NationStates Jolt Archive

Nations of The World,

Several nations in our world arm their foreign embassy's with biological weapons, nuclear weapons but also rocket launchers,grenades, flamethrowers, swords etc...

All weapons that could seriously harm the people of the Country were the Embassy is.

We hearby make the request at the World Assembly, to disarm all Embassies from such EXTREME weapons. And that from now on it's PROHIBITED to secure your foreign Embassy's with such weapons.

We request as well if this proposal will be accepted by the WA, that WA inspectors will check all embassies for the prohibited weapons. And will "punish" all country's who are still arming their embassies with these weapons.

ladies and gentlemen, Heads of State, decide wise.

Illegal, branding. you should have read the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=420465) before you submitted this.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

better now? no names branded etc... And could we just go on now with the issue instead of this!!!

How is a sword more "extreme" than, for example (to mention just one other type of weapon with which I've seen some embassies' security guards armed), an assault rifle?
And anyway, isn't the question of what armaments an embassy's staff may possess one that can be answered perfectly well by the government of the nation to which that diplomatic mission is being sent? Why does this matter actually need WA intervention?

Why is a sword extreme? Well a knifecutt is already quite nasty, so I believe being cutt a part by a sword must be verry nasty. And the people should be protected against those sort of weapons.

And countries shouldn't decide for themselves what sort of weapons are alowed and wich aren't . I have is a verry good, personal, experience, a country wanted to established an embassy in my country, butt he wanted al sort of weapons that i try to get prohibited here. And I Denied him acces, later on I applied for an embassy in his country and he Denied me as well, and the only reason is because of the fact that i denied him because of his extreme weapon choice. What is quite unfair.

And if these weapons would be internationlly prohibited we wouldn't have those sort of problems that countries get denied because they denied a nuclear embassy in their country.

And what is so bad about disarming embassies with such weapons? With an international policy we would get a bitt closer to world peace.

Sounds to me like the system worked. You denied an embassy, and they denied you yours. There's nothing to fix. Sovereign nations decide which embassies they allow within their borders, and it just didn't work out this time. Dry your eyes, move on to the next applicant.

That is not a system, every country should be free to open an embassy wherever they want as long as they agree with the regulations. If i would agree with their regulations I should be accepted just like every other state.

And let me ask you, do you want a Nuclear embassy in your country?? I guess you don't . But you would also like representation of your country in other country's, I guess that you wouldn't be happy if they denied you because you denied a nuclear embassy of them in your country.

That's one of the reason I say that we should have regulation on arms in embassies.

Another reason is that we can protect ourself agaist WA ennemies who like to have embassies in our countries. And if we would approve this proposal al WA countries can ban enemy states of out of our territory.

And wouldn't it be great if we could make a next step to a peacefull world.

That is not a system, every country should be free to open an embassy wherever they want as long as they agree with the regulations.Oh, including "host nations may deny embassy applicants for any reason"?

And let me ask you, do you want a Nuclear embassy in your country?? I guess you don't . But you would also like representation of your country in other country's, I guess that you wouldn't be happy if they denied you because you denied a nuclear embassy of them in your country.No, I wouldn't like to have a nuclear embassy in my country, which is why I would deny any such request, but it only raises the question, why would you want to have an embassy in a nation that seeks to arm its embassies with nuclear weapons? Sounds to me like you dodged a bullet. Move along.

People al we want is a more peacefuller world, isn't that clear or just now! And yeah maybe I dodged a bullet, and i moved allong already. But as WA we shouldn't allow heavy armed embassies, not now, and not in the future. We as WA should be the one who should "fight" against countries who use extreme weapons to guard an embassy, and we as WA have to try to make the world a more peacefuller place, and this proposal would help, so why don't support it. And i repeat we may not allow nuclear weapons at embassies, not now, and not in the future. And as a whole(as WA) we can stand strong against those who want a world of war and conflict.

This thread is crazy, but my kind of crazy.

O.O.C. I love a "more peacefuller world" !? Brilliant! :D

Peace through strength. Strength of sword and strength of character.
I have no embassies in my country nor am I trying to "persuade others" by establishing embassies in theirs. You want peace for your country, then stay isolationist or abide by the rules. Seems weird to me that a country wants to impose their will on others and then claim it for peace.

The subject of what weapons or defenses an embassy may have is about as legitimate a concern for the WA as what I had for breakfast this morning is.

If you don't want to allow certain kinds of weapons or defenses in embassies located in your nation, you don't have to allow them. If a nation violates those rules, you can boot their embassy. And the idea that "every country should be free to open an embassy wherever they want" is simply absurd. There are many nations that the Federation has no interest whatsoever in having diplomatic relations with; we're sure there are many nations that have no interest in having such relations with us either. What value is it to international relations and peace to force nations to interact with each other?

-Jaris Krytellin, Ambassador

Is there a sudden rash of Embassy Buildings rising up and attacking people that I'm not aware of?

@Quintessence of Dust
Well i'm glad it's your kind of crazy xD
@ Urgench
i'm glad that like that xD
@Minucular Bob
Your putting in in the wrong context, it's not just something that we want! Our government pursues a dream that on a day their won't be any conflicts anymore. And we believe that the WA is THE organisation who can make that dream come true. And therefore we would verry much like a resolution that gives a limit to weaponry at an embassy. And I really believe that al of us will have proffits ot this proposal, because than their are international regulations about how many and what sort of weapons are allowed to protect your embassy with and wich weapons are "over the top"

And we would like this proposal to become a resolution so that everyone can protect their nation's citizen's better. And with international regulations embassy weaponry ruling wouldn't be a mess like it is now because of all sorts of legislations in each country. Having the WA making the regulation for all WA members would be easier already than now.

If your nation feels as though the friends you have allowed into your nation are too well armed I would suggest you find new friends to invite over. Or install a gun and coat check at the door. You don't need our permission...

I'm a neutral country, so I am open into what everyone has to say. But I think it would be a better idear if not every country has it own and sometimes "weird" rules in their embassy policy. It's just like gun control, butt than a scale higher that says no extreme weapons at embassies in countries who are allied with eachother in the World Assembly.

If the nation wishes to have weird rules it's their prerogative as it is you prerogative to say no to their request. You can do what you wanna do...

Nigel S Youlkin
USoP Ambassador

yes, that's how it's going now. Butt we still like to see that all embassies in the WA countries are clear of Extreme weapons because they can harm a lot of people as well as damage.

And with this proposal we can have even control the Non members of the WA because they cannot bring any weapons they like with them anymore to WA countries.

So it's actualy High Scale International Weapon Control, protection of a verry large group of WA citizens, it's a step to "world" peace. And we have control on non members, so with this proposal we can even control our worst-ennemies, the brigand states in our world.

Do you make it a habit of inviting your worst enemies into your nation?

So far no ennemies, butt were not chosing sides so far, were a neutral country, open for conversation with everyone. And it would be strange if this wasn't the same in your country.

And what I said, it's all hear about, and I said it before:
it's actualy High Scale International Weapon Control, protection of a verry large group of WA citizens, it's a step to "world" peace. And we have control on non members, so with this proposal we can even control our worst-ennemies, the brigand states in our world.

It's not weapon control of any kind. It's a subjective limitation of an arsenal, which in many way is already happening at the national level. You apply you say this is what I need to conduct diplomacy in your nation. If the nation receiving the application isn't happy with that they say no... weapons controlled.

so what is your whole point than?? it is limitation of a weapon arsenal indeed, it's indeed happening already in several nations, so why dont'w we make it WA policy, what's your point? Why not making it policy if it is already happening in quite some nations?? It will make it only easier.

And it will increase peace worldwide and protection of a verry large group of WA citizens, it's a step to "world" peace. And we have control on non members, so with this proposal we can even control our worst-ennemies, the brigand states in our world.

My point is my esteemed colleague that the current system of application/acceptance/denial is doing what you'd like to waste this bodies time on.

You may repeat yourself blue in the face if you'd like, your statement is wrong. Even if a non member nation is not allowed to bring a nuclear device on to your soil, they are still free and clear to develop, design, and deploy them on their own. The "world" as you refer to it is no safer if the allies who have embassies on your soil are armed with assault rifles or sling shots.

An embassy is a home for your allies, if you don't trust the nation it doesn't matter what firepower they'd like to bring in. They simple should not get a home there. The truth is if you are truly interested in World Peace what happens diplomatically in the building is much more important than what the guards on the roof are carrying.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador
The United States of Philimbesi

better now?
Considering that the branded version is still in the proposal list, no.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Well we will see what the result will be on upcomming sunday, and otherwise our governement will make it his national policy, butt we just hope the proposal will be accepted. we just made this proposal in everybody's best interest!

Why is a sword extreme? Well a knifecutt is already quite nasty, so I believe being cutt a part by a sword must be verry nasty. And the people should be protected against those sort of weapons.

And countries shouldn't decide for themselves what sort of weapons are alowed and wich aren't . I have is a verry good, personal, experience, a country wanted to established an embassy in my country, butt he wanted al sort of weapons that i try to get prohibited here. And I Denied him acces, later on I applied for an embassy in his country and he Denied me as well, and the only reason is because of the fact that i denied him because of his extreme weapon choice. What is quite unfair.

And if these weapons would be internationlly prohibited we wouldn't have those sort of problems that countries get denied because they denied a nuclear embassy in their country.

And what is so bad about disarming embassies with such weapons? With an international policy we would get a bitt closer to world peace.So your proposal isn't intended to prohibit arming embassy staff with "extreme" weapons, it's intended to prohibit arming them at all?
In that case, as its wording specifically says that it applies to "such EXTREME weapons" as those listed in its previous paragraph, it applies only to those that are actually listed there and -- because of the "etc" that you included in that list -- those that are reasonably similar to them. This means that although it would ban swords, and arguably knives as well due to their similarity to swords, it still wouldn't ban any category of firearms (other than grenade-launchers) -- despite the fact that these can have much greater ranges and 'rates of fire' than swords -- so it's bloody stupid... which the Mods have considered adequate grounds for deleting proposals from the list of submissions in the past.
It's also "bloody stupid" because disarming embassies to the extent that you're suggesting would leave them far too vulnerable to attacks by terrorists, members of criminal organisations against whom their governments are active, other criminals, local political extremists, and the mentally unbalanced.
And even apart from those factors, some nations have cultures in which having armed guards -- or even being armed oneself -- is actually considered essential for some reason (maybe as a sign of adulthood, a religious obligation, or a way of showing social rank...) and you would therefore be forbidding the establishment of embassies by those nations even in countries whose own governments were perfectly happy with the idea of those weapons being present.


Borrin o Redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission at the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

The proposal in because of the "etc..." NOT only for swords and weapons similar to them. Haven't you read the proposal itself? It's against al weapons that can cause real problems, so please read back the proposal and don't place it in the wrong context.

And I don't think it has anything to do with "culture", For god sake do you really think that it's normal in several countries to walk over the street with a rocketlauncher or sword on your back.

And their is nothing wrong with armed guards at an embassy, the whole proposal is about their weaponry not the guards themselve.

so before going to complain don't be that bloody stupid yourself, because I'm starting to belive that you haven't read the proposal.

The proposal in because of the "etc..." NOT only for swords and weapons similar to them. Haven't you read the proposal itself? It's against al weapons that can cause real problems, so please read back the proposal and don't place it in the wrong context.Yes, I have read it, and nowhere does it either say "all weapons" or include firearms in the list of weapon-types to be banned... which, as the longstanding WA rule about such matters is that the binding aspect of a resolution is what it actually says rather than what its author intended it to mean, means that it would not ban the issue of firearms to embassy guards; and firearms, as I've already pointed out, are surely more "extreme" than swords, so that in the context of your own argument about harmfulness their exclusion from the list is ridiculous.

And I don't think it has anything to do with "culture", For god sake do you really think that it's normal in several countries to walk over the street with a rocketlauncher or sword on your back.Rocket-launchers I don't know about for certain, although considering some of the things that I've heard or seen said & done around here I wouldn't really be very surprised to find out that there were such nations.
Swords, on the other paw, certainly: There are "feudal Japanese"-type nations around, for example, and you do know about samurai & their swords don't you? Do you?

And their is nothing wrong with armed guards at an embassy, the whole proposal is about their weaponry not the guards themselve.And how does one have 'armed guards' if they're not to be allowed any weapons at all, as you seemed to claim in your reply to my original comment here?
Look, it's simple enough: If you want to limit the issue of weapons to embassy guards by prohibiting certain types of weapon then you need to list the forbidden types clearly, not just list some types and then add an "etc": A literal reading (which, as I said earlier in this comment, is all that WA rules require of us...) of your current draft does say that it only bans the types that you've actually listed plus -- because of that "etc" -- those that are similar to them.
If you really want that "etc" to mean more than "and other weapons that are very similar to these types" then you actually need to say what the additional types intended are, because we can't read your mind (not that I'd want to do so, anyway...) and the only meaning that it could logically have other than this one is "and all other types of weapons"...

so before going to complain don't be that bloody stupid yourself, because I'm starting to belive that you haven't read the proposal.Then, as with some of your apparent assumptions about how writing proposals works, you're wrong.


Borrin o redwood,
Chairbear, Bears Armed Mission to the World Assembly,
for
The High Council of Clans,
The Confederated Clans of the Free Bears of Bears Armed.

And with al do respect, all of you complainers are busybodies, I mean why do all big countries think that they are always right. The WA is all about making international regulations to reach the goal of a peacefull world, so if you don't like international regulations I advise you to resign from the WA and become a sovereign country!!!

And Sir O'Redwood please listen now.

The Whole proposal is to ban al extreme dangerous weapons as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rocketlaunchers, rpg's, and weapons as swords(that can cut people a part) at embassies.

Why this proposal? Most embassies are build in cities. A place where lots and lots of people live.

All of these embassies with such weapons are a threat to the civilian envirement.

Athor reasons are already been given:

it's actualy High Scale International Weapon Control, protection of a verry large group of WA citizens, it's a step to "world" peace. And we have control on non members who like to build an embassy in a WA country, so with this proposal we can even control our worst-ennemies, the brigand states in our world.

The Whole proposal is to ban al extreme dangerous weapons as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rocketlaunchers, rpg's, and weapons as swords(that can cut people a part) at embassies.

*Bob walks over to the ambassador from Noordeinde, draws his gunblade and sticks the point of it directly under the ambassador's chin.*

So, what exactly is it that you have against swords? And I advise you to think long and hard before you answer.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

My point about swords is: That if someone(let's say a guard) makes a mistake, he thought someone was going to attack him or the embassy, and he defends himself with a sword, what do you think would be the result? I think it's quite nasty.

But later we find out that this person just wanted to ask something. A sword causes lethal wounds and people die afther being attacked with a sword, This means an innocent citizen died because someone defended himself with a sword.

As countries we have to prevent our citizens for this faith and that is why we included swords next to biological weapons, nuclear weapons, rocketlaunchers, RPG's and other extremly dangerous weapons.

As countries we have to prevent our citizens for this faith and that is why we included swords next to biological weapons, nuclear weapons, rocketlaunchers, RPG's and other extremly dangerous weapons.
... but not guns... :confused:

being shot doen't mean that your always going to die. And yes their are cases of people being shot and killed, bust at least my security personnel may only open fire afther they have been threatened with a gun or knife or other weapon, butt they have no licence to kill

And afther if your being slashed a part with a sword you will die, it's not treatable in hospital.

And with al do respect, all of you complainers are busybodies, I mean why do all big countries think that they are always right.

snip



OOC: Well I would probably maintain that I was right even when I was a small country.


IC: I would suggest to my esteemed colleague he do some research in to the world he's trying to establish peace in. Swords, much like guns are traditional weapons handed down generation to generation in some of the nations in this assembly.

My problem however is not with the seemingly random groups and types of weapons you may or may not have selected in this travesty of a shame of a proposal.

My problem is that most (if not all) nations have some types of restrictions on embassy arsenals, and limiting them with such a loophole and vague piece of legislation as this would cause bedlam.

Well, my esteemed colleague, it's not vague at all. Yes it might not have been written as most proposals but it isn't vague.

Our proposed piece of legislation clearly says:
-No weapons as nuclear weapons, biological weapons, rocketlaunchers, RPG's, swords or other extreme weapons at foreign embassies

Your definition of Extreme Weapons would be?

all sorts of lethal weapons that if they are used on you(as a person) won't be survivable. That's why guns aren't in the proposal because you can survive afther being shot. And you can't survive afther someone used a nuclear or biological weapon on you, as well afther RPG's, flamethrowers or swords.

Actually my esteemed colleague is incorrect. Our veterans hospitals have several patriots that have survived RPG and flamethrower attacks in the throws of battle, and our cemetaries are full of civilian and patriot dead from "less extreme" weapons.

Our own Commanding General Percy Fitz-Wallace bears a nasty scar on his torso, caused by a sword and I assure you he is very much alive.

But I digress. How about if embassy guards are chosen from the a group of applicants who can't shoot straight... or the swords are dulled down to a less lethal sharpness.. Would that be ok?

I like the idear. But I still think the WA needs a resolution that says that nuclear, biological and rocket powered weapons(as rocketlaunchers and RPG's) should be banned in embasies within the WA countries, would that be acceptable as well.

And let's forgett than about the swords...

Sincerrely Yours
Thom Grant
Ambassador to the WA
The Grand Duchy of Noordeinde

I would rather we forgot the entire thing.

