Advertisement
by Elke and Elba » Sat May 16, 2015 11:42 am
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by The Candy Of Bottles » Sat May 16, 2015 1:32 pm
by Tinfect » Sun May 17, 2015 12:16 pm
Imperium Central News Network: EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL CITIZENS ARE TO PROCEED TO EVACUATION SITES IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: ALL FURTHER SUBSPACE SIGNALS AND SYSTEMS ARE TO BE DISABLED IMMEDIATELY | EMERGENCY ALERT: THE FOLLOWING SYSTEMS ARE ACCESS PROHIBITED BY STANDARD/BLACKOUT [Error: Format Unrecognized] | Indomitable Bastard #283
by The Takistan Federation » Wed May 20, 2015 10:34 am
Sciongrad wrote:Ricardo, talking in place of Natalia who just ran off to the Scionite office to retrieve a bowl of kale soup, nodded firmly in agreement. "Sciongrad does not recognize any of the arguments presented in the repeal to be accurate, thoughtful, or intellectually honest, so we don't plan on making any substantive changes to the resolution."
by Herby » Wed May 20, 2015 12:59 pm
by Ainocra » Wed May 20, 2015 7:06 pm
by Blaccakre » Wed May 20, 2015 7:40 pm
by The Land of Beer » Thu May 21, 2015 2:03 am
by Sciongrad » Fri May 29, 2015 7:13 am
Imperium Anglorum wrote:How about just wars of conquest?
Change the name then. Right now, it has nothing to do with arms or trading.
Secondarily, assuming that the name of this resolution is now Responsible Armaments Transferring (or Transfers) — I would say that a better definition of armaments is required perhaps, Ambassador, something like 'Defines the term "armament" as military equipment which possess a practical application in armed conflict'.
by Sciongrad » Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:14 am
Ainocra wrote:The Marshal smiles slightly. "No thank you, I just ate." Consulting his datapad for a second he continues. "By our calculations your so called minor impact would put about 1.4 million Ainocrans out of work"
Laying the pad aside he presses on. "Weapons of war are designed to be used for just that purpose, War." "Asking every nation to investigate the motivations of their fellows is an exercise in futility."
"What you might consider an unjust war of aggression might be a necessary preemptive strike to another nation." Shaking his head he says. "We expect that weapons made for war will eventually find themselves used for war." "Rather than treating the symptoms perhaps you should focus on the cause thereby making those weapons unneeded."
"We remain opposed."
The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Tislam looks back up, having finished drawing a rough diagram on a piece of printer paper.
"There. That's all the different permutations I could think of without making things too over-complicated. I've drawn 'no' symbols at the points that things would break down. That one I used dashed lines for would only really apply if the parts were made in one nation and put together in another, and then only if the end-user certificates for the parts are still in force after assembly, but that's still a possibility."
6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;
by Jean Pierre Trudeau » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:21 pm
Herby wrote:Wow... that's without a doubt the finest plastic sword I've ever seen.
Or....
Do you suppose the Takistanis didn't notice the ACME Weapons Transmogrifier?
by The Candy Of Bottles » Tue Jun 02, 2015 12:56 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Ainocra wrote:The Marshal smiles slightly. "No thank you, I just ate." Consulting his datapad for a second he continues. "By our calculations your so called minor impact would put about 1.4 million Ainocrans out of work"
Laying the pad aside he presses on. "Weapons of war are designed to be used for just that purpose, War." "Asking every nation to investigate the motivations of their fellows is an exercise in futility."
"What you might consider an unjust war of aggression might be a necessary preemptive strike to another nation." Shaking his head he says. "We expect that weapons made for war will eventually find themselves used for war." "Rather than treating the symptoms perhaps you should focus on the cause thereby making those weapons unneeded."
"We remain opposed."
OOC: I sincerely hope you don't expect me to acknowledge this as anything close to a reasonable argument against this proposal.The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Tislam looks back up, having finished drawing a rough diagram on a piece of printer paper.
"There. That's all the different permutations I could think of without making things too over-complicated. I've drawn 'no' symbols at the points that things would break down. That one I used dashed lines for would only really apply if the parts were made in one nation and put together in another, and then only if the end-user certificates for the parts are still in force after assembly, but that's still a possibility."
"Fair enough. Would the following rephrase assuage your Excellency's concerns?"6. Mandates that the export of armaments by any manufacturer, exporter, or broker operating within a member nation shall make the sale of their armaments to an intended final recipient conditional on the completion of an end-user certificate by the buyer; member nations are strongly urged to implement systems of end-use monitoring to ensure that the end-user certificate is authentic, when possible;
by Sciongrad » Tue Jun 02, 2015 1:20 pm
The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Tislam considers the inserted phrase for a few moments before turning back to the Scionite Ambassador. "Yes, that is an improvement. Honestly, nothing else is really jumping out at me right now, but I'll be sure to speak up if something does."
by Communist EU » Thu Jun 11, 2015 9:24 am
Sciongrad wrote:The Candy Of Bottles wrote:Tislam considers the inserted phrase for a few moments before turning back to the Scionite Ambassador. "Yes, that is an improvement. Honestly, nothing else is really jumping out at me right now, but I'll be sure to speak up if something does."
"Very good! Your suggestion is very much appreciated."
by Sciongrad » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:28 pm
by The United Remnants of America » Fri Aug 14, 2015 6:30 pm
by Sciongrad » Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:00 pm
The United Remnants of America wrote:"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."
by Imperium Anglorum » Fri Aug 14, 2015 7:20 pm
The United Remnants of America wrote:"And section 7c is still not something our delegation feels should be included in this proposal."
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 15, 2015 4:55 pm
I would also add to 7.(b) that doing so is illegal only if it has the intention of breaking the resolution's provisions.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:24 pm
Sciongrad wrote:"The distinction between intentionally breaking the resolution's provisions and doing so unintentionally is negligible. Whether it was through willful and intentional diversion that allowed weapons to reach terrorists or through negligence is irrelevant, because either way, the intent of this resolution - that is, to prevent certain groups from getting armaments - is violated. It's a nation's responsibility to prevent armaments from being diverted if there is reasonable suspicion to suggest that will happen. I don't really understand why intent matters here."
Sciongrad wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Concurred.
"No compelling argument has been presented so far that convinces me that Sciongrad should shift its position. And I'll preemptively say that being permitted to invade another country in order to forcibly obtain reparations is not a convincing reason."
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 15, 2015 6:44 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:"Your resolution doesn't have anything on whether the sale is intentional, unintentional, or anything, at least with relation to the resolution's provisions related to the diversion of arms into the hands of terrorists. It simply states a prohibition if 'there is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient'."
"I, nor my resolution which repealed the original, ever stated anything which makes permissible a war based on the casus belli of demanding reparations. This delegation has always considered that if a war starts and later, there are added war goals with the goal of reparations for damages, this should not mean that arms are to be restricted."
by Runlyn » Sat Aug 15, 2015 7:29 pm
Kaboomlandia wrote:I sincerely hope that if this passes, people won't be lining up to submit illegal repeals.
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:12 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:"Your resolution doesn't have anything on whether the sale is intentional, unintentional, or anything, at least with relation to the resolution's provisions related to the diversion of arms into the hands of terrorists. It simply states a prohibition if 'there is reason to suspect that they will be diverted from their originally intended recipient'."
"If armaments are diverted during transfer, there is no way of reliably verifying their end user. It's reasonably likely that armaments may be diverted to a party that violates clauses 6a and 6c such that specifically limiting the proscription to instances where there is reason to suspect that the armaments will specifically be diverted to groups that violate clauses 6a and 6c may result in a large amount of armaments continuing to find themselves in the hands of terrorists, ethnic cleansers, etc."
Sciongrad wrote:"I, nor my resolution which repealed the original, ever stated anything which makes permissible a war based on the casus belli of demanding reparations. This delegation has always considered that if a war starts and later, there are added war goals with the goal of reparations for damages, this should not mean that arms are to be restricted."
"I fail to see any substantive difference between demanding reparations as a casus belli and demanding reparations as a reason to continue an ongoing conflict."
by Sciongrad » Sat Aug 15, 2015 8:47 pm
Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: (sarcastically) Ugg... The ethnic cleansers are back. Start regulating detergent. Destroy all laundry machines! Ban Cambigtans from owning laundry establishments! (normally) How about only making them prohibited if they ... Actually assist violating the other provisions of the provision? Is that so unreasonable?
Parsons: The former is basically asking for money to attack someone else. On the other hand, if someone is at war and demands reparations later or demands an unconditional surrender after a gruelling conflict in which millions of persons were lost for victory, the argument in favour of reparations is quite understandable, especially if that war was a defensive one (cough, cough, Germany in the World Wars, cough, cough).
by Imperium Anglorum » Sat Aug 15, 2015 9:12 pm
Sciongrad wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: (sarcastically) Ugg... The ethnic cleansers are back. Start regulating detergent. Destroy all laundry machines! Ban Cambigtans from owning laundry establishments! (normally) How about only making them prohibited if they ... Actually assist violating the other provisions of the provision? Is that so unreasonable?
"Was my previous explanation unclear? The likelihood that armaments diverted in any given situation may accidentally fall into the hands of a party that is in contravention of clauses 6a and 6c is reasonably probable enough to warrant broad proscription against diversion. I'm not particularly sure what the delegation of Imperium Anglorum hopes to accomplish by arguing that unabashed negligence and irresponsibility in trading weapons is something the World Assembly should condone, but Sciongrad is not convinced."
Sciongrad wrote:Imperium Anglorum wrote:Parsons: The former is basically asking for money to attack someone else. On the other hand, if someone is at war and demands reparations later or demands an unconditional surrender after a gruelling conflict in which millions of persons were lost for victory, the argument in favour of reparations is quite understandable, especially if that war was a defensive one (cough, cough, Germany in the World Wars, cough, cough).
"The argument in favor of expecting reparations may be understandable. The argument that continuing military aggression is justifiable so long as there's a pecuniary interest is not. There are other more appropriate avenues that can be used to exact war reparations besides continued military aggression, and the World Assembly especially should not be condoning, even tacitly, that war is ever an acceptable method of exacting such reparations."
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement