Assembly using more polite language? I know a lot of them are right-wing a**eholes, and attack anyone progressive/Left merely for their politics when it is not even relevant to the discussion, but we don't have to sink to their level.

You're worried about sinking to their level yet you don't hesitate to label right-wingers as "assholes"? Don't troll.

Each of you get a yellow card. Collect enough and it'll allow you exclusive access to the rare red card.

Each of you get a yellow card. Collect enough and it'll allow you exclusive access to the rare red card."Warning" is sufficient here; yellow and red cards are a Generalite thing. ;)

I do not try to recommend anything. I just say that Resolution #10 does not affect nuclear arms industry.

So legalising possession of Nuclear arms does no effect the Nuclear weapons industry ?



I do not promote any specific replacement. We do not debate the replacements here.

Both the delegation of Citenka and the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck have stated that the reason for this repeal is to allow for another, presumably better, resolution to be written. We are asking why no such resolution is currently being drafted. The point is that the only reason for this repeal is to allow a ban to be put to vote, which would not represent a better resolution in the eyes of thousands of member states. It is therefore completely dishonest to propose this repeal based on the notion of replacing it either with a worse resolution or one that does not exist yet.



But they are already required to make ‘all available precautions’. I think that if resolution will require any specific precautions it will create duplication. Am I wrong?

Yes, exactly because the precautions are not specified. A resolution specifying such precautions could easily be introduced without any duplication, merely elaboration. The difference is profound.



Yours,

Oh oH OH Us next!!! we want that song that goes " She's just a small town girl livin in a lonely woooorld, she took a midnight train goin an-y-where.."

What's that one called again ?


Yours,



JOURNEY!! That's what its called! Or was that the band ?....


Yours,

Uh, Kohlhaasenbruckian ambassador just run away from the debate. How disgusting. Oh well.

So legalising possession of Nuclear arms does no effect the Nuclear weapons industry ?

No, only ban or some strict regulation of nuclear arms will affect nuclear arms industry. Resolution #10 does not do much to regulate nuclear arms, so it is not really affect nuclear arms industry.

Both the delegation of Citenka and the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck have stated that the reason for this repeal is to allow for another, presumably better, resolution to be written. We are asking why no such resolution is currently being drafted. The point is that the only reason for this repeal is to allow a ban to be put to vote, which would not represent a better resolution in the eyes of thousands of member states. It is therefore completely dishonest to propose this repeal based on the notion of replacing it either with a worse resolution or one that does not exist yet.

I support this repeal because Resolution #10 prevents the creation of a better resolution. Is such better replacement exists now or not do not matter much for me. I do not think that such position is dishonest.

Yes, exactly because the precautions are not specified. A resolution specifying such precaustions could easily be introduced without any duplication, merely elaboration. The difference is profound.

Are such elaboration will really be legal? I am honestly interested in the answer.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

JOURNEY!! That's what its called! Or was that the band ?....


Yours,"Don't Stop Believing," by Journey ;)

JOURNEY!! That's what its called! Or was that the band ?....


Yours,

The band, good sirrah.

I support this repeal because Resolution #10 prevents the creation of a better resolution. Is such better replacement exists now or not do not matter much for me. I do not think that such position is dishonest.

It is dishonest, especially since in this case the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck intends o try to introduce a ban on Nuclear weapons.



Are such elaboration will really be legal? I am honestly interested in the answer.

Yes indeed honoured Ambassador, in this case there are no-specified precautions, introducing specific and detailed precautions of this kind would be perfectly legal.


Yours,

Since the Kennyites have offered the contents of my Liquor Cabinet as a prize, I better start defending it with some songs. So I'd like to offer this number from Kinky Friedman.....

<Country and Western music blares from the PA system, as the good but unwholesome Senator sings in his mic>

Just a ship out on the ocean, a speck against the sky,
Amelia Earhart flying that sad day;
With her partner, Captain Noonan, on the second of July
Her plane fell in the ocean, far away.

There's a beautiful, beautiful field
Far away-ay-ay in a land that is fair.
Happy landings to you, Amelia Earhart,
Farewell, first lady of the air.

Half an hour later her SOS was heard,
Her signal's weak, but still her voice was brave.
In shark-infested waters her aeroplane went down that night
In the blue Pacific to a watery grave......

Mongkha sings in his rich baritone voice which would melt the hardest of hearts


"Just a city Boy! Born and raised in south Detro-oit! he took the midnight train going A-n-y-where! "....


The elderly Mongkha strums the air guitar soulfully

It is dishonest, especially since in this case the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck intends o try to introduce a ban on Nuclear weapons.





Yes indeed honoured Ambassador, in this case there are no-specified precautions, introducing specific and detailed precautions of this kind would be perfectly legal.

I fear that my views on honesty are different from yours, noble khan. And do you really believe that his drafting and debating skills will allow him to be successful in such task?

In any case if you are so sure that elaboration will be legal I have no more reasons to defend this repeal.

Farewell, honorable ambassadors.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

... and when Monghka has finished singing, Borrin rises to his feet and gives the room a rendition of the song 'Honey In The Jar' with which an Ursine group called 'Fishbone Harp' managed to achieve second place (out of sixteen entries) -- just 3 points behind the winner -- in the 7th 'Worldvision Song Contest'_


"Last Owlsday I went strolling, In the far-famed woods of Barrdenn;
Bright sunshine filled the glades there, and the flowers grew like a garden:
So many bees were buzzing, through those blooms and leafy curtains,
That I said to meself then "They've a nest close by for certain".

Mush-a-room, sausages, herbal cha;
Toast for my supper, oh!
Toast for my supper, oh _
There's honey in the jar."

(etc.)

The office of the Prime-Minister.
The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde.

The following Statement has been made by The full cabinet of Prime-Minister Jonathan Roosevelt.

The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde believes that we should vote FOR every appeal, wheter we like it or not, and that we should listen to what the appealing country has to say. And afther that every Country should take it's position on the issue and vote for or against the "new" resolution.

Ladies & Gentlmen, Heads of State, decide wise.

Faitfully Yours,
Jonathan Roosevelt
Prime Minister of The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde.

We find ourself with some amazement rising to cast our vote AGAINST this repeal. Not only is it in form a grammatical and lexical dogs-breakfast that a primary school child should be ashamed of, but in content it is wrong on almost every point. We are far from being in favour of nuclear deterrents, but we could not possibly support this.

Now, as to the karaoke competition...

::Cerys Coch's "Don't make me hurt you, Your Highness," is loud enough to be heard across the chamber. The Prince sits down rapidly::

Citenka has already answered to this objection. you should read the thread before posting.

Citenka is not the one who proposed this repeal, he didn't submit it, he didn't get it to vote. YOU did and if you are going to bring something before this body YOU need to be the one standing up for it.

It's exactly because this resolution prevent us from doing another resolution involving Nuclear Weapons that we are repealing it.ARRGH!!!!! HOW MANY TIMES MUST I SAY IT!! NO IT DOESN'T!!!!*Bob starts beating the Kohlhaasenbruck delegate with his trusty trout.*http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w166/bak42/fight205.gif

This is the last time i say it: this repeal DOES NOT BAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS.No, but it does open the door for a ban to be passed.

But the Clause 3 does not explain whose hands are ‘wrong hands’, so it is not working right.

Ivan Cabaladze
AmbassadorYeah, I didn't put a laundry list of everyone in the whole world who shouldn't be allowed access to nuclear weapons. I didn't do that for two very good reasons, one I figured that such a list would put me way over the character limit, and two, I figured that nations would be smart enough to figure out who should have access to their nuclear stockpiles on their own, obviously I was wrong on the latter.

Yeah, whatever dude. See you later.

...You know what this debate needs?? A karaoke contest!! Winner gets the best stuff in Senator Sulla's liquor cabinet!

I'll even start!

[Jimmy jumps up on the Kennyite desk as cheesy '80s-esque music blares from the speakers...]

Stacy's Mom has got in going on!
She's all that I want -- and I've waited for so long!
Stacy can't you see? You're just not the girl for me!
I know it might be wrong, but I'm in love with Stacy's Mom!...

♫♪I don't want to set the world on fire
I just want to start
A flame in your heart

In my heart I have but one desire
And that one is you
No other will do

I've lost all ambition for worldly acclaim
I just want to be the one you love
And with your admission that you feel the same
I'll have reached the goal I'm dreaming of

Believe me
I don't want to set the world on fire
I just want to start
A flame in your heart♪♫

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Here and again, read before posting:
Clause 3 of the Resolution #10 is already ‘REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands’. I think that any future regulations will to some extent duplicate this clause, and duplication is illegal.


No, this has been done in the WACA, it can be done so long as you don't ban them. How many times do we have to keep making this argument?

Let me say this in a way everyone can understand:

NO BAN=NOT ILLEGAL!!

Of course we must not assume this. Nuclear weapons are extremely dangerous and must be regulated by the WA. The most important of WA purposes is in regulation of things that can create extreme troubles on international scale, like the nuclear weapons. Keeping bad resolutions for the sake of not ‘opening a can of worms’ is a typical example of bureaucratic irresponsibility. My country will never support such approach.


A resoultion to that extent would likely never pass. A resolution had been proposed in the past concerning what constitutes the rules of war and it was killed before it ever made it to draft. We could perhaps make guidelines as to whom should should be allowed to trade arms, that's not a ban, but the wording would have to be maticulous as to not alienate those who honestly need them as detterents.

There are two arguments in the proposal.

