[DEFEATED] Responsible Arms Transfers

[Wallenburg]

"Oh, come off it. Unless this is an admission that Wallenburg has designs to carry out a war of conquest or conduct some human rights violation in the near future, I'm not sure how you could reasonably argue that this resolution will prohibit "[your] own arms manufacturers from selling [you] their weapons."

"If our Republic is invaded and made to lose land to the enemy, I can assure you that we will take back that land, and the World Assembly would be completely unjustified in denying us the right to retribution and reconquest of our nation.

"I am also aware that this resolution essentially bans all military weaponry from revolutionary forces and freedom fighters. Again, this is unacceptable, especially considering the prevalence of dictatorship throughout the Multiverse."

[Tinfect]

"Oh, come off it. Unless this is an admission that Wallenburg has designs to carry out a war of conquest or conduct some human rights violation in the near future, I'm not sure how you could reasonably argue that this resolution will prohibit "[your] own arms manufacturers from selling [you] their weapons."

"What business is it of Sciongrad whether or not the Republics of Wallenburg are preparing for Conquest? Perhaps they merely intend to allow their Military to function properly in the event of the outbreak of War."

[Sciongrad]

"If our Republic is invaded and made to lose land to the enemy, I can assure you that we will take back that land, and the World Assembly would be completely unjustified in denying us the right to retribution and reconquest of our nation.

"I don't know if this proposal accounts for that situation. I'll review the text and see what I can do."

"I am also aware that this resolution essentially bans all military weaponry from revolutionary forces and freedom fighters. Again, this is unacceptable, especially considering the prevalence of dictatorship throughout the Multiverse."

"You mean that you also believe, not that you are also aware. Aware would imply that your interpretation is correct. Nothing in this resolution broadly proscribes transferring weapons to 'revolutionary forces or freedom fighters.' To apply the term 'conquest' to internal political conflict would essentially deprive the word of its actual meaning. Even assisting the internal forces from abroad would not violate this proposal, according to my interpretation of the clause in question. Of course, there are instances where this may apply. Ambitious nations with moral agendas or ideologically proselyting neighbors might feel compelled to overthrow the governments of other sovereign states. This is unacceptable.

"What business is it of Sciongrad whether or not the Republics of Wallenburg are preparing for Conquest? Perhaps they merely intend to allow their Military to function properly in the event of the outbreak of War."

"Because conquest is generally viewed as a crime against humanity, and it is something that the World Assembly should actively try to prevent. Although your willingness to conflate generally preparing one's country for war, which is not necessarily affected by this proposal, and outright conquest probably demonstrates either a disturbing proclivity for aggressive conflict or a misunderstanding of what exactly is meant by 'conquest' in the text. Either way, preventing wars of conquest is most definitely the business of not only Sciongrad, but of the World Assembly."

[Gabriel Possenti]

Oh good. That means the only genocides will be the government-approved ones.

[Tinfect]

Ambitious nations with moral agendas or ideologically proselyting neighbors might feel compelled to overthrow the governments of other sovereign states. This is unacceptable.

"Warfare is a reality, Ambassador. Regardless of whether you consider it unacceptable."

"Because conquest is generally viewed as a crime against humanity, and it is something that the World Assembly should actively try to prevent.

"I have, until this time, never heard Conquest described in such a manner. And, no, the World Assembly, should absolutely not interfere with such things."

Either way, preventing wars of conquest is most definitely the business of not only Sciongrad, but of the World Assembly."

"Ambassador, neither Sciongrad, or the World Assembly, have any business interfering in such things. If your people do not wish to be involved in aggressive warfare, then do not be. The Imperium sees no reason why any other Member State should cripple itself to the same level. Such a thing should in no way be enforced, even implicitly, in International Law."

[Muscalia]

We will not have our own arms manufacturers prohibited from selling us their weapons because we are considered an "aggressor" in an armed conflict. The Wallenburgian delegation stands against the draft as it currently is written.

"Oh, come off it. Unless this is an admission that Wallenburg has designs to carry out a war of conquest or conduct some human rights violation in the near future, I'm not sure how you could reasonably argue that this resolution will prohibit "[your] own arms manufacturers from selling [you] their weapons."

"..."

Jorge adjusts his eyes to the text of the document, scanning it.

"...No. This is an over-reaching document attempting to put too many jockeys on one horse. On top of that, It is an explicit right of the Muscalian people to own weapons without interference of the government, by levee or bureaucratic red tape. This is exactly everything that stands against our Democracy, and a totalitarian system of government. Should this come to vote, We will vote no, and will encourage our regional delegates to do the same. "

With that, he quietly drops the full sheet of paper in the trash, giving it a final glance, before returning to his paperwork.