I also would not release readily that your embassy gaurds aren't allowed to shoot to kill, there are may terrorist organizations out there who would see that as an opportunity.

well i'm not really a type that gives up, so we shall see what happens on sunday.

Sincerely Yours
Thom Grant
Ambassador to the WA
The Grand Duchhy of Noordeinde

That's why guns aren't in the proposal because you can survive afther being shot.Really, can we test how well you survive a gunshot wound to the cranium?

Our own Commanding General Percy Fitz-Wallace bears a nasty scar on his torso, caused by a sword and I assure you he is very much alive.

Heck, you should see some of the scars I got back when I was learning how to handle my gunblade.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Personally I don't see what is the problem. But then again I use embassy requests as a chance to foist off undesirable reletives(or those who offered a substantial cash gift) to other nations. I believe it is the standard practice of the nation granting the embassy to set the amount and types of security forces allowed in the country. Thus I see this resolution to be useless and a waste of time.
Excelsior,
Lord Julius"Whatever it is, I'm against it" Marx
Prime Minister
The Palentine

Personally I don't see what is the problem. But then again I use embassy requests as a chance to foist off undesirable reletives(or those who offered a substantial cash gift) to other nations.OOC: on which subject, you never got around to naming your ambassador to Bears Armed...

you're aware that embassies are supposed to be consider the land of the country that it represents, right? ergo, their laws override your laws in that plot of land.

Course, it's stupid to bring said nuclear/biological weapons to said embassy, if you think about the RL example of the US embassy in Iran.

Sara Mavenu

Powerhungry Chipmunks allows any nation (not currently under advisory by national intelligence services) an embassyas long as it conforms to PC regulations. Namely, it must be no larger than fourteen inches tall (two chipmunk stories) it must have ample nuts.

Yes. That's right. We only accept embassies with nuts.

you're aware that embassies are supposed to be consider the land of the country that it represents, right? ergo, their laws override your laws in that plot of land.
But you don't have to let them have an embassy in your nation in the first place, and if you do agree to let them have one then you're perfectly free to attach conditions such as a limit on the weapons that can be taken there to that agreement.

(Just as, for example, you could say that if they're going to be using a building of historical importance then they might not be free to modify its structure however they want...)

Nations of The World,

Several nations in our world arm their foreign embassy's with biological weapons, nuclear weapons but also rocket launchers,grenades, flamethrowers, swords etc...

All weapons that could seriously harm the people of the Country were the Embassy is.

We hearby make the request at the World Assembly, to disarm all Embassies from such EXTREME weapons. And that from now on it's PROHIBITED to secure your foreign Embassy's with such weapons.

We request as well if this proposal will be accepted by the WA, that WA inspectors will check all embassies for the prohibited weapons. And will "punish" all country's who are still arming their embassies with these weapons.

ladies and gentlemen, Heads of State, decide wise.
The Aundotutunagirian People oppose this. An embassy is sovereign territory and nations have the right to protect their sovereign territory. If you don't want particular types of weapons on the embassy grounds then work that out in advance with the nation you are exchanging embassies with.

We only accept embassies with nuts.
Many of my fellow ambassadors have accused the Aundotutunagirian People of being nuts. Can I set up an embassy in your capitol?

Greater Americania opposes this Proposal.

. We only accept embassies with nuts.

Are they extreme nuts?

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa156/Bluebird64/Protester.gif

A MORE PEACEFULLER WORLD! - Just because of that line I think it deserves a sticky.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa156/Bluebird64/Protester.gif

A MORE PEACEFULLER WORLD! - Just because of that line I think it deserves a sticky.
What the hell are you going on about? This is the embassy disarmament thread.

What the hell are you going on about? This is the embassy disarmament thread.


Huh?

You've already forgotten about this gem....

People al we want is a more peacefuller world

Huh?

You've already forgotten about this gem....
:tongue:

Honestly, I hadn't forgotten about it, I had completely overlooked it. I thought Quod was just being funny with his thread title.

:tongue:

Honestly, I hadn't forgotten about it, I had completely overlooked it. I thought Quod was just being funny with his thread title.

Well I don't think he was trying to be in deadly earnest either, I'm imagining it's a humorous homage, :tongue:

Oh good Lord, this thing's actually been submitted.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Surely it's illegal in some way or another no ?


Yours,

This is why we need an option to vote "no" for proposals, not just one to endorse them.

http://i197.photobucket.com/albums/aa156/Bluebird64/Pickone.gif