1) Nukes are bad
2) We can't pass non-proliferation
The World Assembly,

BELIEVING that nuclear weapons are incompatible with human survival;

NOTING that what distinguishes nuclear weapons from traditional ones is the enourmous number of civilians killed by the former;

OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution doesn't put any limits in the use of nuclear weapons, but consider them as traditional weapons, putting by doing this in severe risk the existance itself of many WA nations;

NOTING that nuclear weapons produce radioactive fallout that can cause cancers, birth defects, and genetic damage for decades after they are used and that only nuclear weapons, used in sufficient numbers, could cause a nuclear winter ending human life on Earth.

DISMAYED by the fact that the resolution doesn't give any guidance on how to 'take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands';

BELIEVING that WA nations should be the first to give the example of non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and should fight together with economic and military means against aggressive non-WA nations;

FURTHER OUTRAGED by the fact that this resolution is only a liberalization of Nuclear Weapons' use without setting any kind of rules or limitations who can garantee the security of our people;

SEEKING the opportunity to estabilish a better resolution involving the national security problem of WA nations, who takes into consideration human rights and the risk of proliferation of nuclear weapons;

HEREBY REPEALS the Nuclear Arms Possession Act.

Argument 2 is completely false, as proven over and over. The real argument is argument 1 (which, huh, imagine that, is what most of the preambulary clauses focus on), that "Nukes are bad". If you look closely at the text it is blaringly obvious that bans on WA nuclear armaments are exactly what Kohlhaasenbruck has in mind.

Has anyone started on a TG campaign for delegates that have voted FOR? Informing them of this, of Kohlhaasenbruck's barely disguised intentions, might work to help them switch their vote...

Has anyone started on a TG campaign for delegates that have voted FOR? Informing them of this, of Kohlhaasenbruck's barely disguised intentions, might work to help them switch their vote...

I've considered it, but I'm going to wait for a bit before I do.

♫♪I don't want to set the world on fire
I just want to start
A flame in your heart

In my heart I have but one desire
And that one is you
No other will do

I've lost all ambition for worldly acclaim
I just want to be the one you love
And with your admission that you feel the same
I'll have reached the goal I'm dreaming of

Believe me
I don't want to set the world on fire
I just want to start
A flame in your heart♪♫

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: HAHA, awesome song. I heard it last night while I was playing Fallout.

IC:

Since we're all singing away now, I think I'll join in. The Lay-Z Delegate 9000™ hover into the room and Zarquon hops in. As he begins to fly about the room, he pulls a mic from out of his robes and begins to sing a song befitting the occassion by Randy Travis.

This little number goes out to Kohlhaasenbruck:

Deeper and deeper hes going down
Driving his future right into the ground
He thinks hes closer the further he goes
But hes still on the bottom
And he cant dig out of the hole
I tried to throw the man a life line
I tried to send him down a rope
I dont think he hears me calling
But everyday I pray and hope
Somehow he finally gets the message
Every spade of dirt he throws
Only gets him closer to the devil
And he cant dig out of the hole

Yeah, I didn't put a laundry list of everyone in the whole world who shouldn't be allowed access to nuclear weapons. I didn't do that for two very good reasons, one I figured that such a list would put me way over the character limit, and two, I figured that nations would be smart enough to figure out who should have access to their nuclear stockpiles on their own, obviously I was wrong on the latter.

I had problems with the Clause 3 because I feared that it could block future attempts to legislate protective measures that will be compulsory for all WA members and that will protect nuclear arsenals from the groups defined by the WA, not by the national governments.

But khan Mongkha explained to me that elaboration of previous resolutions does not mean duplication and is not illegal, so I do not defend this repeal anymore.

NO BAN=NO DUPLICATION!!

Ban will create contradiction, not duplication.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador

Ban will create contradiction, not duplication.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador


It would do both. I should probably just say NO BAN=NOT ILLEGAL

I do not think banning nuclear weapons will do anything, other than sparking tensions and the frequent cries "THEY HAVE NUCLEAR WEAPONS!! THEY HAVE NUKES! THEY HAVE NUKES!!". Not to mention countries can still devlope and create these weapons, all they have to do is hide them.

It would be much better all around if countries were allowed to create WMDs. And as far as preventing nuclear war, there would be the mindset in every leader's mind "Hmm, if I nuke them...whats to stop everyone else from nuking me? Eep! Stop the launch!".

I respectfully vote against this repeal.

OOC: I hate this life! Some of my recent actions lead to destruction of my home region. I made a decision to resign from the WA and from the NS. Goodbye.

Ambassador Gardner shuffles, very awkwardly, up to the microphone. "Uh..." he mutters, "do I have to?" He glares down at the mike as if expecting it to respond.

"Fine...I've just got a little number in honor of the night."

How many roads must a car drive on
Before it finally breaks down?
Yes and how many stars must a spaceship pass
Before it can land on the ground?
Yes and how many times must the rebels protest
Before they nuke the whole town?
The answer, my friends, is blowin' up the place.
The answer is blowin' up the place.

How many years must you sit at a desk
Before you're completely washed out?
Yes and how many years must you sulk in your place
Before doing more than just pout?
Yes and how many years must you hear the same lies
Before you're beginning to doubt?
The answer, my friends, is blowin' off your work.
The answer is blowin' off your work.

How many times must I look all around
Before I can see your eyes?
Yes and how many ears must one person have
Before anyone is surprised?
Yes and how many steps do I have to take
Before I can stand by your side?
The answer, my friends, is blowin' till I'm winded.
The answer is blowin' till I'm winded.

OOC: I hate this life! Some of my recent actions lead to destruction of my home region. I made a decision to resign from the WA and from the NS. Goodbye.I'm sorry to hear that you're leaving NS. I hope you mean you just hate "this life" in NS, cuz you seem an intelligent person and it would be a tragedy for you to loathe your RL life for stuff going on here.

OOC: I hate this life! Some of my recent actions lead to destruction of my home region. I made a decision to resign from the WA and from the NS. Goodbye.[Jimmy leaps onto his desk again and seizes the microphone, launching into a sweet bon voyage:]

...Now where's you picket fence love,
And where's that shiny car?
And did it ever get you far?
You never seemed so tense love,
I've never seen you fall so hard!
Do you know where you are?
And the truth be told I miss you,
And truth be told I'm lying!

When you see my face
Hope it gives you hell,
Hope it gives you hell!
When you walk my way
Hope it gives you hell,
Hope it gives you hell!

If you find a man that's worth a damn and treats you well,
Then he's a fool, you're just as well,
Hope it gives you hell!

[As he serenades the departing delegations, he leans over Commander Chiang, who whoops excitedly and slips a $100 bill in his belt...]

[OOC: yeah, I'm sorry about your region, too. Be happy.]

-snip-OOC: oh how I love a good "screw-you-ex-gf-I-was-lying-about-liking-your-dress-anyway-you-whore" song.

At least, that's what that song means to me. I love it.

*snip*

The answer, of course, is 42.

And I would humbly ask this to Max Barry, God of NS: Given the ruckus this resolution has caused, and will continue to cause into April, are you really sure we'll need an April's Fools thing this year? Please don't smite me, I'm a fan of your books! :) (I did actually buy them!)

If anybody feels up to a little TG action...


Votes For: 1193: Los Santos - Excelsior [5], Zurarich [3], FunkyEli [4], Black Rhino [3], The JSF [3], The Great Jolly [5], Pirate Meeces [2], Gaiah [9], Dhalsam [26], Wencee [10], Ille de Utopie [2], Wild Lands of North [2], Kemball Island [2], Consaria [3], Uriel Septim VIII [2], Deadly People [2], RIP yakier [2], Wambaka-jojo-remia [2], Ustergrad [3], Oscen [5], Picisa [2], Arazland [23], Warlycan [4], Lithuanada [11], Whampoa [2], Letzte Friede [7], Belarum [17], Medved [4], Intellect and the Arts [4], Rottergour [4], Arguros [4], Reseda Island [6], Ventei [14], Burbaland [2], Shibidab [2], Pot Belly [2], Cisco4 [2], Primitivicus [4], Grosse-merde [3], The way of Tao [2], Belgam [3], Demetrius Poliorcetes [2], Leslainia [2], Chutnington [2], China-East Asia [7], Alsted [100], Federated Fish [2], Thebandia [22], Schwagle [3], Kronem [3], Jedi Soccer Players [2], Mousehold Heath [2], Yshurak [3], Yissing Scalies [5], Isle de Beaulieu [2], Rowandom [2], Connollyism [11], Arpeggia [2], Democraticismistics [2], Eva Zeisel [5], Wolfhawk [2], UMMorris [3], Lorics [4], Star Isles [5], As Baile [4], Charum [2], Filth-y Hippies [11], The Mattabooloo [8], Antiochus Epiphanes [3], Kingsley Bedford [3], Port William[2], Candelaria And Marquez[3], PeaceFreedom[4], Nobitta[18], Amaranthine Asphodel[16], Worldia555[2], Kezan[2], Nial and Nine Hostages[17], Serialkillerstan[17], Incongruousia[2], Rokkarollaz[3], Minyos[15], Nordavia[16], Dibzannia[3], New Old New New York[4], Citizen Soldier[2], Puchanga[8], Lysian[4], Naughty Slave Girls[2], Melancholland[3], Slowpokeia[4], G3N13[2], Waipahu[5], AutonomousCollective[2], Depressed Hobos[8], Cai World[3], Trektopolis[5], Great-Brabant[2].

Aawww, lemme sing too!

[Adrian rises and grabs the phone, his royal aides cheering wildly]

♫♪I want the sun to shine on me
I want the truth to set me free
I wish the followers would lead
with a voice so strong it could knock me to my knees

hold on world 'cause you don't know what's coming
hold on world 'cause I'm not jumping off
hold onto this boy a little longer
take another trip around the sun

if I jumped into the ocean to believe
If I climbed a mountain would I have to reach?
do I even dare to speak?--to dream?--believe?
give me a voice so strong
I can question what I have seen

hold on world 'cause you don't know what's coming
hold on world 'cause I'm not jumping off
hold onto this boy a little longer
take another trip around the sun

around the sun
around the sun
around the sun
let my dreams set me free.
believe. believe.
now now now now now now♫♪

Here's a sample TG.

Esteemed regional delegate

Our nation is deeply concerned about the current repeal at vote. This repeal will rid member nations of their right to possess defensive nuclear weapon systems. The repeal author could then consider banning nuclear weapons in all World Assembly member nations (which is clearly his goal, judging from the text of the repeal).

Since non-World Assembly nations would STILL have nuclear weapons and many are prepared to use those nuclear weapons offensively, this repeal could put the entire World Assembly at a catastrophic disadvantage. Please consider the risks of this repeal and vote AGAINST.

Thank you very much for your time,

PCYou'd put your own nation name in instead of mine, of course. This is just a basic outline. I didn't put a comma after "esteemed regional delegate" because you need to paste in the nation name right there.

oh my god, here we are again.
this repeal does not ban nuclear weapons and it is not my intention to do that.
period.

oh my god, Yes, my child? this repeal does not ban nuclear weapons
The TG doesn't say that it does. It says it strips away "the right" to possess nuclear weapons. Which it does. It gets rid of that right, the right secured by the proposal. I did not say in the TG that it got rid of nuclear weapons (nor did I imply it, since the next sentence deals with your presumed nuclear weapons ban agenda)and it is not my intention to do that. Sure doesn't seem that way from the language in the repeal.

Weren't you gonna sit back and watch us squirm uncomfortably as the proposal passed?

If anybody feels up to a little TG action...

The heavyweights haven't cast their votes yet, and will likely not do so until just before it ends. I've seen more than one be decided in the last few hours, the Veteran Reform Act comes to mind. The vote has closed to within 200, it's still too early to tell.

An AGAINST to this repeal...and I unfortunately will not be able to join in the singing due to a sore throat.

Richard York
WA Ambassador

If anybody feels up to a little TG action...OOC: Aw, heck. I got a little time this afternoon. Let me take a crack at it.

Hope no one else starts TGing the same delegates; they really don't like being letter-bombed! :tongue:

The heavyweights haven't cast their votes yet, and will likely not do so until just before it ends. I've seen more than one be decided in the last few hours, the Veteran Reform Act comes to mind. The vote has closed to within 200, it's still too early to tell.This is starting to remind me of the votes on the (first) Free Expression Act and WA HQ...things were going peachy till the big regions started to weigh in. Hopefully we're on the right track this time.

I had problems with the Clause 3 because I feared that it could block future attempts to legislate protective measures that will be compulsory for all WA members and that will protect nuclear arsenals from the groups defined by the WA, not by the national governments.

Ivan Cabaladze
Ambassador*sigh* I didn't specify methods of protection to be used in order to accommodate that varying levels of technological sophistication that can be found amongst WA members.

OOC: I hate this life! Some of my recent actions lead to destruction of my home region. I made a decision to resign from the WA and from the NS. Goodbye.Bye, don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya.

And I would humbly ask this to Max Barry, God of NS: Given the ruckus this resolution has caused, and will continue to cause into April, are you really sure we'll need an April's Fools thing this year? Please don't smite me, I'm a fan of your books! :) (I did actually buy them!)We better have an April Fools prank this year, and not a fake "non-prank" like last year.

oh my god, here we are again.
this repeal does not ban nuclear weapons and it is not my intention to do that.
period.

Your actions, namely trying to repeal the only thing blocking the WA from enacting such a ban, speaks louder than your words.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

OOC: Ok, I need to post this.

Standing up, Lord Quirac Bremistyr, Anemonian Ambassador to the UN, looked around. He had been relatively exhausted after a night of work, and after two glasses of Atharec 1978, he was feeling ready totake on quite a lot of things. Raising a sheet of paper, he began to speak as loudly as he could (thankfully, he was quite resistant to alcohol and he could think straight).

"Unfortunately, although the Holy Empire of Anemos Major recognizes the importance of disarmament, the Holy Office of War, under whose jurisdiction this decision rests, as presented the Council with an overwhelmingly unanimous vote 'AGAINST' this.

The reasons the Holy Office of War came up wih included:
a) Nuclear disarmament in the face of hostile nuclear armed countries would render the nation of Anemos Major and its allies extremey vulnerable.
b) The concept of 'World Disarmament' does not work if only a small part of the world actually disarms!
c) The cost of getting rid of the tactical and strategic nuclear weapons under Anemonian control safely would far outweigh the costs of keeping them active for another few years, because there are barely any Anemonian facilities that can permanently defuse nuclear weapons safely and efficiently.