"If you read the resolution, you'll see this resolution does not affect an individual's right to own a weapon at all. As a matter of fact, it explicitly prevents the WA from ever taking action on personal gun possession. This involves the trade of weapons specifically in instances where human rights abuses may occur or where the trade of the weapons may result in diversion. So if it is also a right of the Muscalian terrorists or sex traffickers to buy weapons with impunity, or for Muscalian traders to supply weapons to genocidal, tin pot dictators, then we may have a fundamental disagreement. However, if you're concerned that this proposal will somehow interfere with the rights and liberties endowed on your ordinary citizens by your government, then I can assure you it does not do that."

"Then obviously I mis-read the draft, and for that you have my humble apology."

[Bears Armed]

Oh good. That means the only genocides will be the government-approved ones.

"We've already passed a resolution forbidding those, though..."

[Araraukar]

"Because conquest is generally viewed as a crime against humanity, and it is something that the World Assembly should actively try to prevent."

Even bloodless conquest where one side gives up rather than put up a resistance?

[Wallenburg]

"Because conquest is generally viewed as a crime against humanity, and it is something that the World Assembly should actively try to prevent."

Even bloodless conquest where one side gives up rather than put up a resistance?

Or conquest in which the aggressor is conquered? What then? They are condemned to total destruction because the enemy labels them the aggressors?

[Sciongrad]

Or conquest in which the aggressor is conquered? What then? They are condemned to total destruction because the enemy labels them the aggressors?

"This is so unclear that I don't actually know what you're trying to say. But to clear up all this nonsense about how 'the aggressor in a war of conquest might then get invaded by the nation it tried to conquered, but then the nation it tried to conquered might then try to reconquer the original aggressor' I'll change the term aggressor to 'party conducting a war of conquest.' That should eliminate the confusion."

Even bloodless conquest where one side gives up rather than put up a resistance?

"Yes. Conquest isn't a human rights violation because it is violent. All war is violent, but not all wars are considered human rights violations. Wars of conquest - even bloodless ones - are unacceptable because they unjustly strip sovereign states of their self-determination. Period. Everyone except the most enthusiastic one-worlders should condemn wars of conquest."

"Warfare is a reality, Ambassador. Regardless of whether you consider it unacceptable."

"I didn't think this discussion would devolve into vapid platitudes so quickly, ambassador. Warfare is not a fixed reality. The WA has passed dozens of resolutions limiting how we can conduct warfare over the span of almost a decade. You may have a particular opinion on how warfare should be conducted, but don't try and suggest that something immutable inheres within the world of warfare, because precedent suggests otherwise.

"I have, until this time, never heard Conquest described in such a manner."

"That is your problem, ambassador, not mine. Although I sense that there is a fundamental disagreement between us on this issue, so I don't really think we should continue this discussion."

[Wallenburg]

Or conquest in which the aggressor is conquered? What then? They are condemned to total destruction because the enemy labels them the aggressors?

"This is so unclear that I don't actually know what you're trying to say. But to clear up all this nonsense about how 'the aggressor in a war of conquest might then get invaded by the nation it tried to conquered, but then the nation it tried to conquered might then try to reconquer the original aggressor' I'll change the term aggressor to 'party conducting a war of conquest.' That should eliminate the confusion."

I don't see how that is unclear at all. And changing the terms doesn't change the problem that you are effectively banning reconquest, or liberation.

Even bloodless conquest where one side gives up rather than put up a resistance?

"Yes. Conquest isn't a human rights violation because it is violent. All war is violent, but not all wars are considered human rights violations. Wars of conquest - even bloodless ones - are unacceptable because they unjustly strip sovereign states of their self-determination. Period. Everyone except the most enthusiastic one-worlders should condemn wars of conquest."

I think you should educate yourself on self-determination. States have no right to self-determination. Peoples do. And if you valued that right, you wouldn't be banning reconquest or liberation.

[Wrapper]

"This is so unclear that I don't actually know what you're trying to say. But to clear up all this nonsense about how 'the aggressor in a war of conquest might then get invaded by the nation it tried to conquered, but then the nation it tried to conquered might then try to reconquer the original aggressor' I'll change the term aggressor to 'party conducting a war of conquest.' That should eliminate the confusion."

I don't see how that is unclear at all. And changing the terms doesn't change the problem that you are effectively banning reconquest, or liberation.

Nothing in this proposal bans reconquest or liberation. It merely prohibits the sale of arms from nation A to nation B if nation B is engaging in one of the listed activities. And we don't see how recovering territory lost to a foe would be considered aiding the aggressor in a war of conquest.

[Wallenburg]

I don't see how that is unclear at all. And changing the terms doesn't change the problem that you are effectively banning reconquest, or liberation.

Nothing in this proposal bans reconquest or liberation. It merely prohibits the sale of arms from nation A to nation B if nation B is engaging in one of the listed activities. And we don't see how recovering territory lost to a foe would be considered aiding the aggressor in a war of conquest.

I said "effectively". And if you don't understand how reconquest qualifies as conquest, you should probably look through a dictionary.

[Wrapper]

Nothing in this proposal bans reconquest or liberation. It merely prohibits the sale of arms from nation A to nation B if nation B is engaging in one of the listed activities. And we don't see how recovering territory lost to a foe would be considered aiding the aggressor in a war of conquest.

I said "effectively". And if you don't understand how reconquest qualifies as conquest, you should probably look through a dictionary.

Really now? What's with the snark? And I didn't say reconquest, I said recover.

[Wallenburg]

I said "effectively". And if you don't understand how reconquest qualifies as conquest, you should probably look through a dictionary.

Really now? What's with the snark? And I didn't say reconquest, I said recover.

I'm not trying to rude, Wrapper. I'm just confused at your misrepresentation of my statement. As to your use of "recover" versus "reconquer", how else would a military force "recover" lands?

[Sciongrad]

I think you should educate yourself on self-determination. States have no right to self-determination. Peoples do. And if you valued that right, you wouldn't be banning reconquest or liberation.

"Wow, big talk. I'm sure it would be more impressive if it wasn't a. purely semantic and b. absolutely incorrect. (OOC: Merriam-Webster, self-determination: the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government.) And furthermore, nothing in this resolution bans reconquest. It doesn't even ban conquest. Seeing as you're so keen to criticize my proposal on semantic grounds, I'd expect you to have a firmer grasp of what it said. I'll note that I also responded to your point regarding 'reconquest' by offering to reword the clause. I'll refresh your memory:

"I don't know if this proposal accounts for that situation. I'll review the text and see what I can do."

Although acknowledging my concession would have prevented you from getting in the last snarky word, I suppose."
OOC: Also, please don't conflate OOC and IC. I'm actually not sure how I'm supposed to respond otherwise.

[Wrapper]

Really now? What's with the snark? And I didn't say reconquest, I said recover.

I'm not trying to rude, Wrapper. I'm just confused at your misrepresentation of my statement. As to your use of "recover" versus "reconquer", how else would a military force "recover" lands?

OOC: Okay, let's chill a bit and back up here.

All I'm saying is that I don't agree with your claim that this proposal effectively bans reconquest or liberation. Retaking conquered lands does not make one the aggressor; the aggressor is the nation that took the land in the first place. Liberation or, as you call it, reconquest, is a counteraction taken by a defender, not an aggressor, and in that situation nothing in this resolution would prevent the sale of weapons from a nation to a counterattacking defender.

[Sciongrad]

"Then obviously I mis-read the draft, and for that you have my humble apology."

"Sciongrad is humbled by your apology, and thanks you for your reasonableness and open-mindedness. Not all nations possess such virtues."

[Wallenburg]

I think you should educate yourself on self-determination. States have no right to self-determination. Peoples do. And if you valued that right, you wouldn't be banning reconquest or liberation.

"Wow, big talk. I'm sure it would be more impressive if it wasn't a. purely semantic and b. absolutely incorrect. (OOC: Merriam-Webster, self-determination: the process by which a country determines its own statehood and forms its own allegiances and government.)

"Dear lord. Countries are not states. Self determination is about a people choosing its own government, not a state doing so. And semantics are important when writing law, you know."

And furthermore, nothing in this resolution bans reconquest. It doesn't even ban conquest.

"I see that you like to misrepresent my argument. I never said this bans conquest. I said that it effectively bans it. There is a difference."

Seeing as you're so keen to criticize my proposal on semantic grounds, I'd expect you to have a firmer grasp of what it said. I'll note that I also responded to your point regarding 'reconquest' by offering to reword the clause. I'll refresh your memory:

"I don't know if this proposal accounts for that situation. I'll review the text and see what I can do."

Although acknowledging my concession would have prevented you from getting in the last snarky word, I suppose."

"It isn't much of a concession when you don't actually do anything about this situation."

OOC: Also, please don't conflate OOC and IC. I'm actually not sure how I'm supposed to respond otherwise.

Please point to where I conflated the two.

[Wallenburg]

I'm not trying to rude, Wrapper. I'm just confused at your misrepresentation of my statement. As to your use of "recover" versus "reconquer", how else would a military force "recover" lands?

OOC: Okay, let's chill a bit and back up here.

I'm chill.

All I'm saying is that I don't agree with your claim that this proposal effectively bans reconquest or liberation. Retaking conquered lands does not make one the aggressor; the aggressor is the nation that took the land in the first place. Liberation or, as you call it, reconquest, is a counteraction taken by a defender, not an aggressor, and in that situation nothing in this resolution would prevent the sale of weapons from a nation to a counterattacking defender.

That's a very interesting interpretation. One that a nation we might fight against to recover our land would likely disagree with.

[Separatist Peoples]

"As before, full support."

[Sciongrad]

"Dear lord. Countries are not states. Self determination is about a people choosing its own government, not a state doing so. And semantics are important when writing law, you know."

OOC: Come on, you're just embarrassing yourself. Reducing this conversation to pedantry is really a waste of time. Again, I'll reference Merriam-Webster dictionary which refers to a country as "a state or nation." And semantics is important when writing law, but the phrase you're fussing about is not found in the resolution. Even if I was wrong (I'm not), the word "self-determination" has no direct bearing on the proposal. You can continue this absolutely insipid debate ("it says a state or nation, which isn't a state, which isn't a country, which therefore means your aside regarding a single point in your proposal was technically misworded!") but I don't have the patience.

"I see that you like to misrepresent my argument. I never said this bans conquest. I said that it effectively bans it. There is a difference."

"You would still be wrong, because it doesn't effectively ban conquest, or humans rights abuses in general. It is, at best, an obstacle. But dealing in absolute terms is much easier, so I can understand why you'd want to make this discussion into a reductive 'you want to ban war!' debate. Of course, I'd very much like the World Assembly to broadly proscribe conquest. But I have no plans for doing so in this proposal."

"It isn't much of a concession when you don't actually do anything about this situation."

OOC:
You: Change the wording here!
Me: You might be right, I'll take a look.
You, not 12 hours later: I see this clause is still the same!
Me:

(Image)

Please point to where I conflated the two.

'
OOC: Okay. You referred to Wrapper, the player, without explicitly marking the post as OOC. Furthermore, you began using quotation marks after I pointed out you were conflating IC and OOC, presumably to mark your post as IC.

"As before, full support."

"As always, Sciongrad is humbled by the support of the Confederate Dominion. You have our sincerest gratitude."

[Wallenburg]

"Dear lord. Countries are not states. Self determination is about a people choosing its own government, not a state doing so. And semantics are important when writing law, you know."

OOC: Come on, you're just embarrassing yourself. Reducing this conversation to pedantry is really a waste of time. Again, I'll reference Merriam-Webster dictionary which refers to a country as "a state or nation." And semantics is important when writing law, but the phrase you're fussing about is not found in the resolution. Even if I was wrong (I'm not), the word "self-determination" has no direct bearing on the proposal. You can continue this absolutely insipid debate ("it says a state or nation, which isn't a state, which isn't a country, which therefore means your aside regarding a single point in your proposal was technically misworded!") but I don't have the patience.

OOC:
1) You accuse me of conflating OOC and IC, and then respond OOC to an explicitly IC statement. That, sir, is the epitome of hypocrisy.
2) You began the argument on self-determination, and continued it up to now. Why is it suddenly my fault that we are arguing about it? If it is "absolutely insipid", why did you engage in it?
3) Merriam-Webster defines a country as:

1 : an indefinite usually extended expanse of land : region
2a : the land of a person's birth, residence, or citizenship
b : a political state or nation or its territory
3a : the people of a state or district
b : jury
c : electorate 2
4 : rural as distinguished from urban areas

So don't you dare pretend that the first definition of a "country" is a "state or nation".
4) If you don't have the patience to debate, why did you come on this forum?

"I see that you like to misrepresent my argument. I never said this bans conquest. I said that it effectively bans it. There is a difference."

"You would still be wrong, because it doesn't effectively ban conquest, or humans rights abuses in general. It is, at best, an obstacle.

"Prohibiting aggressors from receiving weapons effectively bans aggression. If you have no weapons, you can't really expect to put up much of a fight."

But dealing in absolute terms is much easier, so I can understand why you'd want to make this discussion into a reductive 'you want to ban war!' debate. Of course, I'd very much like the World Assembly to broadly proscribe conquest. But I have no plans for doing so in this proposal."

