[PROPOSAL] Condemnation of the Missourian Rebels

[New Hayesalia]

The World Assembly Security Council,

RESTATING its continual efforts to advance interregional peace and goodwill,

BELIEVING that The Christian Confederate of the Missourian Rebels has repeatedly interfered with the civil rights of its own citizens and the civil rights of citizens in foreign nations and has therefore made a considerable contribution to the disruption of world peace,

DISDAINED by mass deportations of homosexual and transvestite persons within the Missourian Rebels, who are forced to seek shelter in unfamiliar areas of the world, an attack on LGBT rights,

NOTING the constant military activity of the Missourian Rebels which negatively effects the workings of foreign nations,

SHOCKED by the Missourian Rebels' violently enforced trade embargoes against Trinity Sea Systems, a merchant company based in the Holy Roman Confederate, which blacklisted the Missourian Rebels due to fears that the nation would commit acts of mass violence

DISGUSTED by blatant attempts to overthrow the small Islamic nation of Somasa, a non-WA nation, on basis of slave markets,

SURPRISED that Missourian Rebels' usage of nuclear weapons to create an EMP attack to neutralise advancing military assets, endangering their own citizens,

OBSERVING the formation of the "Alliance of Christian Nations", in which an ambassador from Missourian Rebels stated, "We're a tolerant bunch, of our own countries, of others, but attack one of us or do something to disgrace us and we cut your head off," and deeming this hypocritical statement to be a blatant threat to nations everywhere,

REPULSED by the illegal and shocking military insertion of special bodyguard forces at a major Hernian Gala to protect their President, endangering other heads of state, monarchs, and civilians, including those of Hernier and New Hayesalia by monitoring the Gala with high powered rifles
APPALLED by public executions of non-Christians within Missourian Rebels, a massive insult to civil rights in all nations,

FURTHER APPALLED by Missourian Rebels' condemnation of the Saiva Pact on the basis that nations joining were required to be communist, and believing that what is essentially a condemnation of a widely adopted political and economic system is not acceptable and promotes discord among the ideologically differing nations of the world,

HEREBY CONDEMNS the Missourian Rebels.




Feel free to come up with all suggestions, please comment. Also, examples thanks to SPR

One, The Embargo was because his government Blacklisted me, second, He has slave markets, If he were in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions, but he's not, and I have the right to overthrow him, Third, that is called SELF DEFENSE, AKA DEFENSE OF OUR OWN NATIONS, Fourth: we just wanna defend our president, it's not illegal, and you have no IC knowledge of the special forces, Five, where you get that?, we don't Execute them, we just deport them to the middle east, Six, No Comment, Seven, I should be COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, I'm just standing up for my beliefs.

You have every right to stand up for your beliefs, but I hardly think that self-defense involves the attempt to overthrow a nation who has absolutely whatsoever no legitimate connection to your own. Execution, or deportation - does it really makes no difference when we're talking about a "tolerant bunch?" (Example 1, Example 2). Even though I abhor slavery (thats my point of view), Im not going in and invading his nation just cause his point of view is different than mine. Yes, an embargo is perfectly fine on a nation that "blacklisted" your nation or whatnot. BUT, if a storefront blacklists you (Example 3), it really makes no sense to declare war on the said storefront. If he was in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions - but he's not. It doesn't really give you a *cough* God-given right to go in and overthrow him. Again, that's just my point of view, this is my first post in the WASC (to my knowledge), so please tell me if you have any criticism's or suggestions.

Thanks,

SPR

P.S. As Sedgistan said about evidence, NH you can use the links above for evidence if you need to.

And MR's post history- http://forum.nationstates.net/search.php?author_id=97178&sr=posts

[Holy Roman Confederate]

The HRC is in total support of this measure.

[The Floridian Coast]

The Floridian Coast supports this measure.

[Sedgistan]

Might want to change "FURTHER SHOCKED" to something like "DISGUSTED", and to remove at least one of those "NOTING"s - maybe "AWARE THAT" or "RECOGNISING".

Also, I'll beat AMON to saying that capitalising the first word of each clause isn't actually necessary, and that it should be a comma at the end of each clause, rather than a semi-colon. It's also standard form to start the proposal with either "The Security Council," or "The World Assembly," (or even a combination of the two).

You've got a fair amount of claims about the Missourian Rebels in the proposal - it would help to first back them up with evidence (not in the proposal itself - just provide some links in your OP), and also to expand on them a bit. It may seem fairly obvious, but you should at least say why those various things are bad, and therefore worthy of condemnation by the Security Council.

[Missourian Rebels]

One, The Embargo was because his government Blacklisted me, second, He has slave markets, If he were in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions, but he's not, and I have the right to overthrow him, Third, that is called SELF DEFENSE, AKA DEFENSE OF OUR OWN NATIONS, Fourth: we just wanna defend our president, it's not illegal, and you have no IC knowledge of the special forces, Five, where you get that?, we don't Execute them, we just deport them to the middle east, Six, No Comment, Seven, I should be COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, I'm just standing up for my beliefs.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

One, The Embargo was because his government Blacklisted me, second, He has slave markets, If he were in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions, but he's not, and I have the right to overthrow him, Third, that is called SELF DEFENSE, AKA DEFENSE OF OUR OWN NATIONS, Fourth: we just wanna defend our president, it's not illegal, and you have no IC knowledge of the special forces, Five, where you get that?, we don't Execute them, we just deport them to the middle east, Six, No Comment, Seven, I should be COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, I'm just standing up for my beliefs.

A very muddled and poorly written rebuttal. Really no better than screaming 'NUH UH". Care to explain how you're claiming self defense 4 words after claiming the right to overthrow another government? WOuldnt that make you the belligerent in that situation? Yes the HRC did blacklist you so we care not at all for your weak return embargo. Now shhhh the adults are speaking.

[San Pellegrino Romana]

One, The Embargo was because his government Blacklisted me, second, He has slave markets, If he were in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions, but he's not, and I have the right to overthrow him, Third, that is called SELF DEFENSE, AKA DEFENSE OF OUR OWN NATIONS, Fourth: we just wanna defend our president, it's not illegal, and you have no IC knowledge of the special forces, Five, where you get that?, we don't Execute them, we just deport them to the middle east, Six, No Comment, Seven, I should be COMMENDED, not CONDEMNED, I'm just standing up for my beliefs.

You have every right to stand up for your beliefs, but I hardly think that self-defense involves the attempt to overthrow a nation who has absolutely whatsoever no legitimate connection to your own. Execution, or deportation - does it really makes no difference when we're talking about a "tolerant bunch?" (Example 1, Example 2). Even though I abhor slavery (thats my point of view), Im not going in and invading his nation just cause his point of view is different than mine. Yes, an embargo is perfectly fine on a nation that "blacklisted" your nation or whatnot. BUT, if a storefront blacklists you (Example 3), it really makes no sense to declare war on the said storefront. If he was in the WA, he'd be subject to sanctions - but he's not. It doesn't really give you a *cough* God-given right to go in and overthrow him. Again, that's just my point of view, this is my first post in the WASC (to my knowledge), so please tell me if you have any criticism's or suggestions.

Thanks,

SPR

P.S. As Sedgistan said about evidence, NH you can use the links above for evidence if you need to.

[New Hayesalia]

If this thing gets off the ground, I'd prefer not to use the links. It'd get rejected. Also, I'm editing the first post.

[A mean old man]

Might want to change "FURTHER SHOCKED" to something like "DISGUSTED", and to remove at least one of those "NOTING"s - maybe "AWARE THAT" or "RECOGNISING".

Also, I'll beat AMON to saying that capitalising the first word of each clause isn't actually necessary, and that it should be a comma at the end of each clause, rather than a semi-colon. It's also standard form to start the proposal with either "The Security Council," or "The World Assembly," (or even a combination of the two).

The capitalization isn't necessary, though I have done it myself in my own proposals simply for the visual effect it can create. I'll probably stop using it in my next proposal, though.

