[PROPOSAL] Repealing Resolution #10

[The Mid East Federation]

Proposal Link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1436334490

Hereby brings the question of the Repeal of General Assembly Res. #10 to order:

AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members," and

FURTHER AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked," and

REALIZING that however the deceleration "WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons" is overboard, and

ELUCIDATING that not all WA members are good, some may choose a path of violence just as non-WA members do, and this resolution makes the claim that every WA nation is entitled to nuclear weapons despite not knowing any of such nations, and

STATES that not every WA member is capable nor should have nuclear weapons and affirming that every WA member can have them, is subtly indicating that all WA nations are "Bulwarks of Good" and non-WA members as "Evil", and

CONCLUDES that the vagueness and incompetence of Resolution 10 that merely spills out the right to nuclear arms to all members despite whoever they are is harmful, dangerous, and assigning labels not are incorrect, and

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #10.

[Grays Harbor]

OOC: Why even bother posting here since you already submitted? Debate is pointless since nothing can be changed. All this is is pimping your submission.

[The Mid East Federation]

OOC: Why even bother posting here since you already submitted? Debate is pointless since nothing can be changed. All this is is pimping your submission.

For Record, for it being in the General Assembly Forums, and a few other things. I don't see the issue.

[The Defwaen Confederation]

OOC: Why even bother posting here since you already submitted? Debate is pointless since nothing can be changed. All this is is pimping your submission.

For Record, for it being in the General Assembly Forums, and a few other things. I don't see the issue.

The General Assembly Forum is not for advertising- its for development. The people here offer criticism that will help clean out the glaring flaws in your proposals and help gauge support.

And by god, do you need the help.

[Caracasus]

Ahem. We have reviewed resolution #10 carefully.

If this repeal should be passed, we can see only one outcome. A repeal of this legislation would not ban WA nation states from possessing nuclear weapons, unless it was replaced with other legislation.

A repeal would however, remove this piece of legislation:

3. REQUIRES that any nation choosing to possess nuclear weapons take every available precaution to ensure that their weapons do not fall into the wrong hands.

Therefore you would be removing safeguards on WA member states that ensure that nuclear weapons are not sold or stolen - perhaps to dangerous groups or individuals. Congratulations! Your repeal would make the world a significantly less safe place.

[Normlpeople]

"So, when the nearest tinpot dictatorship's Dear Leader is insulted and begins lobbing nukes into your nation with the comforting knowledge that the WA bastion of peace doesn't have any to respond with, what will you do? I suspect, when you are slaving in his factories or mines, you will have plenty of time to think about it.

Our policy of MAD works. We will keep our nuclear weapons, at least until our supply of our new compressed magic bombs is enough to render then obsolete. I will not be the first ambassador to tell you this, if you want to take our nukes, we will deliver them to you, warhead end first."

[Gogol Transcendancy]

Oh look, another person is trying to repeal the NAPA. Is it Tuesday already?

[Percussionland]

I have tried repealing this resolution before, and what I learned after wasting a considerable amount of time was that this will never happen, and it shouldn't. To repeal this is to open a window for a blanket ban on nuclear weapons, which is unfair to and violating the rights of the nations you deem "good." This is not a black and white issue that can be explained as "good" and "bad." Any WMD used by any nation in self defense is in the grey, and the right to use nuclear weapons in self defense must be preserved. The best you can hope for is a resolution to restrict the use of nuclear weapons so that they can only be used in self defense with minimal civilian casualties. Striking out the most powerful legislation on the topic that maintains they may only be used in self defense is both a recipe for disaster and going backwards based on the beliefs your proposal outlined. You should add to the legislation, not tear it down. On a purely proposal writing note, please check your grammar and spelling before submitting a proposal, bad spelling and grammar will not get voted into law. Also, just a reminder, when repealing a resolution, make statements why the resolution should be repealed that are grounded in fact, free from statements of personal opinion, labeling WA nations, and make better arguments then a resolution is "overboard." In conclusion, if by some fluke this comes to vote and passes, I will be the first one writing a new proposal to protect and affirm the right of member nations to bear nuclear arms in self defense.

[Kaboomlandia]

"Many have tried this before you. Every last one of them has failed."

[Flibbleites]

Better authors than you have tried to repeal the NAPA. They've all failed, most without even reaching quorum. But what the hell, I've got a few minutes, let's rip your arguments to shreds.

Hereby brings the question of the Repeal of General Assembly Res. #10 to order:

Unnecessary drivel.

AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members," and

FURTHER AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked," and

Sure, leave out the fact that there's more non-members than there are members.

REALIZING that however the deceleration "WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons" is overboard, and

Wait, the "deceleration is overboard?" I think you've got some typos there.

ELUCIDATING that not all WA members are good, some may choose a path of violence just as non-WA members do, and this resolution makes the claim that every WA nation is entitled to nuclear weapons despite not knowing any of such nations, and

Completely true and completely irrelevent as even without the NAPA those nations could still be violent and could still have and use nuclear weapons.

STATES that not every WA member is capable nor should have nuclear weapons and affirming that every WA member can have them, is subtly indicating that all WA nations are "Bulwarks of Good" and non-WA members as "Evil", and

You're reading more into the NAPA than is actually in there. Furthermore, those nations that aren't capable of having nuclear weapons, probably aren't going to have them. Which is within the rights granted to them by the NAPA.

CONCLUDES that the vagueness and incompetence of Resolution 10 that merely spills out the right to nuclear arms to all members despite whoever they are is harmful, dangerous, and assigning labels not are incorrect, and

The NAPA assigns no labels, the only one trying to assign labels around here, is you. As for your claims of my incompetence, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've been writing resolutions longer than your nation has even existed. In that time I've written three resolutions and the only time one of them was "repealed" was when the UN was forced to fold.

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #10.[/box]

Boilerplate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Sainterre]

As I said before, you are not the first, nor the last to try to repeal this. It will not pass much less make it to quorum. It would be better to focus your energies on something else.

[Bananaistan]

We would strongly support a repeal of this resolution if the author of the original agreed to immediately resubmit it. Perhaps if it wasn't in the first page of passed resolutions, there would be far fewer repeal attempts.

[Separatist Peoples]

We would strongly support a repeal of this resolution if the author of the original agreed to immediately resubmit it. Perhaps if it wasn't in the first page of passed resolutions, there would be far fewer repeal attempts.

"Somehow I seriously doubt it...too many peaceniks."

[Flibbleites]

We would strongly support a repeal of this resolution if the author of the original agreed to immediately resubmit it. Perhaps if it wasn't in the first page of passed resolutions, there would be far fewer repeal attempts.

Trust me, I already have a replacement written and ready to submit. Although it should be noted that it's already not on the first page of resolutions, it's on the second.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

[Grays Harbor]

We would strongly support a repeal of this resolution if the author of the original agreed to immediately resubmit it. Perhaps if it wasn't in the first page of passed resolutions, there would be far fewer repeal attempts.

Trust me, I already have a replacement written and ready to submit. Although it should be noted that it's already not on the first page of resolutions, it's on the second.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Also, since the mere presence of the word "nuclear" appears to be a trigger for the no-n00kz crowd, any replacement must be named "Happy Organic Puppies For The Children".

[Ehrereich]

James Monroe Brown, the ambassador for the Northern Confederated States of Ehrereich simply shook his head and sighed. Why President Ward had agreed to finally enter the World Assembly was beyond him. He did, however, have a clear set of instructions on matters such as this. He sighed, cleared his throat, and spoke into the microphone. "While the Northern Confederated States are new to this august body, we have been around for some time. What we have to say on the matter is this. Any attempts to repeal this piece of legislation will be met with vehement ridicule and scorn. Possibly including insults against your personhood and lineage, depending on how cheeky we may be feeling at the time. To suggest repealing this act would open the door for nuclear proliferation outside of the borders of this body, and do nothing to further your aims. Which, if your aims are disarmament, we already conclude that you aren't the sharpest tool in the shed, to begin with. That said, we vigorously suggest that nobody support this matter, and further propose that we stand up as a body, and point and laugh at the representatives from the Mid East Federation. Loudly."

[The Mid East Federation]

Better authors than you have tried to repeal the NAPA. They've all failed, most without even reaching quorum. But what the hell, I've got a few minutes, let's rip your arguments to shreds.

Hereby brings the question of the Repeal of General Assembly Res. #10 to order:

Unnecessary drivel.

AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members," and

FURTHER AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked," and

Sure, leave out the fact that there's more non-members than there are members.

REALIZING that however the deceleration "WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons" is overboard, and

Wait, the "deceleration is overboard?" I think you've got some typos there.

ELUCIDATING that not all WA members are good, some may choose a path of violence just as non-WA members do, and this resolution makes the claim that every WA nation is entitled to nuclear weapons despite not knowing any of such nations, and

Completely true and completely irrelevent as even without the NAPA those nations could still be violent and could still have and use nuclear weapons.

STATES that not every WA member is capable nor should have nuclear weapons and affirming that every WA member can have them, is subtly indicating that all WA nations are "Bulwarks of Good" and non-WA members as "Evil", and

You're reading more into the NAPA than is actually in there. Furthermore, those nations that aren't capable of having nuclear weapons, probably aren't going to have them. Which is within the rights granted to them by the NAPA.

CONCLUDES that the vagueness and incompetence of Resolution 10 that merely spills out the right to nuclear arms to all members despite whoever they are is harmful, dangerous, and assigning labels not are incorrect, and

The NAPA assigns no labels, the only one trying to assign labels around here, is you. As for your claims of my incompetence, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've been writing resolutions longer than your nation has even existed. In that time I've written three resolutions and the only time one of them was "repealed" was when the UN was forced to fold.

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #10.[/box]

Boilerplate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Good opinions, not a good argument. Not the best moderator I have seen.

[The Two Jerseys]

Better authors than you have tried to repeal the NAPA. They've all failed, most without even reaching quorum. But what the hell, I've got a few minutes, let's rip your arguments to shreds.

Unnecessary drivel.

Sure, leave out the fact that there's more non-members than there are members.

Wait, the "deceleration is overboard?" I think you've got some typos there.

Completely true and completely irrelevent as even without the NAPA those nations could still be violent and could still have and use nuclear weapons.

You're reading more into the NAPA than is actually in there. Furthermore, those nations that aren't capable of having nuclear weapons, probably aren't going to have them. Which is within the rights granted to them by the NAPA.

The NAPA assigns no labels, the only one trying to assign labels around here, is you. As for your claims of my incompetence, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've been writing resolutions longer than your nation has even existed. In that time I've written three resolutions and the only time one of them was "repealed" was when the UN was forced to fold.

Boilerplate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Good opinions, not a good argument. Not the best moderator I have seen.

What does Flibbleites being a mod have to do with sweet fuck-all?

[Grays Harbor]

Good opinions, not a good argument. Not the best moderator I have seen.

What does Flibbleites being a mod have to do with sweet fuck-all?

Because he blew gaping holes in every bit of this repeal try. Duh.

[Separatist Peoples]

Better authors than you have tried to repeal the NAPA. They've all failed, most without even reaching quorum. But what the hell, I've got a few minutes, let's rip your arguments to shreds.

Unnecessary drivel.

Sure, leave out the fact that there's more non-members than there are members.

Wait, the "deceleration is overboard?" I think you've got some typos there.

Completely true and completely irrelevent as even without the NAPA those nations could still be violent and could still have and use nuclear weapons.

You're reading more into the NAPA than is actually in there. Furthermore, those nations that aren't capable of having nuclear weapons, probably aren't going to have them. Which is within the rights granted to them by the NAPA.

The NAPA assigns no labels, the only one trying to assign labels around here, is you. As for your claims of my incompetence, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've been writing resolutions longer than your nation has even existed. In that time I've written three resolutions and the only time one of them was "repealed" was when the UN was forced to fold.

Boilerplate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Good opinions, not a good argument. Not the best moderator I have seen.

Ooc: Flib is obviously responding as a player, and not a mod. Instead of critiquing the veterans for not conforming to your special vision of what is right, maybe try to actually learn how things are done around here? It saves you from embarrassing faux pas like this.

[The Two Jerseys]

What does Flibbleites being a mod have to do with sweet fuck-all?

Because he blew gaping holes in every bit of this repeal try. Duh.

Never seen anyone resort to playa hatin' just because their proposal got torn apart though.

[Three Weasels]

Proposal Link: http://www.nationstates.net/page=UN_vie ... 1436334490

Oh look! It was submitted before we had a chance to rightfully rip it to shreds. If the ambassador was truly confident in his/her proposed legislation, they'd have submitted here for critique before ever posting to the queue. Alas, that is not the case.

Hereby brings the question of the Repeal of General Assembly Res. #10 to order:

AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "that many non member nations are hostile towards WA members," and

FURTHER AFFIRMS that when the resolution says "WA members need to be able to defend themselves if attacked," and

REALIZING that however the deceleration "WA members are allowed to possess nuclear weapons" is overboard, and

What the...? Oh for the love of the meadow keeper, these aren't even complete sentences! We know it's acceptable to have slightly fragmented syntax in the preamble but this is just ridiculous. What is this even trying to say? Pray tell, ambassador, did you happen to have one too many at the bar before penning this?

ELUCIDATING that not all WA members are good, some may choose a path of violence just as non-WA members do, and this resolution makes the claim that every WA nation is entitled to nuclear weapons despite not knowing any of such nations, and

Yes, not all member nations are "good", though "good" is wholly subjective. The plus side is NAPA doesn't compel a nation such as ours to have stockpiles of nuclear warheads/weapons.

STATES that not every WA member is capable nor should have nuclear weapons and affirming that every WA member can have them, is subtly indicating that all WA nations are "Bulwarks of Good" and non-WA members as "Evil", and

Uhm... what? So, not all are capable of having nor should but they can have? This sentence would have been so much better if it was shortened significantly. The longer it goes the less sense it makes.

CONCLUDES that the vagueness and incompetence of Resolution 10 that merely spills out the right to nuclear arms to all members despite whoever they are is harmful, dangerous, and assigning labels not are incorrect, and

HEREBY repeals General Assembly Resolution #10.

The only vagueness is your proposed repeal.

[Blaccakre]

ELUCIDATING that not all WA members are good, some may choose a path of violence just as non-WA members do,

How DARE you, sir (madam?). Just because Blaccakre is a non-member nation, that doesn't mean we have chosen a path of violence! I have just received word that due to this slander, our High Court has decreed that any Mid East Federation citizens presently in Blaccakre, or within arms reach of any Blaccakre citizen living abroad, is hereby sentenced to have their tongue removed with a pair of dirty spoons!

Perhaps in the future you will be more cautious before blasphemously and scandalously and libelously accusing us of pursuing a path of violence!

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

We are outraged. Is anyone actually trying to save the deceleration that's gone overboard? There are foul-mouthed dolphins out there; it might acquire a very non-diplomatic vocabulary! Won't somebody please think of the deceleration?!?

[Flibbleites]

Better authors than you have tried to repeal the NAPA. They've all failed, most without even reaching quorum. But what the hell, I've got a few minutes, let's rip your arguments to shreds.

Unnecessary drivel.

Sure, leave out the fact that there's more non-members than there are members.

Wait, the "deceleration is overboard?" I think you've got some typos there.

Completely true and completely irrelevent as even without the NAPA those nations could still be violent and could still have and use nuclear weapons.

You're reading more into the NAPA than is actually in there. Furthermore, those nations that aren't capable of having nuclear weapons, probably aren't going to have them. Which is within the rights granted to them by the NAPA.

The NAPA assigns no labels, the only one trying to assign labels around here, is you. As for your claims of my incompetence, I'll let my record speak for itself. I've been writing resolutions longer than your nation has even existed. In that time I've written three resolutions and the only time one of them was "repealed" was when the UN was forced to fold.

Boilerplate.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Good opinions, not a good argument.

It's a better argument that you have for the repeal.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Not the best moderator I have seen.

OOC: Mods are players too and that post was made as a player in character, not as a mod. That's why the last two lines of the post are my character's name and title.