Advertisement
by Scalietti » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:21 pm
by Kivigrad » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:25 am
by Embolalia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:23 am
Studea wrote:Everybody needs water...if you aren't making sure your people have clean water to drink we feel your country's priorities are wildly askew.
We're voting for this one. It just makes sense.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:54 am
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Nova Prutenia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:43 am
by Kivigrad » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:00 am
Ddreigiau wrote:The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in teh event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.
The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.
The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:10 am
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Blauckistan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:51 am
3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens.
i) Such an amount shall be no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens.
ii) Such water must meet the minimum standards as instated by IBWS.
iii) Nations may contract such provision to administrative subdivisions, private corporations, or individuals, provided such does not impede access.
iv) Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access.
v) Nations must provide subsidy, reimbursement, or other financial assistance where necessary to ensure all their citizens can afford access to a minimal amount of water.
by Embolalia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:53 am
Ddreigiau wrote:The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in teh event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.
The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.
The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".
Kivigrad wrote:The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Embolalia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:58 am
Blauckistan wrote:3) All nations must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens.
i) Such an amount shall be no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens.
ii) Such water must meet the minimum standards as instated by IBWS.
iii) Nations may contract such provision to administrative subdivisions, private corporations, or individuals, provided such does not impede access.
iv) Nations may charge reasonable amounts for water usage, provided such does not impede access.
v) Nations must provide subsidy, reimbursement, or other financial assistance where necessary to ensure all their citizens can afford access to a minimal amount of water.
I may have already voted in support impulsively, but will more than likely change my vote if I cannot get credible enough answers before the vote closure.
1) In section 3, it states that all WA nations "must provide at least a minimal amount of potable water to all their citizens." (In my current status, I have a population of 5 million citizens.) What is the acceptable amount of water for such a nation? I do not intend to treat my citizens like third-world citizens and give them next to nothing!
2) In section 3, chapter 1, potable water "must meet" IBWS' minimum standards. I may be new to this, but I would appreciate some information on what IBWS' standards are for potable water. I don't want my citizens drinking water that, even with minimum requirements, could kill them.
3) In section 3, chapter 4, nations "may charge reasonable amounts for water usage". Some nations are smaller than mine, but then there are nations larger, not to mention there may be the instances of class where the rich class can afford ungodly amounts of water, while the poor can only afford water for about one week a month. I dare ask, what is an acceptable price for all nations, without resorting to classes or whether a person can afford or budget it?
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Blauckistan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:01 am
Embolalia wrote:That would be "no less than that required for the healthy survival of the citizens." So if, to be healthy, your citizens require one liter per day, you must provide at least one liter per day. You can, of course, provide more.
Section 2 establishes the International Bureau of Water Safety, or IBWS, which will in turn determine these standards. You are, again, free to have higher standards for your water.
There is no single price across all nations. It merely needs to be reasonable, such determination being up to the individual nation. However, it must by this resolution be affordable. It is, again, up to the nation how it is made affordable.
by Toraston » Mon Aug 09, 2010 11:06 am
Nova Prutenia wrote:A prime example of a resolution that covers ground best left to domestic governments.
by Kivigrad » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:23 pm
Embolalia wrote:Kivigrad wrote:The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.
You have to comply. There is no choice; if you are in the WA, you comply with all the resolutions in their entirety.
by Greenlandic People » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:06 pm
Kivigrad wrote:Embolalia wrote:Kivigrad wrote:The Commander in Chief's advisers some how overlooked this! The DRK will do its best to preserve clean water, but will NOT comply with this resolution in its entirety, our national defense is far too important.
You have to comply. There is no choice; if you are in the WA, you comply with all the resolutions in their entirety.
I can roleplay my nation to not comply. IRL nations break UN mandate all the time.
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:08 pm
Greenlandic People wrote:You can roleplay defiance, but the resolution with still affect your national stats in-game.
by Kivigrad » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:15 pm
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:40 pm
Embolalia wrote:Ddreigiau wrote:The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau is wholly against this resolution, on the grounds that the wording is too vague and allows for too many loopholes.