We are ready to accept disarmament to some scale. But stripping nations of their right to possess a nuclear deterrent in the face of a nuclear armed world is madness! We believe that this will provide an incentive to involved WA nations to increase the sizes of their armed forces to cover for the now lost nuclear weapons, and is completely pointless as well."

Sitting back down, Bremistyr leaned over towards one of his aides. "All right." he muttered. "I need a copy of Galigac's 'One More Time'... you know, the one that came fifth in the charts last year? And alcohol. Does anybody have my decanter of Atharec 1978?" An aide ran off to get the song, and Bremistyr sighed. "All right, no Atharec." Pulling out a bottle of the wine in question, he smiled. "I'll have to make do with one bottle."

"Lord Bremistyr?" one of his aides asked. "How much does that wine cost?"

"To me, or the public?"

"Sir?"

"I own the Atharec vineyards. Anyways..." Bremistyr stood up, brushing dust off the front of his coat, and began to make his way towards where the music was coming from.

The concept of 'World Disarmament' does not work if only a small part of the world actually disarms!
"Here, here!" Sam Palleel Jr. shouted, holding up a glass filed to the brim with the finest Palenthian Vineyard 1775. An aide slapped it down before it could reach his lips, sending the glass onto the desk where it shattered and sprayed shards and fermentation across the desk before them.

"Sam!" The aide cried. "It's a little too early for drinking, wouldn't you say?"

"Of course not! I mean if this repeal doesn't put the 'drunk' in 'drafting' I don't know what does."

"What's wrong with you? There's no 'drunk' in 'drafting'," the aide sneered as he began sweeping glass atop the desk.

"Like I said," Sam sniggered back. "It isn't too early for drinking,"

This is starting to remind me of the votes on the (first) Free Expression Act and WA HQ...things were going peachy till the big regions started to weigh in. Hopefully we're on the right track this time.

Let's hope. Texas and TEP have yet to vote, those two alone can turn the tide, and there are several others that have not voted as well. If anyone is going to TG, I suggest starting with the big guns.

I've already hit all the "for" delegates, so "anyone else" needn't bother. :p

Nice work!

I just hit Texas, The East Pacific, The Pacific and Asia with some telegrams that should take about 5 hours 47 minutes 26 seconds to read... not that I timed it :D...

I am curious to know what the hell does human rights have anything to do with Nuclear Proliferation??

Where can I find that act?
No importa perquè no té permís per utilitzar-lo.

Een other words my repeal happy friend, eet doesn't mat-ter where eet ees because you do not have permission to use eet.

Jose Benedito Guillaume-Alexandre Ramirez
Ambassadeur
L'état Français Y Español de Franxico

Let's hope. Texas and TEP have yet to vote, those two alone can turn the tide, and there are several others that have not voted as well. If anyone is going to TG, I suggest starting with the big guns.
Things are looking like a vote AGAINST here in TEP. I would imagine Texas likewise would vote AGAINST (I understand their voting record on this issue is pro-NAPA).

Every delegate vote changed from for to against is a victory. Good work, omigodtheykilledkenny.

I don't like the repeal because it denounces the original act because it was vague. Instead of repealing it outright, we should have rewritten the original to be more specific.

WA proposals can't be amended after they become resolutions. The only way to change them is to repeal them and start again. It's a game coding thing. There's an explanation by Fris in the "Rules for Proposals" thread that I can't look up right now, but probably someone will link to it.

That's absolutely true.

Though Epic Epicness has a good line of argument in a way. The proposal author was ambivelant towards drafting a replacement proposal before submitting the repeal, or committing to a replacement proposal at all. He was just happy to submit the repeal. Perhaps it would've shown good faith for him to be more proactive, receptive or committed toward substantive talk of what he thinks should replace NAPA were it repealed.

That's absolutely true.

Though Epic Epicness has a good line of argument in a way. The proposal author was ambivelant towards drafting a replacement proposal before submitting the repeal, or committing to a replacement proposal at all. He was just happy to submit the repeal. Perhaps it would've shown good faith for him to be more proactive, receptive or committed toward substantive talk of what he thinks should replace NAPA were it repealed.


Indeed honoured Ambassador, we have attempted over and over again ever since this repeal was at drafting stage to have the delegation of Kohlhassenbruck explain why this repeal was really necessary and what they envisaged replacing the NAPa with, we were told to "Shut up" and "stop saying stupid things" for our trouble.


Yours,

Total votes cast in last resolution (#40): 4171
Votes cast thus far now: 2571

Aye 1410 54,9%
Nay 1159 45,1%

Absolute difference: 253 votes

Hmmmm, I'm sensing a lot of anger here. That'll explain the four spelling mistakes.

Anyway, the original resolution is rather brief, but then again, does it need to go into the sort of detail being demanded here? Personally, I think not - the original resolution gives individual nations the freedom necessary to ensure their security as they see fit. A repeal isn't needed here, but rather a supplementary resolution giving some sort of guidance to responsible use of nuclear weapons.