"Perhaps you would like to stop strawmanning my arguments and actually debate? Or shall I return by reducing your argument to a reductive 'you want to slaughter everyone!'?"

"It isn't much of a concession when you don't actually do anything about this situation."

OOC:
You: Change the wording here!
Me: You might be right, I'll take a look.
You, not 12 hours later: I see this clause is still the same!
Me:

(Image)

OOC: You've been active for hours. Why not take 30 seconds to change that clause?

Please point to where I conflated the two.

'
OOC: Okay. You referred to Wrapper, the player, without explicitly marking the post as OOC. Furthermore, you began using quotation marks after I pointed out you were conflating IC and OOC, presumably to mark your post as IC.

OOC: Wrapper did not write any of his comments IC, so I don't see what is wrong with responding to them OOC. And I started specifying whether my statements are IC or OOC because you started complaining that it was too difficult for you to discuss the resolution otherwise.

[Sciongrad]

OOC:
1) You accuse me of conflating OOC and IC, and then respond OOC to an explicitly IC statement. That, sir, is the epitome of hypocrisy.

OOC: I am not conflating OOC and IC. I clearly mark when I've changed from IC to OOC. I responded in OOC because I've decided the nature of this discussion is OOC.

2) You began the argument on self-determination, and continued it up to now. Why is it suddenly my fault that we are arguing about it? If it is "absolutely insipid", why did you engage in it?

OOC: I began the discussion insofar as I used the word self-determination. You began the argument about my word choice. You've since gone off on a wild tangent, and I've only been abiding this digression to defend my initial word choice. Since you first criticized me on pedantic grounds, I've found this argument absolutely insipid, and I continue to do so.

3) Merriam-Webster defines a country as:

So don't you dare pretend that the first definition of a "country" is a "state or nation".

OOC: You're actually right, I mistakenly cited Merriam-Webster when I meant to cite Dictionary.com, but frankly the amount of passion you've poured into defending a wholly pedantic, fruitless, and still incorrect argument reveals more about your pride than about my proposal.

4) If you don't have the patience to debate, why did you come on this forum?

OOC: I have the patience to debate. I've been debating on this forum for approximately 5 times as long as you've even been around. I have no patience for debating something which ultimately has no bearing on the resolution, especially if it's only to satiate your pride. Take your pedantry elsewhere, this is the last post I'm making in response to this line of reasoning.

"Prohibiting aggressors from receiving weapons effectively bans aggression. If you have no weapons, you can't really expect to put up much of a fight."

"I forgot, every time a nation starts a war, it is required to buy all of its weapons again. And of course, once you start the war, this resolution prohibits you from buying new weapons ever again, even in times of peace! Oh wait, it doesn't do any of that, does it? This proposal only bans nations from trading weapons when there is reason to suspect they plan on conducting a war of conquest. For it to effectively ban conquest, it would logically follow that nations must be required to arm themselves only when they are planning to conduct wars of conquest, which is, of course, not how that works."

OOC: You've been active for hours. Why not take 30 seconds to change that clause?

OOC: Sorry, master, I'll get right on that. [/sass] I'll note it takes time to rewrite proposals. Being off and on for several hours is not enough time for me to review and revise the proposal, if I deem it necessary at all. In the interim, please relax. This proposal has been in the works for more than a year, I'm sure you can wait more than 12 hours.

OOC: Wrapper did not write any of his comments IC, so I don't see what is wrong with responding to them OOC. And I started specifying whether my statements are IC or OOC because you started complaining that it was too difficult for you to discuss the resolution otherwise.

OOC: Not to speak for Wrapper, but what exactly suggested he was OOC? He didn't use OOC markers in his initial post like he normally does. Either way, don't turn this into an argument. I wasn't criticizing you, I was trying to be helpful. Although based on your behavior in this "debate," I'll have to be more careful next time.

[Wrapper]

OOC: Wrapper did not write any of his comments IC, so I don't see what is wrong with responding to them OOC. And I started specifying whether my statements are IC or OOC because you started complaining that it was too difficult for you to discuss the resolution otherwise.

OOC: Not to speak for Wrapper, but what exactly suggested he was OOC? He didn't use OOC markers like he normally does. Either way, don't turn this into an argument. I wasn't criticizing you, I was trying to be helpful. Although based on your behavior in this "debate," I'll have to be more careful next time.

Yeah, that was my fault, after the first post I slipped into OOC without marking it, and Wallenburg sensed the change in prose style and correctly picked up on it.