The format is whatever you want it to be; there are no rules on how you design your WASC resolutions, as long as they've got the right content in them. However, like Sedge said (and like I told him originally), the most formal (and official, IRL) format is as such:

The World Assembly,

Believing this,

Saying that,

Hereby does this.

Put it together and it works pretty much like a normal sentence in the English language, just a little awkward and with some words in italics.

Bill, hating his neighbor Bob, believing that Bob should be dead, hereby shoots Bob in the face.

The word "hereby" is highlighted in red because it is not usually used in the official format either, though is commonly used in the WASC. I use it. I'm just highlighting it to remind myself that it doesn't actually have to be in there, according to the official format IRL.

[EDIT: The "believing" and "saying" are just examples of gerunds. You can use whatever you like there and place however many lines you want to in the text, as long as the gerunds' actions and the actions in their following clauses are thoughts or examples; there is only one clause in a WASC resolution that performs any action, and that action can only be "commends," "condemns," or "liberates."

I hope I'm not the only one who understands what I'm rambling on about here. ]

You've got a fair amount of claims about the Missourian Rebels in the proposal - it would help to first back them up with evidence (not in the proposal itself - just provide some links in your OP), and also to expand on them a bit. It may seem fairly obvious, but you should at least say why those various things are bad, and therefore worthy of condemnation by the Security Council.

From what I have seen of the first post, evidence appears to have been added after Sedge brought the point on it up and the evidence has been discussed in the proposal's text. As this proposal, after a slightly brief period of observation, appears to be promising, I'll certainly be back later with anything specific I can add to the discussion on the wording and content of the proposal itself in order to aid its chances of success in the quorum and possibly even at vote. I'm currently pretty busy, though.

[New Hayesalia]

Edited.

[Banjamos]

The DSS of Banjamos supports this measure.

[Missourian Rebels]

One, the alliance is tolerant, and so what, other nations KILL their citizens, I deport them for their own safety ( remember Christianity is the biggest religion in the country, making up 95% of the nation) two, other people invade countries for more horrible reasons, what I did is something the US would do, the embargo is completely legal, his government blacklisted me. I did not threaten any nations for unreasonable reasons, third I left the WA because of proposals like this piece of illegitimate legislation here

[Holy Roman Confederate]

One, the alliance is tolerant, and so what, other nations KILL their citizens, I deport them for their own safety ( remember Christianity is the biggest religion in the country, making up 95% of the nation) two, other people invade countries for more horrible reasons, what I did is something the US would do, the embargo is completely legal, his government blacklisted me. I did not threaten any nations for unreasonable reasons, third I left the WA because of proposals like this piece of illegitimate legislation here

Your embargo is actually trivial. Your nation is an economic horror movie compared to the HRC. Your "unreasonable reasons" are as warped as one can expect from a nation that preaches religious intolerance. If ignorance is bliss then a nation full of religious zealots who are incapable of intelligent thought must truly be paradise.

[New Hayesalia]

One, the alliance is tolerant, and so what, other nations KILL their citizens, I deport them for their own safety ( remember Christianity is the biggest religion in the country, making up 95% of the nation) two, other people invade countries for more horrible reasons, what I did is something the US would do, the embargo is completely legal, his government blacklisted me. I did not threaten any nations for unreasonable reasons, third I left the WA because of proposals like this piece of illegitimate legislation here

Your embargo is actually trivial. Your nation is an economic horror movie compared to the HRC. Your "unreasonable reasons" are as warped as one can expect from a nation that preaches religious intolerance. If ignorance is bliss then a nation full of religious zealots who are incapable of intelligent thought must truly be paradise.

I fully agree with HRC, and-
1- Discriminating against ANY person based on age, race, sexual preference, etc. INCLUDING RELIGION is not acceptable. By deporting them for their own "safety", you are destroying livelihoods. Where are you deporting them, exactly?

2- Other countries do invade countries for more horrible reasons. You may recall your attempted invasion of South Carolina? Remember who put a stop to that? The declaration of war on Somasa was the last straw for me.

3- Just because you leave the WA dosen't mean it suddenly has no purpose.Those "illegitimate legislations" are obviously supported by most nations, or else the suddenly wouldn't be resolutions?

Nothing is stopping you from rejoining and writing up a condemnation act against me, the HRC, or any nations who those invasions and/or kill their citizens.

[Firstaria]

Might want to change "FURTHER SHOCKED" to something like "DISGUSTED", and to remove at least one of those "NOTING"s - maybe "AWARE THAT" or "RECOGNISING".

Also, I'll beat AMON to saying that capitalising the first word of each clause isn't actually necessary, and that it should be a comma at the end of each clause, rather than a semi-colon. It's also standard form to start the proposal with either "The Security Council," or "The World Assembly," (or even a combination of the two).

You've got a fair amount of claims about the Missourian Rebels in the proposal - it would help to first back them up with evidence (not in the proposal itself - just provide some links in your OP), and also to expand on them a bit. It may seem fairly obvious, but you should at least say why those various things are bad, and therefore worthy of condemnation by the Security Council.

I agree with Sedge here.

[A mean old man]

You are free to accept, decline, and/or build off of any of the suggestions for the improvement of your proposal which I have provided in the following post.

The World Assembly Security Council,

RESTATING its continual efforts to foster and maintain interregional peace and goodwill,

That gerund "restating" doesn't really seem to fit well with that clause.

You could try "upholding" or "advancing."

Might also want to reverse the word order with "maintain and foster," as maintaining is an action that I would normally think of as following fostering.

...and "interregional" is a word; there's no need for the dash.

BELIEVING that The Christian Confederate of the Missourian Rebels has been consistently interfering with the balance of world peace and civil rights,

"has"
Since we're referring to "The Christian Confederate of the Missourian Rebels" as a nation and therefore a singular entity, the proper form is "has," not "have."

"the balance of world peace and civil rights"
This looks a little strange. I don't usually think of a "balance" when it comes to "world peace" or "civil rights," but I don't think what you've said is wrong.

...so you can use that wording if you like. I do think there are better ways to say what you're trying to say, however. Let me take a swing at this clause:

BELIEVING that The Christian Confederate of the Missourian Rebels has repeatedly interfered with the civil rights of its own citizens and the civil rights of citizens in foreign nations and has therefore made a considerable contribution to the disruption of world peace,

Worded very differently, though carries the same idea and might send the message in a more powerful fashion.

If you want to link to the nation in the text without making a big deal out of it, you can simply place [nation=short][/nation] tags (if you want a miniature flag displayed) or [nation=short+noflag][/nation] tags (for no flag or full title at all) around "Missourian Rebels," and that name will be highlighted as a link to the nation which you are condemning.

NOTING constant international interference and military activity from the Christian Confederate of the Missourian Rebels,

Hmm. This clause seems a bit awkward as well. "International interference" is a bit too broad and vague a term, and the idea that Missourian Rebels has committed acts of "international interference" is basically the general idea you're trying to convey to your reader with the entire text of the proposal itself. I'd just take it out of this clause, mainly because it's redundant, but you could use a similar term or group of words that harbor the same idea later (probably closer to the conclusion of the proposal) to create a better effect.

NOTING the constant military activity of the Missourian Rebels which negatively effects the workings of foreign nations,

SHOCKED by the Missourian Rebels' violently enforced trade embargoes against Trinity Sea Systems, a merchant company based in the Holy Roman Confederate, which blacklisted the Missourian Rebels due to fears that the nation would commit acts of mass violence,

Edits made in order to better structure the clause. It's still a little difficult.

...and fears that the nation would commit acts of mass violence against who? What did MR do that inspired such an idea in TRC/TSS? Even from observing the storefront thread I couldn't find a lot of background info on that decision.

DISGUSTED by blatant attempts to overthrow the small Islamic nation of Somasa, a non-WA nation, on basis of slave markets,

Before I edit this clause, I need to know more about the situation. Whose slave markets? Was Somasa engaging in the slave trade, or was MR (or were both)? What specific actions brought MR to attack the foreign nation? "Overthrow" is also not clear. Did MR try to overthrow the government of Somasa on the inside? Did it try to invade the nation with an army? Clarity, please.

I might be able to research the topic myself (via interviewing individual nations, digging through the forums, et cetera) and dig up evidence on my own here to contribute to the proposal, though I think that's more a co-author thing than an editor thing, and if I'm going to be involved in the drafting that deeply I might want to take on the position of and be tagged as a co-author.

OBSERVING the formation of the "Alliance of Christian Nations", in which an ambassador from Missourian Rebels stated, "We're a tolerant bunch, of our own countries, of others, but attack one of us or do something to disgrace us and we cut your head off," and deeming this hypocritical statement to be a blatant threat to nations everywhere,

"Noting" was already used. "Observing" seemed more appropriate, anyway.

REPULSED by the illegal and shocking military insertion of special forces at a major Hernian Gala to protect their President, endangering other heads of state, monarchs, and civilians, including those of Hernier and New Hayesalia,

Can't edit this yet. I'm terribly confused as to what happened here. Need clarification.

APPALLED by the public execution of non-Christians within Missourian Rebels, a massive insult to civil rights in all nations,

Edited the wording to fix a singular/plural error.

FURTHER APPALLED by Missourian Rebels' open condemnation of the Saiva Pact on the basis that nations joining were required to be communist, an open threat to all communist nations which may not be prepared to defend against the Missourian Rebels, therefore endangring civilians,

"Amazed" seemed a little off.

This clause seems to be exaggerating a bit, too. I don't think their condemnation of this pact endangers lives, though I do think there's an opportunity here to further reinforce a rebuttal of a negative precedent regarding the condemnation of ideologies that the SC has been the culprit of promoting in the past. So here's my version of the clause:

FURTHER APPALLED by Missourian Rebels' condemnation of the Saiva Pact on the basis that nations joining were required to be communist, and believing that what is essentially a condemnation of a widely adopted political and economic system is not acceptable and promotes discord among the ideologically differing nations of the world,

HEREBY CONDEMNS the Missourian Rebels.

...and that's what I have to add. Thanks for reading. Sorry it's so long.

[Missourian Rebels]

Your embargo is actually trivial. Your nation is an economic horror movie compared to the HRC. Your "unreasonable reasons" are as warped as one can expect from a nation that preaches religious intolerance. If ignorance is bliss then a nation full of religious zealots who are incapable of intelligent thought must truly be paradise.

I fully agree with HRC, and-
1- Discriminating against ANY person based on age, race, sexual preference, etc. INCLUDING RELIGION is not acceptable. By deporting them for their own "safety", you are destroying livelihoods. Where are you deporting them, exactly?

2- Other countries do invade countries for more horrible reasons. You may recall your attempted invasion of South Carolina? Remember who put a stop to that? The declaration of war on Somasa was the last straw for me.

3- Just because you leave the WA dosen't mean it suddenly has no purpose.Those "illegitimate legislations" are obviously supported by most nations, or else the suddenly wouldn't be resolutions?

Nothing is stopping you from rejoining and writing up a condemnation act against me, the HRC, or any nations who those invasions and/or kill their citizens.

again, I retract what I said about deporting them, I don't deport anyone forcefully, but if they stay, they'd have to travel across the border to find the nearest mosque or sanhedrim or whatever. also, I ban all gays and lesbians and transevites from my nation, you wanna Do something bout that? Somasa, had a legitimate reason. I have all the reason to make my nation a Christian nation, it promotes unity, and we encourage other faiths to go to a nation that condones their religion more, so that conflicts don't erupt, and also, new hayeselia, you ban religion from your nation, so you have no reason to get all over me cause I encourage non-christians to leave my country.

[Banjamos]

I fully agree with HRC, and-
1- Discriminating against ANY person based on age, race, sexual preference, etc. INCLUDING RELIGION is not acceptable. By deporting them for their own "safety", you are destroying livelihoods. Where are you deporting them, exactly?

2- Other countries do invade countries for more horrible reasons. You may recall your attempted invasion of South Carolina? Remember who put a stop to that? The declaration of war on Somasa was the last straw for me.

3- Just because you leave the WA dosen't mean it suddenly has no purpose.Those "illegitimate legislations" are obviously supported by most nations, or else the suddenly wouldn't be resolutions?

Nothing is stopping you from rejoining and writing up a condemnation act against me, the HRC, or any nations who those invasions and/or kill their citizens.

again, I retract what I said about deporting them, I don't deport anyone forcefully, but if they stay, they'd have to travel across the border to find the nearest mosque or sanhedrim or whatever. also, I ban all gays and lesbians and transevites from my nation, you wanna Do something bout that? Somasa, had a legitimate reason. I have all the reason to make my nation a Christian nation, it promotes unity, and we encourage other faiths to go to a nation that condones their religion more, so that conflicts don't erupt, and also, new hayeselia, you ban religion from your nation, so you have no reason to get all over me cause I encourage non-christians to leave my country.

We haven't seen evidence where he actually publicly executes Christians, or anybody else for that matter. I, personally, haven't seen evidence of you doing this as well.

Would the OP kindly link some evidence of MR's public execution of non Christians?

[United NW Canada]

The Peoples Republic of United North West Canada fully support this motion of Condemnation.

[New Hayesalia]

again, I retract what I said about deporting them, I don't deport anyone forcefully, but if they stay, they'd have to travel across the border to find the nearest mosque or sanhedrim or whatever. also, I ban all gays and lesbians and transevites from my nation, you wanna Do something bout that? Somasa, had a legitimate reason. I have all the reason to make my nation a Christian nation, it promotes unity, and we encourage other faiths to go to a nation that condones their religion more, so that conflicts don't erupt, and also, new hayeselia, you ban religion from your nation, so you have no reason to get all over me cause I encourage non-christians to leave my country.

We haven't seen evidence where he actually publicly executes Christians, or anybody else for that matter. I, personally, haven't seen evidence of you doing this as well.

Would the OP kindly link some evidence of MR's public execution of non Christians?

Also, we don't advocate slavery but we do love god and execute nonbelievers

again, I retract what I said about deporting them, I don't deport anyone forcefully, but if they stay, they'd have to travel across the border to find the nearest mosque or sanhedrim or whatever. also, I ban all gays and lesbians and transevites from my nation, you wanna Do something bout that? Somasa, had a legitimate reason. I have all the reason to make my nation a Christian nation, it promotes unity, and we encourage other faiths to go to a nation that condones their religion more, so that conflicts don't erupt, and also, new hayeselia, you ban religion from your nation, so you have no reason to get all over me cause I encourage non-christians to leave my country.

Hating people based on sexual preference, MR, is DISCRIMINATION. Barring them from entry into your nations is a breach of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS., in fact, I'll be adding that to the condemnation act. If your citizens have to travel across the border, I'd imagine that means you're probably barring development of places of worship. A breach of HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS.. If you seem to FORCE Christianity onto your citzens, you are OPPRESSING them. You can't walk up to Billy Bloggs on the street, snap your fingers and turn him into a priest.

Also, I'd like to see where we "banned religion." I never passed legislation permitting it, nor did I ever RP it. We just don't see the need to put money into it.

I'm editing the first post now- thank you a mean old man.

[A mean old man]

I'm editing the first post now- thank you a mean old man.

No problem.

[Arcad]

The Arcadian government seeks hard evidence to support the claims of either side. If any is to be found, it will surely sway our opinion on the matter. For now, we will remain simply neutral observers.

[Hirota]

Hirota fully expresses it's support for the condemnation of the tinpot state of Missourian Rebels

[New Hayesalia]

I am submitting it now.

[Banjamos]

The Arcadian government seeks hard evidence to support the claims of either side. If any is to be found, it will surely sway our opinion on the matter. For now, we will remain simply neutral observers.

Go 5 posts up, and you find evidence of his public
execution of non Christians.