In other words, Bettia votes NAY.

The best defense is a good offense. Why would we completely lay down our arms and leave every nation defenseless? This removes any possibility of defense from non-WA member nations. As sad as it is to say, nuclear arms are necessary for protection. Also where would the esteemed representative like nations to dispose of the nuclear waste they will have if this ban goes into effect? Environmentally and economically it could become a disaster.

I´d like to announce that i´m against this resolution because if passed, this repeal can pave way for a future resolution banning nuclear weapons, and that would be the same as beg to be conquered by any non-wa country possesing nukes. No sane ruler would endanger his citizens like this, because a world without nukes is an impossible utopia.

If something as outrageous as a ban in nuclear weapons pass, i´m sure that many will leave WA. And since we have now only half the members we had when i joined, i believe that following this path might lead WA to extinction.

So i ask, not only for my country but for the entire WA sake, that all those who voted for the current repeal change their votes to against.

I´d like to announce that i´m against this resolution because if passed, this repeal can pave way for a future resolution banning nuclear weapons, and that would be the same as beg to be conquered by any non-wa country possesing nukes. No sane ruler would endanger his citizens like this, because a world without nukes is an impossible utopia.

If something as outrageous as a ban in nuclear weapons pass, i´m sure that many will leave WA. And since we have now only half the members we had when i joined, i believe that following this path might lead WA to extinction.

So i ask, not only for my country but for the entire WA sake, that all those who voted for the current repeal change their votes to against.

I strongly agree with you, i also remember a few years back under the Republic of Nova_Srbija, there were about 25,000 NS states as members of the UN aka World Assembly, 40 days ago when i signed up as Serbian_Soviet_union, there were about 12,000 NS states as members but as time went, more and more NS states started to leave the WA due to the path it has chosen to take due to power hungry states and naive and arrogant states who dream of a world without weapons, a utopian world of no millitary and hoping to achieve the impossible when it's never going to happen and also back to the huge nations, power hungry nations who are trying to disarm other nation states from possessing weapons and from having a adequate sustainable millitary which can defend the nation from any invading states or hostile states so that those nation states can take control of our nations and turn us all into a puppet controlled state.

If this keeps up, i will definently be resigning from the WA but this time permanently if it continues to go down to it's destructive path.

So Saddam Hussein was authorized to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?
When did Saddam Hussein drop a nuclear bomb on New York City? :confused:

United Veracruz votes against this measure as Kohlhaasenbruck has only put forward reasons for "outrage" and "dismay" and has done nothing to improve NAPA.

Moreover, the sponsor does not offer a measure to replace NAPA if it were to be repealed.

Instead of a straight repeal, I encourage my good friend and colleague to offer amendments to the current legislation in order to quell the "outrage" and "dismay" felt by the sponsor instead of an "all-or-nothing" choice with no alternative.

Instead of a straight repeal, I encourage my good friend and colleague to offer amendments to the current legislation in order to quell the "outrage" and "dismay" felt by the sponsor instead of an "all-or-nothing" choice with no alternative.
Unfortunately amendments are not possibile in NationStates.
Before critizing you should read the WA rules.

When did Saddam Hussein drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?
I obviously meant 'So S.H. would have been authorized to drop a nuclear bomb on New York City?'

Unfortunately amendments are not possibile in NationStates.
Before critizing you should read the WA rules.

Neither an amendment or a repeal was necessary if all that was intended was a further regulation of Nuclear weapons possession.

A repeal was only necessary if the intent was to introduce a ban on nuclear weapons.

The Ambassador for Kohlhassenbruck is yet to be honest about this intent, we encourage them to finally stop deceiving this organisation and be honest about their desire to bring a ban to vote.


Yours,

Nukes have helped progress society to what we have in technology to ban them would be like ban cancer research. you must have something that compels scientist to better it in some way or another. so my vote goes towards no for that act.

reconise the region of daveyboysmith

reconise the region of daveyboysmithOh, gee...when you put it that way. Now I see the error of my ways.

(Sorry if that was an IC request for recognition from the forum...just thought it a wee bit of a weak argument for the repeal. Or against the repeal for that matter.)

Total votes cast in last resolution (#40): 4171
Total votes cast thus far (Repeal): 3298

Aye 1838 55,7%
Nay 1460 44,3%

Absolute difference: 378 votes

I'm voting against. This act has the right idea, I do agree there should be stricter laws on how to own, and as a last resort, use, nuclear weapons, but it does nothing to amend the nuclear arms possession act, it simply erases it, leaving a vast majority of the total nations still with nuclear weapons, with no guide lines, and all the WA nations totally defenseless (In case of nuclear war). If the act instead amended the nuclear arms possession act, by creating a Nuclear Weapon Handling Agency, or something to that affect, I'd be all for it.

reconise the region of daveyboysmith

How about I just nuke you instead?

OOC: Great, make me go out of character. You do realize that the Japanese attacked the US first, don't you? You know, Pearl Harbor.


OOC:
Have you ever watched Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197) ? Because, I'm not so sure anymore about Pearl Harbour....

OOC:
Have you ever watched Zeitgeist (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197) ? Because, I'm not so sure anymore about Pearl Harbour....

General is thatta' way (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=1227).

Whose taking bets on Kohlhaasenbruck being Max Barry and this all just being a bad dream?

The lights went dim as Zarquon made his way to the center of the chamber, a lone spotlight led the way. He carried himself as a lounge singer, casualy swaggering down the isles, pointing to various delegations as if he knew them all and thought them to be really hoppy froods. He reached into one of his pockets and pulled a microphone out by its cord, and swung it out in front of him then pulling it back and catching it with the other hand. Some light piano music began to play, no one has a clue where its coming from.

You know, it's always a special occassion when I come here to the World Assembly. To be here with some of the greatest minds in the worlds abroad, and then saddened to find out they weren't so smart afterall. I kid, I kid. Everyone knows there aren't any great minds in the WA.

Rimshot (http://www.instantrimshot.com/)

Seriously folks, being in these halls brings back memories, which means the memory wipe didn't take. Heyooo!!

You know, this debate here reminds me of a tune I once heard. And I'd like to share it all with you here this evening. I hope you like it.

All of a sudden, music to the beat of "Five Feet High and Rising" began to fill the room, and Zarquon began to sing.


♫♪How high's the bullshit, Flibble?
Two feet high and risin'
How high's the bullshit, Jimmy?
Two feet high and risin'

We can make it to the door in a homemade boat
That's the only thing we got left that'll float
It's already taken out Gruenberg's goats,
Two feet high and risin'

How high's the bullshit, Mongkha?
Three feet high and risin'
How high's the bullshit, PC?
Three feet high and risin'

Well, the humor's all gone,
I've lost my ease
The gnomes are sleepin'
In the willow trees
Smurf's in bullshit up past their knees,
Three feet high and risin'

How high's the bullshit, USSU?
Four feet high and risin'
How high's the bullshit, Ardchoille?
Four feet high and risin'

Hey, come look through the window pane,
The bus is comin', gonna take us to the train
Looks like we'll be be able to leave this pain,
Four feet high and risin'

How high's the bullshit, Saint-Clair?
Five feet high and risin'
How high's the bullshit, Gardner?
Five feet high and risin'

Well, the rails are washed out north of town
We gotta head for higher ground
We can't come back till the bullshit comes down,
Five feet high and risin'

Well, it's five feet high and risin'♫♪

The crowd erupts with applause.

Thank you, thank you. I'll be here all week, don't forget to bring your waders, it's getting deep in here.

Dang this is close. I hope we get to keep our nuclear weapons.

Plus, we just found a large supply of uranium in my country. I will leave the WA if I can't use some of that to make bombs.

My nation is already on the verge of building nuclear weapons again and we have alot of uranium to build large nuclear bombs for defense purposes and for trade for nations who qualify for possessing nuclear weapons.

Total votes cast in last resolution (#40): 4171
Total votes cast thus far (Repeal #10): 3685

Aye 1867 50,7%
Nay 1818 49,3%

Absolute difference: 49 votes

Also flipping 25 votes from Aye to Nay gives Nay the advantage

Latest results are

Aye 1,913
Nay 1,835

Absolute difference: 78 more votes left to save resolution 10

Indeed the east pacific made this a double digit vote. Haven't seen anything this close in quite sometime.

Delegates, I'm sure everyone can see the totals on the giant electronically updated tally-board directly above your heads -- or on the screens built into your desks -- or read the Twitters, or hear it on your earbuds, or keep up with the notes brought to you by relays of steaming yaks. Does anyone have any actual argument or discussion to add?

-- Dicey Reilly, chair pro tem and Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Delegates, I'm sure everyone can see the totals on the giant electronically updated tally-board directly above your heads -- or on the screens built into your desks -- or read the Twitters, or hear it on your earbuds, or keep up with the notes brought to you by relays of steaming yaks. Does anyone have any actual argument or discussion to add?

-- Dicey Reilly, chair pro tem and Wrongfully President for Life of Ardchoille.

Steamed yak is a popular dish in the Altan Steppes, and quite tasty. You should try it sometime. Maybe I'll have our chef whip up a batch.

...oh, and we still hope this fails. I'm still waiting for someone - anyone - who supports this repeal to explain why it's even needed, if submitting an eventual ban on nukes is not on their agenda. Haven't heard an explanation of that yet which makes sense.

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

I do not think that there should be a ban on nukes. Even though I do not have any as of yet, I think that they will be good for defensive backup. However, I don't think that nukes should be used just because or for any offensive purposes. It should be used as a last resort.