This is evident supremely in the first clause, which requires a nation to supply water to its invaders, should such an invasion occur. This also bans the sinking of any naval ship, the destruction of near-shore bases, and the firing of weapons by our Coast Guard, as lead and other materials would "pollute" the water source. This resolution is too restrictive in the event of war or common anti-drug trafficking operations.
The effect of this would be similar to forcing the Allied forces of the Second World War to ship water trucks to the invading Nazi hordes, while at the same time preventing them from sinking their U-boats and ensuring that the Bismark and Tirpitz sailed unchallenged, as they were not under the jurisdiction of just government. Nazi Germany was ahead of the US in nuclear weapons development, and was only set back because the local Resistance forces sunk the ferry containing the only heavy water manufacturing parts. The battle for North Africa was won because Allied interdiction forces sunk more than 90% of the supply ships bound for Rommel's force. what would happen to Montgomery? He'd be a name barely making the history books, and then only as another triumph of the Desert Fox. Alexander? the same. The common person would never know the name Eisenhower, nor Patton. fewer people would know any of those four than now know the name Dönitz.
The US would have had to begin a land invasion of Japan, at the cost of an estimated 1,000,000 casualties just on the Allied side.
The effect of this may have - no, definitely WOULD have lost the war, making the very formation of the UN and later the World Assembly impossible. Germany would have used atomic weapons on Allied forces and the British Isles at the first opportunity, and likely later on the United States. They may then have shared the technology with Japan, enabling them to use an atomic bomb on San Diego, the primary shipyards of the Pacific theater of war, as well as Pearl Harbor and other West Coast cities.
The Socialist Democracy of Ddreigiau simply cannot vote for such a resolution that restricts defensive measures "without exception".
What? Barring your RL reference, where does it say you have to provide water to your enemies? It says you can't intentionally contaminate their civilian, and it specifies civilian, water supplies. I'm also unsure what anti-drug tactics you're using that require the intentional contamination of civilian water supplies.
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Glen-Rhodes » Mon Aug 09, 2010 1:47 pm
Kivigrad wrote:OOC: Do they actually affect in game stats? According to different calculators and what no, no money is spent on anything except my 3 primary items, Defense, Law and Order, and Commerce. How do WA resolutions affect my stats?
by South Soul » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:35 pm
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:01 pm
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Embolalia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:31 pm
Ddreigiau wrote:What? Barring your RL reference, where does it say you have to provide water to your enemies? It says you can't intentionally contaminate their civilian, and it specifies civilian, water supplies. I'm also unsure what anti-drug tactics you're using that require the intentional contamination of civilian water supplies.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:27 pm
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Burninati0n » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:19 pm
Ddreigiau wrote:...They may intercept H20 shipments for use by civilians in occupied territory...
Embolalia wrote:"The resolution requires a national government to supply water to its citizens. The opposing military forces are not citizens of a nation, unless you have truly bizarre citizenship laws. Therefore, you do not have to provide water to enemy troops."
by Ddreigiau » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:29 pm
The new Russia was in trouble. Prime Minister Putin was concerned, and thus, through the ancient art of necromancy, he revived the great leader, Uncle Joe.
"Stalin!" he cried as the ghost materialised in his office. "The Motherland is in trouble, what do I do?"
Stalin looked grave for a moment before answering.
"My son" he said pensively. "You must round up all the liberals in the country and have them shot. Then, you must paint the Kremlin building blue."
"Why blue?" Putin asked, confused.
Stalin boomed with laughter "I knew you wouldn't as about the first part!"
by Embolalia » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:09 pm
BURNINATI0N wrote:Embolalia wrote:"The resolution requires a national government to supply water to its citizens. The opposing military forces are not citizens of a nation, unless you have truly bizarre citizenship laws. Therefore, you do not have to provide water to enemy troops."
Yet again, you write your own interpretations of this resolution. We ask the ambassador to kindly point out the statute in this resolution that specifies that I only have to supply water to citizens?
It amuses us to no end that the author of this resolution seems utterly unaware of what it actually says.
/ˌɛmboʊˈlɑːliːʌ/ | My mostly worthless blog Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.51 Liberal atheist bisexual, and proud of it.
|
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement